I never said there were piles of bones. I simply said massive groups of people were buried in hill formations. what seemed to be found in remnants was that often things were burned prior to burial, so often the remnants of the burial was not something farmers would fret over whilst leveling the wilderness they'd just purchased. And from wikipedia's article on mound builders "...There were contemporaneous mound building cultures throughout the Eastern United States."
I would like to clarify that when I said 40,000 years I wasn't referring to the evolution of modern human I was referring to a broad spectrum of when humans began to manipulate the world around them. Using things such as agriculture which dates back to at least 10,000 years ago, and the use of more advanced tools.
I would also like to point out, because I think it's very important in contrast with the main swath of traditional Christendom, the LDS Church takes no official stance, one way or the other, on the role of evolution of life and the actual nature of the Genesis.
Just a general thing. I meant to say hundreds or thousands. Clearly hundreds of thousands of years doesn't match up. Sorry about that. The discovery of the reason for Terra Preta and the intentional fabrication of such in recent years has lead archaeologists to believe that for a great many centuries, going back well over a thousand years ago, that the natives of the amazon basin started to actually intentionally enrich soils of the amazon basin by the use of charcoal & slash and char.
Biochar found in Amazon soils has been dated back a thousand years. It is unclear how long they were doing this before that. It absolutely shows that a larger civilization could be supported by the pockets of terra preta. I have a few vids on making biochar. And it is in my garden. Really cool stuff.
How do you address the issue of the first steel bow being created about 270BCE by the Indians (not Native Americans but people from India). Yet numerous times in the BOM it mentions steel being used by Native Americans in a time much earlier than this? Yet there is no evidence to suggest Native Americans possessing even the capabilities of such metallurgies or the capability to create bows of metal. Yes lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen but to believe without evidence is insanity.
I'm here to demonstrate plausibility and not prove all points with regard to my faith. The date of 270BCE for a steel bow is far from being a concrete date. Metals have interesting attributes that lend them vulnerable to various factors not found generally in other artifacts. On the grounds of accepting something without evidence I'd be curious to know if you accept the theory that writing, the written word, was something that emerged via an evolution?
You said food techniques that have been used by the Indians for "100s of thousands of years." Modern humans have only existed for about 40,000 years...or if you believe in the biblical view only about 6,000 years. Ergo this leads me to question your research. So would you care to elaborate on the topic?...
1 What would you consider 'reformed Egyptian'? Have you seen the same word portrayed in Hieratic and demotic? or variances in portrayals through the centuries? What would constitute, in your eye, reformed Egyptian?
2. See my post clarifying such.
3. DNA evidence only shows mtDNA and y-chrom. trying to discern the whole makeup of a populace with only two lines is inanity.
4. No, they haven't been 'proven false' You base that on erroneous presumptions and massive, untenable, simplifications
1 Interesting question because Joe coined the term and no one has found anything that would suffice. Yes there is Egyptian shorthand that traders used. But nothing resembling a reformed language that was used in historical or canonical texts.
3 The DNA test show the common ancestor was Asiatic. That claim has been peer reviewed and found to be sound. Casting doubt on that claim is not enough. You must show evidence to the contrary. That is how science works.
1 All languages have morphed into their present manifestations, again, look at the variation between Coptic and Hieroglyphic representations for the same thing, there's almost never a similarity, so why do you think you'd immediately see it even if you saw reformed Egyptian of some kind?
3 I wasn't casting doubt on the claim, but rather it's implications and it's application to Mormon claims, you demonstrate a simple minded view on this. How many other women co-existed with Mitochondrial Eve?
1 All languages have morphed. Yes indeed. And a philologist can show the evolution of that language. There is also obvious traits that continue on which clearly show what language it evolved from. Bottom line. Show an example of reformed Egyptian.
3 I demonstrate a simple minded view? Yes indeed I do. Two claims exist. One has evidence. One does not. Simple. I don't need to do complicated mind jumps to bend the evidence towards a belief.
1 The map is far far from complete, certainly not all connections are made. Do you believe that languages simultaneously and independently formed throughout the world? Or do you believe all are derivatives of an initial? where are all the in-betweens? The truth is that the massive swaths of evidence are missing. This is true even with the appearance of the written word. Any evidence for an evolution to language is not demonstrated. It simply is not. The evidence is AWOL.
Neither. And I don't use 'belief' to examine such things. It is likely that worded language was not the first language that out ancestors used. Sub lingual communication like grunts and sounds would be first. And possibly a simple form of sign language.
'where are all the in-betweens'? What are you talking about? All languages are in-between what they were derived from and what they are becoming.
3 This is not a case of diametrically opposed views or a disregard of evidence. Were there other women that existed when Mitochondrial Eve was alive? Women with different Mitochondrial DNA?
Really? The claim by your religion, in the past, has been that all the inhabitants were descended from 600bc middle easterners. The evidence shows that is not the case. For the record your church now claims that not all were descended from that group.
The evidence shows that for two lines of lineage that's not the case. Go back twenty generations and how many possible slots are there for different ancestors?
4 The facsimile's contained within the book of Abraham and Moses are well known to come from the book of the dead. Joe also 'translated' the Kinderhook plates. They were a scam created to show Joe was a phony. The church defended those plates until the mid 70's when proper metallurgical tests were performed which showed that the plates were indeed created around 1830. That is three provable false 'translations'.
Joe didn't translate the Kinderhook plates. Your set up on this is untenable. I can get into the details, but I tell you you are wasting your time to claim the kinderhook plates. RE the book of the dead you also seem ignorant of a vast array of things. First off, what is the topic and theme of the Book of the Dead? Death?
You stand on the shakiest of ground and try to paint us as being those that put to much trust in the words of others. If you look at what you've been spoon fed you should blush
Please do. Mormon history records that he began translation of those plates. He did not finish.
The book of the dead does not mention Abraham or Moses. The theme is irrelevant to the claim. The content, however, is relevant. What 'vast array' of things am I ignorant on?
Oh and I should mention that articles in Ensign magazine defended the translation of the Kinderhook plates until it was proven that they were faked. The Times and Seasons also made an article about it that you can read.
It doesn't have to mention Abraham or Moses because the papyri on which facsimile 1 is found on the snsn text is not the papyri from which the Book of Abraham is taken. And your mention of 'Moses' demonstrates the degree of your stupidity with regard to this subject, it demonstrates that you don't even know the nature of the Pearl of Great Price and that you assumed that the Book of Moses was claimed to be a translation for the papyrus. Please educate yourself so you don't look so idiotic.
It wasn't 'claimed' that's what makes your mentioning of it so revealing of your ignorance. Go to the very first page of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price and then tell us where it says that it was taken from papyrus? It doesn't say that, it's never been claimed to have been derived from the Papyrus, it's always been claimed to be a revelation to Joseph, your placing it with the Book of Abraham is completely hilarious because it's proof that you haven't really looked at this issue.
Then you could explain to us all why the Apocalypse of Abraham, something not available to the western world until decades after the death of Smith, and then not even in the English language and only in Europe, has so much in common with The Book of Abraham. Or could explain why they found a lion bed motif on magical writings that matched that found in the snsn/Joseph Smith Papyri & it had, in the spell, mention of Abraham?Could it be that the person associated the lion bed motif with Abraham?
I don't explain coincidences. Why do some of Nostradamus' rantings resemble actual events? Answer. Coincidence. Little side tracks can be fun. But it is pointless to use coincidence as evidence when all the major evidence is missing. I think that you find these tidbits to support your belief because you deeply need your belief. For whatever reason. I think your channel is good evidence of all the things that need to be explained away in order to keep that belief. Carry on then.
You seem to miss the whole point of why I do what I do. I'm not here to prove my view, simply to maintain it's plausibility. Just as I wouldn't attempt to demonstrate proof that the resurrection happened or that Moses smote a rock and had potable water proceed from it or that the Red Sea divided. But you do the same things with evolution and other such items, you can't prove them. You look at all evidence to see how it can fit in to such OR to see how you can modify the theory.
Evolution is a fact. For evidence just look at antibiotic resistant bacteria. They would never ever become resistant unless they could evolve. Or do you have some god curse theory you would like to share?
Evolution is fact only to a point. It's not been demonstrated to be the reason for the diversity of all life. I was referencing evolution, and preceding theories, that hold it up as the reason for all variety in life OR that hold life as simply emerging from a system with no life into a system with life.
Go to Jeff Lindsay's site and look at what is said there on the Kinderhook plates. He addresses it better than I can through YouTube comment posts.
I'm still laughing at your statement "The book of the dead does not mention ... Moses." You have no idea how you completely exposed your ignorance and haphazard attempts to wing a counter-argument. It's on the level of a creationist talking about the big bang when trying to argue against evolution as the source of all variety of life-a Non sequitur
I have been there. He does not address the issues. He dodges most of them.
'You have no idea how you completely exposed your ignorance'
You seem to fail to see the point. Why include facsimile's of Egyptian embalming rituals into a book supposedly translated from papyri? It leaves one with the impression that the papyri facsimiled is the source material for the translation. So explain why portions of the book of the dead are included in the PofGP.
Did you go there on the issue of Kinderhook? He points out that there's not even evidence that Joseph tried to translate the Kinderhook plates.
RE: Egyptian embalming ritual-- I'd point you to the whole context of Egyptian. Funerary rights are tied to a belief in a resurrection into a deified, perfect, immortal form. The fact that it's ritual connected to
the next life, to resurrection, makes the connection completely reasonable. The question may be 'why symbols used by Abraham were utilized by Egyptians' You are assuming a direction of memetic flow and a source in these things that is not inherent.
I did not make an intellectual leap. I made an assumption based on the fact that papyri facsimile's are contained within that section of your documents. It is a fairly small point that you seem to get great satisfaction out of. It takes the focus off of the fact that you cannot adequately explain why the PofGP has explanations for the facsimile's that are false. And the fact that Joe included them at all.
What is an assumption if not an intellectual leap? It's taken something that's not demonstrated and using that as a premise, a context, from which to formulate something.
And they are not false explanations. You would do well to notice that Egyptologists readings of facsimile 2 have been demonstrated to be at variance with ancient views of the same item(s). So Joseph not being in line with modern egyptologists doesn't mean he's wrong. I recommend you see another vid by thebackyardprofessor
He can be a bit longwinded at time, but he points out areas that critics thought were sure hits and demonstrates a tie between the theme that's presented by Joseph and the elements as identified by Egyptologists in Facsimile II figure 7
I never said there were piles of bones. I simply said massive groups of people were buried in hill formations. what seemed to be found in remnants was that often things were burned prior to burial, so often the remnants of the burial was not something farmers would fret over whilst leveling the wilderness they'd just purchased. And from wikipedia's article on mound builders "...There were contemporaneous mound building cultures throughout the Eastern United States."
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I would like to clarify that when I said 40,000 years I wasn't referring to the evolution of modern human I was referring to a broad spectrum of when humans began to manipulate the world around them. Using things such as agriculture which dates back to at least 10,000 years ago, and the use of more advanced tools.
101011001 3 years ago
I would also like to point out, because I think it's very important in contrast with the main swath of traditional Christendom, the LDS Church takes no official stance, one way or the other, on the role of evolution of life and the actual nature of the Genesis.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
The LDS church is still a young earth religion. D&C 77:6 'this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or temporal existence'.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
the temporal existence is post Fall. Our doctrine says nothing on the details or any fixed duration for the creation.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Temporal means time. If there was no time before the fall then the earth is young.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Just a general thing. I meant to say hundreds or thousands. Clearly hundreds of thousands of years doesn't match up. Sorry about that. The discovery of the reason for Terra Preta and the intentional fabrication of such in recent years has lead archaeologists to believe that for a great many centuries, going back well over a thousand years ago, that the natives of the amazon basin started to actually intentionally enrich soils of the amazon basin by the use of charcoal & slash and char.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Biochar found in Amazon soils has been dated back a thousand years. It is unclear how long they were doing this before that. It absolutely shows that a larger civilization could be supported by the pockets of terra preta. I have a few vids on making biochar. And it is in my garden. Really cool stuff.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Yep.
It is cool stuff.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
How do you address the issue of the first steel bow being created about 270BCE by the Indians (not Native Americans but people from India). Yet numerous times in the BOM it mentions steel being used by Native Americans in a time much earlier than this? Yet there is no evidence to suggest Native Americans possessing even the capabilities of such metallurgies or the capability to create bows of metal. Yes lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen but to believe without evidence is insanity.
101011001 3 years ago
I'm here to demonstrate plausibility and not prove all points with regard to my faith. The date of 270BCE for a steel bow is far from being a concrete date. Metals have interesting attributes that lend them vulnerable to various factors not found generally in other artifacts. On the grounds of accepting something without evidence I'd be curious to know if you accept the theory that writing, the written word, was something that emerged via an evolution?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
You said food techniques that have been used by the Indians for "100s of thousands of years." Modern humans have only existed for about 40,000 years...or if you believe in the biblical view only about 6,000 years. Ergo this leads me to question your research. So would you care to elaborate on the topic?...
101011001 3 years ago
Please see my clarification regarding this.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Shoehorned evidence 1
Shoehorned evidence 2
Shoehorned evidence 3
Questions
1 Show reformed Egyptian on any artifact.
2 Amazon people made food for hundreds of thousands of years? No archaeologist says people have been here that long. It is not evidence of the bom.
3 DNA evidence from hundreds of tribes shows exactly what archaeologists have thought all along. AKA Asiatic descent.
4 Joe Smith was able to 'translate' bogus plates and also pages from the Book of the Dead. All proven false.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
1 What would you consider 'reformed Egyptian'? Have you seen the same word portrayed in Hieratic and demotic? or variances in portrayals through the centuries? What would constitute, in your eye, reformed Egyptian?
2. See my post clarifying such.
3. DNA evidence only shows mtDNA and y-chrom. trying to discern the whole makeup of a populace with only two lines is inanity.
4. No, they haven't been 'proven false' You base that on erroneous presumptions and massive, untenable, simplifications
HiveRadical 3 years ago
1 Interesting question because Joe coined the term and no one has found anything that would suffice. Yes there is Egyptian shorthand that traders used. But nothing resembling a reformed language that was used in historical or canonical texts.
3 The DNA test show the common ancestor was Asiatic. That claim has been peer reviewed and found to be sound. Casting doubt on that claim is not enough. You must show evidence to the contrary. That is how science works.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
1 All languages have morphed into their present manifestations, again, look at the variation between Coptic and Hieroglyphic representations for the same thing, there's almost never a similarity, so why do you think you'd immediately see it even if you saw reformed Egyptian of some kind?
3 I wasn't casting doubt on the claim, but rather it's implications and it's application to Mormon claims, you demonstrate a simple minded view on this. How many other women co-existed with Mitochondrial Eve?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
1 All languages have morphed. Yes indeed. And a philologist can show the evolution of that language. There is also obvious traits that continue on which clearly show what language it evolved from. Bottom line. Show an example of reformed Egyptian.
3 I demonstrate a simple minded view? Yes indeed I do. Two claims exist. One has evidence. One does not. Simple. I don't need to do complicated mind jumps to bend the evidence towards a belief.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
1 The map is far far from complete, certainly not all connections are made. Do you believe that languages simultaneously and independently formed throughout the world? Or do you believe all are derivatives of an initial? where are all the in-betweens? The truth is that the massive swaths of evidence are missing. This is true even with the appearance of the written word. Any evidence for an evolution to language is not demonstrated. It simply is not. The evidence is AWOL.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'languages simultaneously and independently'
'all are derivatives of an initial'
Neither. And I don't use 'belief' to examine such things. It is likely that worded language was not the first language that out ancestors used. Sub lingual communication like grunts and sounds would be first. And possibly a simple form of sign language.
'where are all the in-betweens'? What are you talking about? All languages are in-between what they were derived from and what they are becoming.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
3 This is not a case of diametrically opposed views or a disregard of evidence. Were there other women that existed when Mitochondrial Eve was alive? Women with different Mitochondrial DNA?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'not a case of diametrically opposed'
Really? The claim by your religion, in the past, has been that all the inhabitants were descended from 600bc middle easterners. The evidence shows that is not the case. For the record your church now claims that not all were descended from that group.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
The evidence shows that for two lines of lineage that's not the case. Go back twenty generations and how many possible slots are there for different ancestors?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
4 The facsimile's contained within the book of Abraham and Moses are well known to come from the book of the dead. Joe also 'translated' the Kinderhook plates. They were a scam created to show Joe was a phony. The church defended those plates until the mid 70's when proper metallurgical tests were performed which showed that the plates were indeed created around 1830. That is three provable false 'translations'.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Joe didn't translate the Kinderhook plates. Your set up on this is untenable. I can get into the details, but I tell you you are wasting your time to claim the kinderhook plates. RE the book of the dead you also seem ignorant of a vast array of things. First off, what is the topic and theme of the Book of the Dead? Death?
You stand on the shakiest of ground and try to paint us as being those that put to much trust in the words of others. If you look at what you've been spoon fed you should blush
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'I can get into the details'
Please do. Mormon history records that he began translation of those plates. He did not finish.
The book of the dead does not mention Abraham or Moses. The theme is irrelevant to the claim. The content, however, is relevant. What 'vast array' of things am I ignorant on?
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Oh and I should mention that articles in Ensign magazine defended the translation of the Kinderhook plates until it was proven that they were faked. The Times and Seasons also made an article about it that you can read.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
It doesn't have to mention Abraham or Moses because the papyri on which facsimile 1 is found on the snsn text is not the papyri from which the Book of Abraham is taken. And your mention of 'Moses' demonstrates the degree of your stupidity with regard to this subject, it demonstrates that you don't even know the nature of the Pearl of Great Price and that you assumed that the Book of Moses was claimed to be a translation for the papyrus. Please educate yourself so you don't look so idiotic.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'is not the papyri from which the Book of Abraham is taken'
Then why are they added to the books?
'And your mention of 'Moses''
How so? It is called 'the Book of Moses'.
'ou don't even know the nature of the Pearl of Great Price'
The nature? Ok I'll bite. What is the nature of those two books?
'that you assumed that the Book of Moses was claimed to be a translation for the papyrus.'
It was claimed. Do you have proof otherwise?
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
It wasn't 'claimed' that's what makes your mentioning of it so revealing of your ignorance. Go to the very first page of the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price and then tell us where it says that it was taken from papyrus? It doesn't say that, it's never been claimed to have been derived from the Papyrus, it's always been claimed to be a revelation to Joseph, your placing it with the Book of Abraham is completely hilarious because it's proof that you haven't really looked at this issue.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I did look it up a minute ago. Joe derived the book of Moses from Genesis. Abraham was derived from papyri. The point still stands. Joe made both up.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Then you could explain to us all why the Apocalypse of Abraham, something not available to the western world until decades after the death of Smith, and then not even in the English language and only in Europe, has so much in common with The Book of Abraham. Or could explain why they found a lion bed motif on magical writings that matched that found in the snsn/Joseph Smith Papyri & it had, in the spell, mention of Abraham?Could it be that the person associated the lion bed motif with Abraham?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I don't explain coincidences. Why do some of Nostradamus' rantings resemble actual events? Answer. Coincidence. Little side tracks can be fun. But it is pointless to use coincidence as evidence when all the major evidence is missing. I think that you find these tidbits to support your belief because you deeply need your belief. For whatever reason. I think your channel is good evidence of all the things that need to be explained away in order to keep that belief. Carry on then.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
You seem to miss the whole point of why I do what I do. I'm not here to prove my view, simply to maintain it's plausibility. Just as I wouldn't attempt to demonstrate proof that the resurrection happened or that Moses smote a rock and had potable water proceed from it or that the Red Sea divided. But you do the same things with evolution and other such items, you can't prove them. You look at all evidence to see how it can fit in to such OR to see how you can modify the theory.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Evolution is a fact. For evidence just look at antibiotic resistant bacteria. They would never ever become resistant unless they could evolve. Or do you have some god curse theory you would like to share?
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago 2
Evolution is fact only to a point. It's not been demonstrated to be the reason for the diversity of all life. I was referencing evolution, and preceding theories, that hold it up as the reason for all variety in life OR that hold life as simply emerging from a system with no life into a system with life.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Go to Jeff Lindsay's site and look at what is said there on the Kinderhook plates. He addresses it better than I can through YouTube comment posts.
I'm still laughing at your statement "The book of the dead does not mention ... Moses." You have no idea how you completely exposed your ignorance and haphazard attempts to wing a counter-argument. It's on the level of a creationist talking about the big bang when trying to argue against evolution as the source of all variety of life-a Non sequitur
HiveRadical 3 years ago
I have been there. He does not address the issues. He dodges most of them.
'You have no idea how you completely exposed your ignorance'
You seem to fail to see the point. Why include facsimile's of Egyptian embalming rituals into a book supposedly translated from papyri? It leaves one with the impression that the papyri facsimiled is the source material for the translation. So explain why portions of the book of the dead are included in the PofGP.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Did you go there on the issue of Kinderhook? He points out that there's not even evidence that Joseph tried to translate the Kinderhook plates.
RE: Egyptian embalming ritual-- I'd point you to the whole context of Egyptian. Funerary rights are tied to a belief in a resurrection into a deified, perfect, immortal form. The fact that it's ritual connected to
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Do you have some comment limiter going?
So you are discounting the evidence of the Times and Seasons and the articles of the Ensign?
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
It's built in to youtube. Youtube's comment system is inane.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
the next life, to resurrection, makes the connection completely reasonable. The question may be 'why symbols used by Abraham were utilized by Egyptians' You are assuming a direction of memetic flow and a source in these things that is not inherent.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'makes the connection completely reasonable.'
No it does not. You do intellectual leaps to make it seem reasonable.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Go look at my video titled Joseph Smith Vindicated for one of many possible scenarios as to what would produce the conditions that are present.
And it's funny to hear you accuse me of making intellectual leaps when you assumed the Book of Moses was derived from the Papyri.
""O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." --Voltaire
HiveRadical 3 years ago
'And it's funny'
I did not make an intellectual leap. I made an assumption based on the fact that papyri facsimile's are contained within that section of your documents. It is a fairly small point that you seem to get great satisfaction out of. It takes the focus off of the fact that you cannot adequately explain why the PofGP has explanations for the facsimile's that are false. And the fact that Joe included them at all.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
What is an assumption if not an intellectual leap? It's taken something that's not demonstrated and using that as a premise, a context, from which to formulate something.
And they are not false explanations. You would do well to notice that Egyptologists readings of facsimile 2 have been demonstrated to be at variance with ancient views of the same item(s). So Joseph not being in line with modern egyptologists doesn't mean he's wrong. I recommend you see another vid by thebackyardprofessor
HiveRadical 3 years ago
He can be a bit longwinded at time, but he points out areas that critics thought were sure hits and demonstrates a tie between the theme that's presented by Joseph and the elements as identified by Egyptologists in Facsimile II figure 7
HiveRadical 3 years ago
good video. i can't believe it only took four minutes! :p
0mgwhat 3 years ago
Zarahemla, population... LOL
I love your voice!
EverASurprise 3 years ago
Thank you very much my friend. I might make another video asking for further clearification. Just let me get a little research in.
Excellent response by the way.
bigevasive 3 years ago
Shocked myself, who knew I could make a response in less than 5 min?
HiveRadical 3 years ago
It really is good man. Very concise and you seem collected. I feel very thankfull to have you to bounce this off of.
bigevasive 3 years ago