NOM

Incredible discovery places humans in California 130,000 years ago

This date is a whopping 115,000 years earlier than previous findings of humans in the Americas!

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04 ... cientists/

There is no pressing need to do the baptisms for the dead Homo Sandiegoensis all at once, since they may already have started doing so in Spirit Paradise. Early Mormon leaders may have started sealing themselves to available Homo Sandiegoensis females once they have completed the lessons.

Mulekites.

The stories in the Book of Mormon seem so hilariously irrelevant when we examine the paleontological and anthropological records.

Homo Sandiegoensis. Nice! I wonder if they were marked with a white skin and were wiped out by the Jaredites (oldest BofM migration). I found this news fascinating on many levels especially because it's one thing to push dates in the archaeological record back a few thousand years for the first evidence of the very first Americans, but 100,000 plus years??

On the surface, it looks like it holds some water (having survived the scrutiny of peer review process to get published in Nature). But . . .

Looking at the three primary lines of evidence that appear to be presented in the paper (haven't read it yet but plan to shortly), the proof of this hypothesis is circumstantial at best. In my op, here's why:

Long bone spiral fracturing: Yes, smashing green (fresh) bones with a significant percussion instrument . . . say a large rock, creates spiral fractures. Yes large carnivores like the colossal Short-faced bear or American lion can also create spriral fractures as they eat most of a carcass. Also herds of large herbivores and boy scouts have been known to create spiral fractures on fresh bone via trampling.

Percussion artifacts (not drumsticks): Quite problematic as there are no other artifacts to support human interference on said bones. Usually you would expect to see debitage (waste flakes) for crude choppers - there are none at this site and there are no other butchering instruments other than what they are calling crude hammer stones. They claim to also have an anvil - this would be very compelling but I haven't read the actual article so not sure on these details. There are also no butcher marks on the bone. The authors postulate that it may be that they were only interested in the bones as a resource for making bone tools. Um . . . to get to the bones, you have to cut the meat and tendons off so you would expect to see butcher marks on the bone (very common in archaeological excavations of animal remains) regardless of purpose. If they waited for decay to do it's thing, the bones would no longer be green and would not spiral fracture (step fracture instead).

Dating: Irrelevant if the other lines of evidence are not conclusive.

I think this will be a very tough sell by the authors. Kudo's to them for the kahuna's to try and pull it off.

I would love this to be true. It would certainly shake the single migration to the America's tree theory. In my view, it says little about the authenticity of the BofM either way.

Just my initial thoughts seeing this post. I'll post otherwise once I've read the actual article should I find their thesis more compelling than what mainstream media are proposing it is.

Abinidied wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:44 pmI think this will be a very tough sell by the authors. Kudo's to them for the kahuna's to try and pull it off.

I agree. What's missing from this evidence is any kind of human remains. It reminds me a bit of Calico Man. They've been excavating for decades near Barstow, CA because of primitive "tools" found there. All but a few die-hards are now convinced the tools were created by rocks tumbling in runoff. Even at that, it's more credible than Jaredites.

Well stated observations Abinidied. I agree with your take on every point, including this one:

Abinidied wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:44 pm In my view, it says little about the authenticity of the BofM either way.

I think your point in this is that these findings have no direct implications for our understanding of whether any of the BoM peoples actually existed in the Americas.

However, indirectly I think it raises the question, if (and this is a big if) further evidence confirms that humans were in the Americas 130,000 years ago, how come we can't find evidence for humans that allegedly were in the Americas from about 2000 BCE until about 420 CE who had steel technology and had battles in which hundreds of thousands and even millions were killed? The difference in time frame is nearly two orders of magnitude between the new findings and BoM claims. I don't even know how to express the scope of difference between the stone-aged technology of humans 130,000 years ago and the metallurgy claimed in the BoM. This question is already raised by the confirmed presence of humans in the Americas circa 15,000 years ago, but if these new provisional conclusions about a much earlier human presence are confirmed, it would highlight even further the stark contrast between what we see and what we would expect to see if BoM claims were true.

Zack Tacorin Dos wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:59 am I don't even know how to express the scope of difference between the stone-aged technology of humans 130,000 years ago and the metallurgy claimed in the BoM. This question is already raised by the confirmed presence of humans in the Americas circa 15,000 years ago, but if these new provisional conclusions about a much earlier human presence are confirmed, it would highlight even further the stark contrast between what we see and what we would expect to see if BoM claims were true.

You are so right. What I find interesting is that the metallurgy claims span the entire history of the BofM. The archaeological record, conversely, shows a thriving lithic industry running right through the heart of the BofM chronology persisting circa 1492 when the conquistadors showed up looking for a a few groceries and bonus points for scalps of the stubborn unconverted. In a sense, what the BoM seems to be claiming is that the lithic industry dominated until the Jaradites showed up with their pointy swords of steel which lasted until i.e. the anti-nephi-lehi-zelphi-ites buried their weapons and forgot where they put them. Seems a bit odd to continue to develop a stone industry when you've got far superior tech available and then abandon it going back to a stone industry for another millennia. Of course once, the Lamanites wiped out all but 1 Moroniite, they may have thought to themselves, "Holy crap these things are dangerous. Let's go back to clubbing each other to death with rocks. It was a lot funner, our primary prey for sport (Nephites) wouldn't have gone extinct leaving us with little to do but disperse and go about being savage, cursed skin secret combinators, and our insurance premiums would drop." I know this is neither an accurate, peer worthy analysis of the scientific record or the BofM but hypothesizing is fun.

Speaking of which, wouldn't there be some indigenous legend of the sword-god Ammon and his super-hominid abilities to sever arms in a single blow. Challenging to do with rocks, I might add.

Well now, that's a pretty awesome discovery! Makes me wish I'd gone into paleontology or one of those fields instead of hammering on a keyboard all day long.

Did anyone here every hear a story or theory that the neanderthals or other non-homo bones were some decedents of Cain? Obviously a crazy made up pile of BS to try and write off these finding back in the 70's when I heard it. I remember seeing the Dr. Leakey film in school one the Lucy skull and findings. That was the beginning of my dissonance over evolution vs. creation. Try as I might to make them both work, it never did and it was probably one of the heavier items on my shelf growing up as a TBM.

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 1:00 pm Well now, that's a pretty awesome discovery! Makes me wish I'd gone into paleontology or one of those fields instead of hammering on a keyboard all day long.

Did anyone here every hear a story or theory that the neanderthals or other non-homo bones were some decedents of Cain? Obviously a crazy made up pile of BS to try and write off these finding back in the 70's when I heard it. I remember seeing the Dr. Leakey film in school one the Lucy skull and findings. That was the beginning of my dissonance over evolution vs. creation. Try as I might to make them both work, it never did and it was probably one of the heavier items on my shelf growing up as a TBM.

Rubin - you probably made the right career choice . . . Sorry I don't know anything about the neanderthal Jaredite connection. I find it nothing short of miraculous that anyone could buy into it. Wait. I bought into God's solution for the Jaredite's need of flashlights for a very long time . . .

God: "Hey. Jareds brother. Whatever your name is. Go get some stones and I'll magically touch them."
Jareds bro: "Here's some cool ones."
God: "Those are peepstones . . . idiot (declared forcefully under a breath with a slight cough). Now go get me something like crystals because crystals seem to have magical powers. Didn't you watch Raiders of the Lost Ark: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?"
Jareds bro: "Why can't I just use these ones?"
God: "I'm saving them as an April fools joke for somebody else."

Good job picking up on the cog. dis. way back in the seventies. Wished I would have instead of spending my life looking for evidence the BofM is real. I'm now more inclined to believe in Santa.

Abinidied wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 12:04 pm

RubinHighlander wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 1:00 pm Well now, that's a pretty awesome discovery! Makes me wish I'd gone into paleontology or one of those fields instead of hammering on a keyboard all day long.

Did anyone here every hear a story or theory that the neanderthals or other non-homo bones were some decedents of Cain? Obviously a crazy made up pile of BS to try and write off these finding back in the 70's when I heard it. I remember seeing the Dr. Leakey film in school one the Lucy skull and findings. That was the beginning of my dissonance over evolution vs. creation. Try as I might to make them both work, it never did and it was probably one of the heavier items on my shelf growing up as a TBM.

Rubin - you probably made the right career choice . . . Sorry I don't know anything about the neanderthal Jaredite connection. I find it nothing short of miraculous that anyone could buy into it. Wait. I bought into God's solution for the Jaredite's need of flashlights for a very long time . . .

God: "Hey. Jareds brother. Whatever your name is. Go get some stones and I'll magically touch them."
Jareds bro: "Here's some cool ones."
God: "Those are peepstones . . . idiot (declared forcefully under a breath with a slight cough). Now go get me something like crystals because crystals seem to have magical powers. Didn't you watch Raiders of the Lost Ark: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?"
Jareds bro: "Why can't I just use these ones?"
God: "I'm saving them as an April fools joke for somebody else."

Good job picking up on the cog. dis. way back in the seventies. Wished I would have instead of spending my life looking for evidence the BofM is real. I'm now more inclined to believe in Santa.

I'm fairly sure someone taught me in seminary that the Jaredite stones, the U&T, and the Seer Stones were all referring to the same thing. Jesus touching the stones is what made them seer stones, as well as glow in the dark.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 8:55 pmI'm fairly sure someone taught me in seminary that the Jaredite stones, the U&T, and the Seer Stones were all referring to the same thing. Jesus touching the stones is what made them seer stones, as well as glow in the dark.

I remember hearing that about the Jaredite stones and the U&T. It doesn't work as well for the seer stones, since we have some of them and they don't glow. It also doesn't jibe well with Joseph's story of finding the brown stone in Owen Chase's well. Actually, now that I think about it, I guess it's no less improbable than finding gold plates in a hill just a couple of miles down the road.

Abinidied wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 12:12 pm Wouldn't there be some indigenous legend of the sword-god Ammon and his super-hominid abilities to sever arms in a single blow. Challenging to do with rocks, I might add.

Yeah, I think I remember some apologetic attempts at explaining swords of steel as really being instruments that seem a little more like clubs with a cutting or smashing edge made of fastened or embedded obsidian. Am I remembering this apologetic attempt correctly? I mean, how on earth would they expect us to buy that such an obsidian club could be the sword Ammon used to cut off several arms?

Zack Tacorin Dos wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 2:15 pm Yeah, I think I remember some apologetic attempts at explaining swords of steel as really being instruments that seem a little more like clubs with a cutting or smashing edge made of fastened or embedded obsidian. Am I remembering this apologetic attempt correctly? I mean, how on earth would they expect us to buy that such an obsidian club could be the sword Ammon used to cut off several arms?

Seriously, this is the basis for what would be a fantastic experiment at the next FairMormon conference. Build a macuahuitl according to the well known designs using native wood and sharpened chunks of obsidian. Then get a BYU football player to stand in for Ammon and try and cut off limbs from a pig carcass using the macuahuitl. Let them also try with a bronze sword, an iron sword, and a steel sword. Show everyone how plausible each of these swords hold up under repeated conditions of lopping off limbs made of skin, muscle, sinew, and bone. Take this issue of the table from the heathen critics.

This should be called "Mormon Myth Busters" and I am willing to let this myth be either busted or confirmed. After that they can try running a race carrying 200 pound gold plates or even 60 pound Tumbega plates (the silly copper/gold alloy as the latest excuse for the Book of Mormon).

Zack Tacorin Dos wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 2:15 pm Yeah, I think I remember some apologetic attempts at explaining swords of steel as really being instruments that seem a little more like clubs with a cutting or smashing edge made of fastened or embedded obsidian. Am I remembering this apologetic attempt correctly? I mean, how on earth would they expect us to buy that such an obsidian club could be the sword Ammon used to cut off several arms?

I've heard the same (weak argument of course, without proper documentation outside of high-fiving each others apologetic assumptions. See: https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/a ... unds-death) but the assumption really is problematic on many levels. Nothing is sharper than obsidian (even surgeons use it - I even know of an archaeologist who took his own obsidian when he had a surgery and insisted the surgeon use it which he did). BUT obsidian flakes (even those wedged into a chunk of wood as in the macuahuitl are subject to breakage. Having said that, there are claims that a macuahuitl could take the head off a horse in three well placed whacks. I haven't seen a paper on that so can't confirm.

Far more problematic in my mind is the use of the word cimeter (scimitar), often used in conjunction with swords as a weapon of war (cited eight times in the BofM). Here's the etymology of the term from Wikipedia:

The English term scimitar is attested from the mid-16th century, derives from either the Middle French cimeterre (15th century) or from the Italian scimitarra. The ultimate source of these terms is unknown. Perhaps they are corruptions of the Persian shamshir, but the OED finds this explanation "unsatisfactory.

If I remember my BofM chronology correctly, the Nephites, who were the principal users of this technology were dead and gone for many moons so either A) Moroni had some cool magical powers to insert a word that wasn't invented for another thousand years, or B) JS liked the sound of it when he wrote the BofM novel. I pick 'B'.

I think Corsair nailed it with his experimental archaeology proposal. Let's bust this myth once and for all! I'd fly to Provo just to see it even though we all know the outcome. Yes, you might be able to lop off some arms if you happened to strike the shoulder or elbow between the long-bones of the arm, but given some of the experiments with pig carcasses out there, I expect any metal blade (especially steel) would trump a macuahuitl. I would also extend the Corsairs project with a proposal to the Q15 to pre-reveal the outcome and then we at NOM could wager bets to see who claims revelation if they are right. If wrong, I think we all know Holland would claim his wrong guess, I mean revelation was the right revelation and proof that God, not Holland can make mistakes now and then.

I love Corsair's idea of a Mormon Myth Busters. I accept that many of my conclusions regarding Mormonism could be wrong, but if I'm offered no evidence, I'll go with Occam's Razor. Seriously; I value being right; if they can show me where I'm wrong, it would help me correct my errors.

Abinidied wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 10:15 am Far more problematic in my mind is the use of the word cimeter (scimitar), often used in conjunction with swords as a weapon of war (cited eight times in the BofM). [Summarized: the word seems ananchronistic used by Nephi et. al.]

And don't forget this wording about at least some of their swords.

And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust . . .
(Mosiah 8:11)

I'm pretty sure obsidian does not rust or corrode in a way at all comparable to rusting.


Edited to add:
Some more language about some BoM steel swords:

Wherefore, he [Shule] came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.
(Ether 7:9)

So this steel was molten (you don't molten obsidian as I understand it) about 2,500 or 3,000 years prior to the invention of steel. Hmmm.
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... technology)"
[end of inserted edit]

Abinidied wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 10:15 am I think Corsair nailed it with his experimental archaeology proposal. Let's bust this myth once and for all! I'd fly to Provo just to see it even though we all know the outcome. Yes, you might be able to lop off some arms if you happened to strike the shoulder or elbow between the long-bones of the arm, but given some of the experiments with pig carcasses out there, I expect any metal blade (especially steel) would trump a macuahuitl. I would also extend the Corsairs project with a proposal to the Q15 to pre-reveal the outcome and then we at NOM could wager bets to see who claims revelation if they are right. If wrong, I think we all know Holland would claim his wrong guess, I mean revelation was the right revelation and proof that God, not Holland can make mistakes now and then.

Hahahahahaha! I just love Jeffrey for that talk.

Wherefore, he [Shule] came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor, and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib.
(Ether 7:9)

One of the apologetic "evidences" that I once found highly compelling was the discovery, according to FARMS scholars, of an iron mine dating back to Olmec (i.e. Jaredite) times where someone was mining large quantities of iron ore. Bullseye! But it turns out to be another of those examples that annoy me so much, when LDS scholars know the whole story but only tell the part that is inspirational. The rest of the story is that no one was mining iron ore for smelting, or even iron ore at all, for that matter. What they were mining was hematite and pyrite, which the FARMS guys know damn well was actually really just being polished to make mirrors and beads. No steel. No swords. Just a little white half-lie.

Concerning macuahitls. Another favorite apologist story is that an Aztec warrior is said to have sliced the head off a Spanish horse in one swipe. I'm not sure how true this is, but I'm sure you could do some serious damage with this weapon. But whether you could repeatedly cut through dozens of femurs with the obsidian intact is another story. I doubt there was ever much chopping off of anything with macuahuitls, because the main use of this weapon was to hamstring an opponent so you could bring him home for sacrifice. If he bleeds to death on the battlefield it doesn't count toward your rank advancement, and the flat side was often used more than the blades.

But all of that is beside the point. This is a magnificent example of apologists not believing the Book of Mormon for what it says and writing their own version of it so they can rescue their own threatened testimonies, or because they have been tasked with creating a version of the story that might just work in the real world.

(note: I realize I'm repeating myself, but a lot of people come and go and we tend to have the same discussions over and over)