All I'm saying is that sometimes increased database latency is better in some way than having idle hardware some large percentage of the time, and better than running entirely on EC2 all of the time (which can get expensive).
For example, let's say your page render time is in the 500ms range (perhaps it's a complex retail website). When the load goes up, is it more preferable to have some of your users get a 750ms-rendered page, or to have all of your users get a 1000ms-rendered page because you don't want to expand into EC2? Which costs more money, running a bunch of hardware that might sit idle most of the time, or occasionally losing a sale from some of your customers irritated by slightly longer page loads? Those are questions that only actual numbers can answer, and they vary on a case-by-case basis.
I have a concrete example of a good use case, but my friend wants to build a business out of it with me, so I'm not going to share it;)
You're right in that it's not always acceptable - but don't pretend it's never acceptable. Sometimes, increased database latency isn't a problem (or it's more acceptable than the alternatives for whatever reason), and in such cases my original statement stands. So... I do get to say it, but I should have qualified it with a "sometimes".
Which is better: somewhat higher database access latency, or unusably overloaded servers, or idle-most-of-the-time hardware?
There's not always one right answer, but "somewhat higher database access latency" is the right answer at least some of the time. It really just depends on your use case.
I'm guessing he was describing their ages ("four kids between seven and three years of age")... but personally I would have said "ages three to seven" instead of the more cryptic "7-3".
Also... four kids in four years? Seems kinda close together...
So I would think it makes sense to either completely go to EC2, or completely host all your own servers. What am I missing?
Presumably you have some way of deploying code updates to your own, non-dynamic hosts; you could use the same mechanism to bootstrap the EC2 instance.
We did this in a distributed computing class at my university; we made an EC2 image stored on S3 (which costs pennies per month) with the right software preinstalled, and set it up to know just enough to download the latest version of the website code once it started up.
If your website is PHP-based or something, the trivial solution is to have it run "svn checkout" in/var/www or wherever, assuming your svn server is publicly accessible.
i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores. In a few months Intel will ship server CPU's with 12 logical cores per socket. RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000.
How much does the power drain of that 12-core HP Proliant DL with 72GB of RAM add up to every month?
How much time will you lose when $HARDWARE fails and your server is offline? Even with 4-hour response time support, depending on what you're using the server for you could lose tons of money while it's offline - in the meantime, you can have a new EC2 instance spun up in seconds, if you even notice it die in the first place.
You can also save a lot by reserving an EC2 instance for 1 or 3 years for a one-time fee, and then during that reserved time you pay a much lower hourly rate; if your use-case is such that you can turn it off when it's not needed, you can save a boatload of money.
Point being, raw hardware cost is not a sufficiently complete comparison.
The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host. Say you run a website that sees occasional spikes; rather than keep enough hardware on hand to deal with the highest spike, which means a lot of your hardware is idle most of the time, you can simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising - just spin up an EC2 instance and add it to your own load balancer; you'll magically handle the spikes without a problem, and you can turn them off when demand goes away. Instead of paying for a couple of $12000 servers to handle your occasional spikes, you can just pay for *one* $12000 server, then pay for a day or two of EC2 time per month (which, even with the high memory instances, will only cost a few hundred a year).
So you finally admit you haven't read any of the sources I've provided? And now you're admitting that you had an agenda all along - "speak out against your organization" - and that you were only pretending to care about what's actually true?
Where does hypocrisy fall on your moral scale?
or whether you're PR drones paid by a wealthy religious cult.
I have never received money, nor goods, nor any other form of payment for anything I've ever said, written, or done with respect to any church.
Either way, people need to stand up and speak out against your organization
You're well within your rights to speak out against any organization you wish.
But it is intellectually dishonest to sit there and say "X cannot be true" merely because you believe it is not true.
Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend "there is no evidence whatsoever", and then when evidence is brought up, to dismiss it without examining it as "coincidence and therefore irrelevant". (Your opinion that it is a coincidence is what is irrelevant.)
Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to be on the side of the discussion refusing to cite sources for its claims. It took you like ten posts to get around to citing the Wikipedia article on "Criticism of the Book of Mormon" (as if that article is a clear condemnation), but you apparently didn't read that either, because the article answers half of the objections itself right in the text of the article, and the other half are not applicable if the book actually is what it claims to be!
Which reminds me of another point - you have on at least two occasions insisted that I provide sources in peer-reviewed publications. Why is it, then, that your only attempt at providing sources was from Wikipedia - that's the furthest from "peer reviewed" you can get without simply saying it yourself! Yet another instance of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Have I been trying to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true? No. I've been trying to show you that there is archeological evidence to support it, and that there is none to oppose it; as such, in a secular context I can say with certainty that it is plausible and that is all I have done.
"Has supporting evidence" implies "plausible". Since you refuse to cite sources for your counter-claims, I have no reason to take your word for anything.
I'll say this again: You are expecting me to discard the work of researchers with known credentials in favor of.... your word for it.
I've asked this question before, so it's yet another one of those inconvenient questions you're ignoring: Why should I take your word over the research presented by a credentialed linguist?
speak out against your organization because you are, fundamentally, corrupt and evil.
Corrupt and evil? Please show me one thing my Church has done that qualifies as "corrupt and evil". (No, sharing the gospel with others does not count; we don't force people in, and we don't force people to stay. People are free to leave whenever they wish and for whatever reason they wish. If merely sharing our ideas with others is immoral, then you are committing the same act of immorality by sharing your ideas.)
Perhaps you think church leaders are profiting from tithing or other donations? You'd be wrong. The few Church leaders who receive money for their time are a) devoting all their time to the Church, and thus have no time for a conventional job, and b) receiving only a small living stipend which is enough for food and clothing; apartments are provided if required.
Perhaps you think local church leaders (i.e. bishops) are prof
It does prevent you from acting morally because your obligation is to follow a set of rules and commandments.
Quite the contrary; my obligation is to act morally. The fact that God has pointed out the fact and given me some pointers doesn't change it.
Can you show me any God-given commandments that ask me to do something inherently immoral?
Here's a protip for next time you get into an argument with a Christian:
We believe we will be held responsible for our immoral actions, not for our blind obedience to some set of rules. Jesus even said so in the New Testament.
It is, therefore, my obligation to act morally.
But you've still contradicted yourself; you stated that if there are consequences (reward or punishment) for your actions, your choices cannot be moral, because the presence of a consequences makes all decisions utilitarian.
If it is your "obligation" to act morally, then clearly you believe there is some consequence for not doing so; as such, by your own logic, you're acting out of utilitarianism, not out of a desire to act morally.
If you permit yourself to act morally (not utilitarian) despite the belief in consequences, then you must permit me the same.
when it contradicts reality, you dismiss the contradictions as "little translation anachronisms".
The choice of "adieu" instead of "goodbye" is a translation anachronism. Improper direct object pronouns in certain sentences is a translation anachronism. Choosing "horse" over "gazelle" or "deer" or anything else is a translation anachronism, because the animal is irrelevant to the history, the doctrine, and every other meaning the writers were trying to convey.
Sorry, but the use of iron, steel, or ridable horses aren't "little translation anachronisms"; there is no translation error that can account for these.
I've linked you to a paper on iron already; the paper cites several non-LDS sources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and explains why "we have not found evidence of iron yet" in no way means "it is impossible they had iron."
It's absurd of you to claim that because we have not yet found iron tools - iron, one of the most perishable metals! - that it is therefore impossible that ancient Americans had it.
That is not proof of anything; it's merely your opinion.
I repeat: A current lack of evidence for the idea that the ancient Americans had iron is not the same thing as proof against the idea, and if you think it is, then you've proven yourself a complete imbecile.
The making of wrought iron was known at least as far back as 3000 B.C., and has been independently discovered by several different civilizations.
You're not going to take my word for it, and you're probably not going to read the article I just linked you to, because thus far you have shown you ignore every link I give you, so instead I'm just going to quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica directly:
Few implements of iron or steel survive for many years before they rust away, consequently there is little direct evidence to prove the point; nevertheless the antiquity of iron smelting is great. It doubtless has been discovered and rediscovered many times; explorers reaching primitive peoples in many parts of the world find the native blacksmith using methods very similar to those known to other tribes at far distant times and places. An iron blade, probably 5,000 years old, has been found in one of the Egyptian pyramids. Even without this discovery one could plausibly maintain that the ancient Egyptians must have had skilled steel workers in order to have built the great pyramids and other monumental architecture, to say nothing of the statuary and hieroglyphics cut into the hardest rocks.
Clearly, Egypt knew about iron around 3000 B.C., so logically the Jews at Jerusalem in 600B.C. would have been well-acquainted with it; clearly Nephi could have brought the knowledge with him.
But even if he didn't, historically speaking, we know that many primitive civilizations have discovered iron-making on their own, and as the ancient Americans were not primitive, it is not a stretch to suppose they could have discovered it on their own as have so many other peoples.
What is a stretch is your insistence that if there is no physical proof of iron having survived the last thousand years in one of the wettest parts of the world, it must mean they cannot have had iron.
Your entire argument is based on the "if I can't see it, it cannot exist" fallacy.
Now, regarding what you called "ridable horses".
The Book of Mormon never mentions horses being ridden; in fact with one exception it treats them as herd animals, as if for food. You are, yet again, taking your own assumption that "uses the word horse" is equivalent to "talks about people riding horses".
Whatever animal was meant - and it's not impossible that it was what we call horses, we just haven't found fossils yet - there's no basis in the Book of Mormon for calling them "ride-able horses".
Why do you want to know? Do you only do the right thing if someone promises you that you'll be a god or that you get 70 virgins?
No, I'm just curious what sort of consequence you think might await you in the afterlife.
(And for the record, if "promises you that you'll be a god" is supposed to be a silly anti-Mormon jab, we don't teach that.)
You see, you're the one that told me that knowing the consequences removes the ability to make moral decisions.
In other words, you either don't believe in post-mortal consequences, or you're being hypocritical.
If you're going to nitpick and say "I only said there might be consequences", well, that amounts to the same thing. Believing there might be consequences certainly affects your actions more than believe there will not be consequences, and therefore believing there might be consequences turns your decisions into utilitarian choices designed to maximize the possibility of good consequences.
At least, that's your logic.
Knowing there are consequences - or that there might be - does not prevent you from acting according to what is morally right or wrong.
3. Encrypted data has two processing phases, one at each end of the connection that do not apply to unencrypted data: encryption and decryption. By "not as quickly" they were probably referring to end-users' perspective more than network transmission time.
Genesis is clear about humans having the capacity to distinguish good and evil; good and evil are not defined by blindly following rules.
The ability to discern between good and evil allows us to understand the reasons behind the rules. This is as true of parenting as it is of God's will.
That is, I teach my daughter not to smoke. She learns why (e.g. because I tell her).
Thus, once she is an adult, she can choose for herself, having understood the reasons I set the rules I did.
It is the same with God. Something is not a sin if you didn't know better; that's why children are free of sin. ("Of such is the kingdom of God," the Bible teaches.)
Yes, but I don't reject the notion of an afterlife in which our choices here and now have consequences.
If that's true, then you have an extremely terrible memory; you seem to think that the timeline present in the Book of Mormon is vague and unspecific, when in fact it is almost meticulously specified wherever possible.
I respectfully suggest that you read it again, because you clearly remember nothing about it.
If you believe otherwise, a good place to start would be a point-by-point response to those Wikipedia articles.
If this were an academic translation, you would overlook these little translation anachronisms without a second thought.
But because the book claims to be more than merely an academic curiosity, you refuse to do so.
No, you refuse to believe it is a translation; and based on that refusal, your logic is as follows:
"Because I do not believe it is a translation, I refuse to accept that these anachronisms are related to translation, and therefore the book must be false."
Are you going to tell me you can't see the problem with that?
It's all based on your opinion that it can't be true in the first place. In other words, you're starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
You're merely saying "It can't be true because I don't believe it can be true."
It's the most absurd of logical fallacies.
So, back on topic: every single objection disappears if it really is a translation.
So rather than complain "I don't believe it's a translation, therefore X, Y, and Z must be wrong", you must instead try to prove that it can't be a translation.
The pages you have pointed to, on the other hand, get basic facts of linguistics wrong. For example, the relationship they claim between Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew, and modern writing is wrong.
You have yet to explain to me why I should take the word of a random slashdotter over the word of credentialed researchers.
a much deeper spiritual problem with your faith:
My faith is not based on "writings, revelations, histories, apparitions, [or] historical events" at all.
No, my faith is based on this: God himself has told me that the LDS Church is the only true church on the face of the earth. Why should I take your word over God's?
Writings, revelations, histories, apparitions, and historical events are merely icing on the cake. It's silly of you to pretend my faith is based solely on some dusty old books.
take away the revelations and writings and there's little left.
You may as well say, "the problem with math is that if you take away basic arithmetic, it stops working."
Well gee, what a novel concept: if you remove all meaning behind a concept, it becomes meaningless. What makes you think religion should be any different?
Yes - if you take away everything a religion teaches, that religion becomes meaningless.
But that's all irrelevant; if you somehow managed to destroy every copy of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price simultaneously, I would not suddenly decide to give up.
How could I? God himself has specifically told me what to believe.
it is intellectually dishonest of you to insist that a book you have not read "cannot be what it claims to be", and until you rectify that situation I see no reason to continue this discussion.
Who are you to tell me that my understanding of my book of scripture is wrong? You don't believe the book in the first place; why should I trust your opinion over mine?
You have repeatedly stated, "The Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be."
It claims to be true.
Therefore you have repeatedly stated that the Book of Mormon cannot be true.
Don't try to wiggle out of that.
Second, a problem with your whole line of argumentation is that you treat each coincidence separately [...] Smith only made a single choice/guess.
Oh? Choosing where to have the Nephites land was the same guess as choosing when a natural disaster would strike hundreds of years later, which was the same guess as choosing precisely when they would suddenly develop expert cement-working skills, which was the same guess as determining methods and strategies of warfare unique to the Americas (about which Joseph knew nothing, as you've already agreed)...
No, you cannot collapse all evidence into a single "lucky guess".
If you want to prove to me that the evidences I've presented are statistically insignificant, you're going to have to do the math.
As for me, I see lots of evidence, and I see no reason to mistrust that just because you say I shouldn't.
I say again: why should I trust your word - you, a random slashdotter of unknown qualifications - over just about anyone else?
Wouldn't it be odd if I did merely take your word? Wouldn't that show me as a weak-willed person?
No, you see, you are the one that brought up the idea that the evidence is statistically insignificant, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you to show it.
If you want to make an archaeological argument, you need to come up with an archaeological hypothesis and history that is both consistent with physical evidence and the Book of Mormon and you have not done that.
... Except I *have* done that, you just consistently refuse to even skim-read the sources I give you.
And even better, you haven't read the Book of Mormon yourself, and if you had, I could make specific references.
You see, you have no frame of reference - to you, the examples I've brought up seem chaotic and unrelated.
But if you had read the Book of Mormon, you would already know where these things fit in in the timeline, and you'd be able to clearly see how it fits into the archeological timeline.
So we go back to that.
Read the Book of Mormon and get back to me. My other post gave you four or five ways to get ahold of it for free, or you can buy it at your local bookstore or Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble.com... it's not exactly a hard book to obtain.
I believe this life is primarily a means to an end.
It's fascinating that you can make such a statement without even realizing how obscene it is.
It could be argued that the Bible teaches that something is immoral if and only if it is against God's will.
Yes, that is obviously your view of morality. See above for what I think of it. But it also isn't consistent with the Bible.
I still say your objection is rooted in the fact that you don't believe in an afterlife.
Oh, dear, have we gone off script? Is your neat division into Christian/materialist falling apart? Why do you ignore me when I'm telling you: I'm an atheist, not a materialist. I don't reject faith or an afterlife, I reject your kind of faith and afterlife as intrinsically immoral.
It's fascinating that you can make such a statement without even realizing how obscene it is.
There is a lot of value in a college education. One could learn a lot spending his life doing nothing but going to college. There is no doubt that college is A Good Thing(TM).
But college is a means to an end. I went to college to learn some things, sure; but that was not my ultimate purpose in going to college. My purpose in going to college was to get a degree so I could move on with my life.
College, despite its inherent value, was for me and is for many, many people, simply a means to an end - a stepping stone on the path to bigger and better things.
I am simply saying that because I believe we existed before we were born here, and because I believe we will continue to exist after we die here, this life is merely a stepping stone on the path to bigger and better things - which does not at all diminish the inherent value of this life!
Just as college being a stepping stone does not diminish the value of a college education, this life being a stepping stone does not diminish the value of the education it gives us.
I see nothing obscene about that.
But to each his own. My system of morals is, at the very least, self-consistent; if you disagree with it that is your choice, but that doesn't make either of us more "inherently right" than the other, at least not until one of us turns out to be right - but hey, if I die before you, I'll see if I can drop by your place and let you know how things are going in the afterlife.
It could be argued that the Bible teaches that something is immoral if and only if it is against God's will.
But it also isn't consistent with the Bible.
Cite or retract.
Based on my readings, the Bible pretty consistently describes morality in terms of God's will. Do you have any counter-examples?
I'm an atheist, not a materialist. I don't reject faith or an afterlife, I reject your kind of faith and afterlife as intrinsically immoral.
*Sigh* I suppose I wasn't quite clear enough.
You reject the notion of an afterlife in which God judges us for our actions during this life.
My view is just the existing, mainstream archaeological view: the Americas got settled via the Bering bridge somewhere 13000-40000 years ago.
You seem to be under the impression that the Book of Mormon contradicts that idea.
Except for Viking contacts, they developed independently until Columbus landed.
Sure, that's the current archeological understanding; but there's no reason to pretend it's impossible for a small group of newcomers to have absorbed themselves into the larger group of existing natives.
Basically, you're merely saying "the evidence may not contradict it, but it doesn't support it."
It's a monumentally magic leap of logic to go from that to your earlier statement that the Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be. (Yes, those were your words. Want me to link you to a specific post?)
All you ever do is point to Mormon apologetic web sites.
... did you even look at them? Of course not - if you had, you'd see that every single site I've linked to has provided sources for its statements.
And I do read the sites you point to, and all I can say is: you don't convince me.
You obviously didn't read the site regarding Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan; you thought the site had just four examples as the entirety of its proof!
Had you actually read the site, you'd have seen:
a) A summary of Stubbs' findings, with links to his full research b) A full description of the methodology used c) A comment of "here are four examples" d) A cited, non-LDS scholar's comments on Stubbs work as being thorough and well-done e) A five-part video presentation on the subject - a video that refers to a FEW HUNDRED such pieces of evidence conforming to the rigorous process outlined in part a, all of which I'm sure can be found in the full research linked to in part a.
You clearly didn't read any of that except the four examples (part c), because if you had, you would not have tried to pretend that the four examples were the entirety of the evidence.
No, I have faulted you for not coming up with specific dates and times.
Yet again you're proving you didn't read any of the sources I linked. Yes, jefflindsay.com is the site of an LDS apologist. That does not make his information irrelevant, and it's arrogant in the extreme of you to imply that is the case.
Guess what? The sources I link have consistently provided specific academic or historical sources for all of their statements.
You want to know when cement was supposed to have been used? You could have read the article on cement in the Book of Mormon that I've linked you to four or five times now, and you would have found reference to ancient American cement being used in "the middle of the first century B.C." right near at the beginning of the section linked.
And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:
"46 B.C."
Gee. It sure seems to me that "the middle of the first century B.C." matches up pretty well with "46 B.C."
And just to make sure you're convinced:
One of the most notable uses of cement is in the temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present-day Mexico City. According to David S. Hyman, the structural use of cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record. And yet its earliest sample "is a fully developed product." The cement floor slabs at this site "were remarkably high in structural quality." Although exposed to the elements for nearly two thousand years, they still "exceed many present-day building code requirements." This is consis
That's true only if you follow a philosophy that denies any intrinsic value to life itself and views life as a purely utilitarian event.
I believe this life is primarily a means to an end.
To wit, this life has three purposes:
1) To gain a body, which we did not have before being born, but which we can take with us after we're resurrected 2) To learn things 3) To see whether we'll obey God's commandments and thus return to his presence
In the eternal scheme of things, this life is only a blip on the radar; but it's also of the utmost importance. Points 1 and 2 are going to work for everyone, whether or not they believe in God, to some degree or another.
Point 3 is what makes it wrong for us to kill each other - if I kill you, I have artificially shortened the time you have left in which you could repent and improve yourself.
I do not believe this belief removes the inherent value of life; quite the contrary, I believe it shows a great respect for the value of life.
Any Christian who claims to kill in the name of their religion is ignoring their religion. Haven't I said that before?
(You're making me tread dangerously close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but I think it's fairly demonstrable through Biblical scriptures that killing in God's name is virtually never acceptable.)
for you, there are two different sets of morals, those that apply to men and those that apply to God, despite the fact that the Bible clearly says that right and wrong are universal.
It could be argued that the Bible teaches that something is immoral if and only if it is against God's will.
Thus there is only one "set" of morals - God's will. A thing is immoral if it is against God's will.
God does not want us to kill; therefore, it is immoral to kill. God does not want us to steal, therefore it is immoral to steal. God does not want us to take his name in vain, therefore taking his name in vain is immoral. God wants us to treat each other with respect, therefore mistreating each other is immoral.
Furthermore, God's will is in fact universal.
From that point of view, there is in fact one universal moral law - God's will.
I still say your objection is rooted in the fact that you don't believe in an afterlife. That is inextricably tied to the idea of responsibility for one's actions and morality in general.
everything you describe is plausibly explained by chance (look up "coincidence").
Ok:
"a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance"
Notice the use of the word apparently. Things can appear to be coincidence, and not be.
Furthermore, you have offered nothing more than your opinion that they are coincidences.
Let me be clear:
Your opinion that they are coincidences does not mean they are not evidence. It merely means you are choosing to disregard them.
It's absurd to call evidence "coincidence" merely because you find it difficult to believe.
Suppose I don't believe in gravity. You attempt to prove it to me by showing the math, and by showing objects falling to the ground, and by showing a large object's gravitational pull on a smaller object.
Suppose my response is "that's just coincidence."
That's exactly what you're doing.
What's worse, you're refusing to even read the evidence I'm providing - you're blindly assuming it's all "bogus research" and "coincidence".
people didn't accept pre-Columbian Viking presence in the Americas as an established fact until L'Anse aux Meadows.
No, but they also didn't say "it cannot be true", as you are doing.
You see, your logic has consistently been:
"It can thus far be explained by coincidence, and therefore it cannot be what it claims to be."
If you can't see the logical fallacy in that, we're done talking.
And God certainly didn't act in self-defense when destroying Sodom. No, you simply need to face the fact: you are worshiping a mass murderer. Your God meets the definition of a mass murderer. Where we differ is that you think it's OK, while I think it's not.
You're ignoring what I said about why you think it's so immoral - you believe existence ends with death.
If you remove that assumption, your complaint is irrelevant, because people do not cease to exist merely because they die.
That's because while children also have free will, they are immature.
So? I know plenty of 30-year-olds who are still quite immature. Does that mean their parents are still responsible for their actions?
How can God have perfect foreknowledge if people have free will?
Suppose God can move freely through the fourth dimension (that is, time).
"Foreknowledge" ceases to mean anything in that context.
Since you seem to think that the mass murder of the inhabitants of Sodom was justified, you must think that the death of anybody who rejects your God is justified.
Your objection is quite interrelated with the idea that God is the judge of our behavior.
That is, you don't believe in an afterlife, and as such, you don't believe we'll be held accountable for our behavior during this life.
If you assume God will judge you for your actions during this life, then clearly God is in a position to determine how long your life should last and how you leave it. As such, any action he takes with respect to the length of your life is inherently just, because he's the one that's going to judge it anyway.
If your objection is that you don't believe in an afterlife, then stop arguing this nonsense about whether God is justified in doing what he does, and address the real issue - the fact that you don't believe in an afterlife.
Let me repeat myself in case I wasn't clear: your objection is relevant if and only if there is no afterlife during which we are judged by God for our actions in this life.
If you're going to argue about whether the Christian God's actions are justifiable, you cannot ignore that important facet of Christian doctrine.
They exist, they just don't relate in any way to the Middle East.
Nobody said they did.
Yes, bogus claims.
"I didn't even bother with basic fact-checking" (which is what you did, or rather didn't, do) is never followed by "therefore their claims are bogus".
You can't just say "OMG BIAS THEREFORE FALSE". No degree of bias automagically invalidates the evidence, especially when the methodology and data are clear and public, as is the case with Stubbs' research, and especially when non-biased parties concur with the conclusion, as is also the case with Stubbs' research.
Do you have evidence that Stubbs' research methodology was wrong, or are you just going to fall back on "because I said so" again?
I'm saying there is not a shred of DNA evidence for the presence of Jews. You simply come up with all sorts of reasons why we haven't seen it.
Suppose I travel deep into China, marry a chinese farmer, have a few kids, and then die. A thousand years pass by, and you take random DNA samples of Chinese people in the area.
Your argument is like complaining that, a thousand years later, you can't find my DNA among the Chinese people, and that therefore I must not have gone there at all.
Regardless of whether or not I actually did go there, the conclusion is absurd - the best you can say is that there's no DNA corroborating the idea that I lived China, you cannot extend that to rule out the idea.
You are extending your DNA complaint well beyond the scope of the question DNA can answer, and as such your argument is baseless.
Show me peer-reviewed, non-religiously affiliated studies and journals, together with multiple independent fact checking.
The same site I linked you to quotes a non-LDS scholar approving of Stubbs' work.
But it's not like your opinion that it's "junk science" even matters - you didn't even read it.
You simply haven't even been able to come up with a single plausible timeline and scenario that would explain what we see today.
You're pretending I've tried to "come up with" a timeline during this discussion.
In fact, the only claim I've made has been to say "the Book of Mormon's claims about specific events and technologies have thus far been entirely corroborated by archeological evidence."
The fact that you think a plausible scenario can't exist merely means that you haven't bothered to even research whether such a timeline is possible - that is, you have apparently not read the book you claim is false.
So, let me ask you directly - have you ever read the Book of Mormon in its entirety?
If not, you have no reasonable basis for claiming it "cannot" be what it claims to be, because you don't even know what it says.
If you have, then could you kindly provide an example of some claim it makes that is contradicted by archeological evidence?
As I have indicated, you're clearly unwilling to bother reading the linguistic research I have cited, and as such your complaints on that matter are irrelevant.
Oh, and if you want me to provide a timeline for things, you're going to need to be more specific. Do you just want me to corroborate particular archeological or other discoveries and their dates with their counterparts in the Book of Mormon?
Or do you want me to provide a detailed timeline of the Book of Mormon and point out every single detail that's corroborated by archeological or other empirical evidence? This I am not willing to do myself - it would literally be a lifetime of work.
Instead, I would link you to others who have done much of the work already. If you refuse to research those on your own, you wo
The linguistic claims are bogus: four vaguely similar words do not establish a relationship between langugaes.
You clearly didn't read the section just above those four examples. You know, the part that explains how the evidence does not consist of merely four words:
Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.
Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.
Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.
When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.
The methodology is sound - he points out as his very first item that random similarities do not establish a relationship.
In the five-part Youtube video linked to by the source I provided, Dr Stubbs goes into great detail on the matter..
It wasn't just four random words.
The video is titled "A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan,"
Not four.
A few hundred.
And he describes the methodology he used to determine that these were not mere coincidences.
Why should I take the unsubstantiated word of a random slashdotter with unverified credentials - that's you - over the empirical evidence provided by a credentialed linguist who has studied both of the languages in question?
It would be absurd of me to reject credentials in favor of a random stranger on the internet, and it's at least equally absurd of you to expect me to do so.
You're obviously not interested in the truth of the matter - you, despite your claims to be a linguist, refuse to bother investigating the claims of another linguist!
If you have a reason I should set aside Dr Stubbs' extensive research in favor of your unsubstantiated "because I said so", feel free share it with me.
Anthon's response is not relevant to the point;
On the contrary - it's directly relevant. Anthon's response was basically blackmail: "if you don't give me the book so I can translate it myself, I'm not going to vouch for its accuracy."
A person who would do such a thing is not worthy of trust - Anthon was clearly after the fame, not the intellectual accuracy of the matter.
What possible reason could you have to claim that Joseph should still have trusted Anthon with the book after that intellectual blackmail?
Slashdot Mirror
All I'm saying is that sometimes increased database latency is better in some way than having idle hardware some large percentage of the time, and better than running entirely on EC2 all of the time (which can get expensive).
For example, let's say your page render time is in the 500ms range (perhaps it's a complex retail website). When the load goes up, is it more preferable to have some of your users get a 750ms-rendered page, or to have all of your users get a 1000ms-rendered page because you don't want to expand into EC2? Which costs more money, running a bunch of hardware that might sit idle most of the time, or occasionally losing a sale from some of your customers irritated by slightly longer page loads? Those are questions that only actual numbers can answer, and they vary on a case-by-case basis.
I have a concrete example of a good use case, but my friend wants to build a business out of it with me, so I'm not going to share it ;)
You're right in that it's not always acceptable - but don't pretend it's never acceptable. Sometimes, increased database latency isn't a problem (or it's more acceptable than the alternatives for whatever reason), and in such cases my original statement stands. So... I do get to say it, but I should have qualified it with a "sometimes".
Which is better: somewhat higher database access latency, or unusably overloaded servers, or idle-most-of-the-time hardware?
There's not always one right answer, but "somewhat higher database access latency" is the right answer at least some of the time. It really just depends on your use case.
if you've managed to build a ship capable of interstellar travel.
Nah, that only works if you've attracted the attention of a mischievous omnipotent being who's obsessed with contrived drama.
I'm guessing he was describing their ages ("four kids between seven and three years of age")... but personally I would have said "ages three to seven" instead of the more cryptic "7-3".
Also... four kids in four years? Seems kinda close together...
So I would think it makes sense to either completely go to EC2, or completely host all your own servers. What am I missing?
Presumably you have some way of deploying code updates to your own, non-dynamic hosts; you could use the same mechanism to bootstrap the EC2 instance.
We did this in a distributed computing class at my university; we made an EC2 image stored on S3 (which costs pennies per month) with the right software preinstalled, and set it up to know just enough to download the latest version of the website code once it started up.
If your website is PHP-based or something, the trivial solution is to have it run "svn checkout" in /var/www or wherever, assuming your svn server is publicly accessible.
i priced out a high memory config and it's like $6000 per year or more for 32GB RAM of memory and 8 CPU cores. In a few months Intel will ship server CPU's with 12 logical cores per socket. RAM prices are dirt cheap and at current prices a 36GB RAM HP Proliant DL 380 G6 will run around $13,000 and 72GB of RAM another $2000.
How much does the power drain of that 12-core HP Proliant DL with 72GB of RAM add up to every month?
How much time will you lose when $HARDWARE fails and your server is offline? Even with 4-hour response time support, depending on what you're using the server for you could lose tons of money while it's offline - in the meantime, you can have a new EC2 instance spun up in seconds, if you even notice it die in the first place.
You can also save a lot by reserving an EC2 instance for 1 or 3 years for a one-time fee, and then during that reserved time you pay a much lower hourly rate; if your use-case is such that you can turn it off when it's not needed, you can save a boatload of money.
Point being, raw hardware cost is not a sufficiently complete comparison.
The real value of EC2 becomes apparent when it's not your sole host. Say you run a website that sees occasional spikes; rather than keep enough hardware on hand to deal with the highest spike, which means a lot of your hardware is idle most of the time, you can simply automatically scale into EC2 when the load starts rising - just spin up an EC2 instance and add it to your own load balancer; you'll magically handle the spikes without a problem, and you can turn them off when demand goes away. Instead of paying for a couple of $12000 servers to handle your occasional spikes, you can just pay for *one* $12000 server, then pay for a day or two of EC2 time per month (which, even with the high memory instances, will only cost a few hundred a year).
So you finally admit you haven't read any of the sources I've provided? And now you're admitting that you had an agenda all along - "speak out against your organization" - and that you were only pretending to care about what's actually true?
Where does hypocrisy fall on your moral scale?
or whether you're PR drones paid by a wealthy religious cult.
I have never received money, nor goods, nor any other form of payment for anything I've ever said, written, or done with respect to any church.
Either way, people need to stand up and speak out against your organization
You're well within your rights to speak out against any organization you wish.
But it is intellectually dishonest to sit there and say "X cannot be true" merely because you believe it is not true.
Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend "there is no evidence whatsoever", and then when evidence is brought up, to dismiss it without examining it as "coincidence and therefore irrelevant". (Your opinion that it is a coincidence is what is irrelevant.)
Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest to be on the side of the discussion refusing to cite sources for its claims. It took you like ten posts to get around to citing the Wikipedia article on "Criticism of the Book of Mormon" (as if that article is a clear condemnation), but you apparently didn't read that either, because the article answers half of the objections itself right in the text of the article, and the other half are not applicable if the book actually is what it claims to be!
Which reminds me of another point - you have on at least two occasions insisted that I provide sources in peer-reviewed publications. Why is it, then, that your only attempt at providing sources was from Wikipedia - that's the furthest from "peer reviewed" you can get without simply saying it yourself! Yet another instance of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Have I been trying to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true? No. I've been trying to show you that there is archeological evidence to support it, and that there is none to oppose it; as such, in a secular context I can say with certainty that it is plausible and that is all I have done.
"Has supporting evidence" implies "plausible". Since you refuse to cite sources for your counter-claims, I have no reason to take your word for anything.
I'll say this again: You are expecting me to discard the work of researchers with known credentials in favor of.... your word for it.
I've asked this question before, so it's yet another one of those inconvenient questions you're ignoring: Why should I take your word over the research presented by a credentialed linguist?
speak out against your organization because you are, fundamentally, corrupt and evil.
Corrupt and evil? Please show me one thing my Church has done that qualifies as "corrupt and evil". (No, sharing the gospel with others does not count; we don't force people in, and we don't force people to stay. People are free to leave whenever they wish and for whatever reason they wish. If merely sharing our ideas with others is immoral, then you are committing the same act of immorality by sharing your ideas.)
Perhaps you think spending $1.1 billion on humanitarian aid is "corrupt and evil"?
Perhaps you think church leaders are profiting from tithing or other donations? You'd be wrong. The few Church leaders who receive money for their time are a) devoting all their time to the Church, and thus have no time for a conventional job, and b) receiving only a small living stipend which is enough for food and clothing; apartments are provided if required.
Perhaps you think local church leaders (i.e. bishops) are prof
It does prevent you from acting morally because your obligation is to follow a set of rules and commandments.
Quite the contrary; my obligation is to act morally. The fact that God has pointed out the fact and given me some pointers doesn't change it.
Can you show me any God-given commandments that ask me to do something inherently immoral?
Here's a protip for next time you get into an argument with a Christian:
We believe we will be held responsible for our immoral actions, not for our blind obedience to some set of rules. Jesus even said so in the New Testament.
It is, therefore, my obligation to act morally.
But you've still contradicted yourself; you stated that if there are consequences (reward or punishment) for your actions, your choices cannot be moral, because the presence of a consequences makes all decisions utilitarian.
If it is your "obligation" to act morally, then clearly you believe there is some consequence for not doing so; as such, by your own logic, you're acting out of utilitarianism, not out of a desire to act morally.
If you permit yourself to act morally (not utilitarian) despite the belief in consequences, then you must permit me the same.
2) Multiple monitor support.
While I agree that it's really annoying, that's Adobe's fault, not Google's.
It's fine to throw blame around, just make sure it lands in the right lap.
when it contradicts reality, you dismiss the contradictions as "little translation anachronisms".
The choice of "adieu" instead of "goodbye" is a translation anachronism. Improper direct object pronouns in certain sentences is a translation anachronism. Choosing "horse" over "gazelle" or "deer" or anything else is a translation anachronism, because the animal is irrelevant to the history, the doctrine, and every other meaning the writers were trying to convey.
Sorry, but the use of iron, steel, or ridable horses aren't "little translation anachronisms"; there is no translation error that can account for these.
I've linked you to a paper on iron already; the paper cites several non-LDS sources, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and explains why "we have not found evidence of iron yet" in no way means "it is impossible they had iron."
It's absurd of you to claim that because we have not yet found iron tools - iron, one of the most perishable metals! - that it is therefore impossible that ancient Americans had it.
That is not proof of anything; it's merely your opinion.
I repeat: A current lack of evidence for the idea that the ancient Americans had iron is not the same thing as proof against the idea, and if you think it is, then you've proven yourself a complete imbecile.
The making of wrought iron was known at least as far back as 3000 B.C., and has been independently discovered by several different civilizations.
You're not going to take my word for it, and you're probably not going to read the article I just linked you to, because thus far you have shown you ignore every link I give you, so instead I'm just going to quote the Encyclopedia Brittanica directly:
Few implements of iron or steel survive for many years before they rust away, consequently there is little direct evidence to prove the point; nevertheless the antiquity of iron smelting is great. It doubtless has been discovered and rediscovered many times; explorers reaching primitive peoples in many parts of the world find the native blacksmith using methods very similar to those known to other tribes at far distant times and places. An iron blade, probably 5,000 years old, has been found in one of the Egyptian pyramids. Even without this discovery one could plausibly maintain that the ancient Egyptians must have had skilled steel workers in order to have built the great pyramids and other monumental architecture, to say nothing of the statuary and hieroglyphics cut into the hardest rocks.
Clearly, Egypt knew about iron around 3000 B.C., so logically the Jews at Jerusalem in 600B.C. would have been well-acquainted with it; clearly Nephi could have brought the knowledge with him.
But even if he didn't, historically speaking, we know that many primitive civilizations have discovered iron-making on their own, and as the ancient Americans were not primitive, it is not a stretch to suppose they could have discovered it on their own as have so many other peoples.
What is a stretch is your insistence that if there is no physical proof of iron having survived the last thousand years in one of the wettest parts of the world, it must mean they cannot have had iron.
Your entire argument is based on the "if I can't see it, it cannot exist" fallacy.
Now, regarding what you called "ridable horses".
The Book of Mormon never mentions horses being ridden; in fact with one exception it treats them as herd animals, as if for food. You are, yet again, taking your own assumption that "uses the word horse" is equivalent to "talks about people riding horses".
Whatever animal was meant - and it's not impossible that it was what we call horses, we just haven't found fossils yet - there's no basis in the Book of Mormon for calling them "ride-able horses".
Why do you want to know? Do you only do the right thing if someone promises you that you'll be a god or that you get 70 virgins?
No, I'm just curious what sort of consequence you think might await you in the afterlife.
(And for the record, if "promises you that you'll be a god" is supposed to be a silly anti-Mormon jab, we don't teach that.)
You see, you're the one that told me that knowing the consequences removes the ability to make moral decisions.
In other words, you either don't believe in post-mortal consequences, or you're being hypocritical.
If you're going to nitpick and say "I only said there might be consequences", well, that amounts to the same thing. Believing there might be consequences certainly affects your actions more than believe there will not be consequences, and therefore believing there might be consequences turns your decisions into utilitarian choices designed to maximize the possibility of good consequences.
At least, that's your logic.
Knowing there are consequences - or that there might be - does not prevent you from acting according to what is morally right or wrong.
3. Encrypted data has two processing phases, one at each end of the connection that do not apply to unencrypted data: encryption and decryption. By "not as quickly" they were probably referring to end-users' perspective more than network transmission time.
You are lucky... I pick up the 24 hour all Polka all the time station on my dental work.
Those are the same station.
Genesis is clear about humans having the capacity to distinguish good and evil; good and evil are not defined by blindly following rules.
The ability to discern between good and evil allows us to understand the reasons behind the rules. This is as true of parenting as it is of God's will.
That is, I teach my daughter not to smoke. She learns why (e.g. because I tell her).
Thus, once she is an adult, she can choose for herself, having understood the reasons I set the rules I did.
It is the same with God. Something is not a sin if you didn't know better; that's why children are free of sin. ("Of such is the kingdom of God," the Bible teaches.)
Yes, but I don't reject the notion of an afterlife in which our choices here and now have consequences.
Consequences such as...?
I read the Book of Mormon a few years ago
If that's true, then you have an extremely terrible memory; you seem to think that the timeline present in the Book of Mormon is vague and unspecific, when in fact it is almost meticulously specified wherever possible.
I respectfully suggest that you read it again, because you clearly remember nothing about it.
If you believe otherwise, a good place to start would be a point-by-point response to those Wikipedia articles.
If this were an academic translation, you would overlook these little translation anachronisms without a second thought.
But because the book claims to be more than merely an academic curiosity, you refuse to do so.
No, you refuse to believe it is a translation; and based on that refusal, your logic is as follows:
"Because I do not believe it is a translation, I refuse to accept that these anachronisms are related to translation, and therefore the book must be false."
Are you going to tell me you can't see the problem with that?
It's all based on your opinion that it can't be true in the first place. In other words, you're starting with a conclusion and working backwards.
You're merely saying "It can't be true because I don't believe it can be true."
It's the most absurd of logical fallacies.
So, back on topic: every single objection disappears if it really is a translation.
So rather than complain "I don't believe it's a translation, therefore X, Y, and Z must be wrong", you must instead try to prove that it can't be a translation.
The pages you have pointed to, on the other hand, get basic facts of linguistics wrong. For example, the relationship they claim between Egyptian, Phoenician, Hebrew, and modern writing is wrong.
You have yet to explain to me why I should take the word of a random slashdotter over the word of credentialed researchers.
a much deeper spiritual problem with your faith:
My faith is not based on "writings, revelations, histories, apparitions, [or] historical events" at all.
No, my faith is based on this: God himself has told me that the LDS Church is the only true church on the face of the earth. Why should I take your word over God's?
Writings, revelations, histories, apparitions, and historical events are merely icing on the cake. It's silly of you to pretend my faith is based solely on some dusty old books.
take away the revelations and writings and there's little left.
You may as well say, "the problem with math is that if you take away basic arithmetic, it stops working."
Well gee, what a novel concept: if you remove all meaning behind a concept, it becomes meaningless. What makes you think religion should be any different?
Yes - if you take away everything a religion teaches, that religion becomes meaningless.
But that's all irrelevant; if you somehow managed to destroy every copy of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price simultaneously, I would not suddenly decide to give up.
How could I? God himself has specifically told me what to believe.
As you didn't respond, I quote myself:
it is intellectually dishonest of you to insist that a book you have not read "cannot be what it claims to be", and until you rectify that situation I see no reason to continue this discussion.
I trust I have made myself sufficiently clear?
Jeff Lindsay's argumentation is wrong.
Your opinion is that he is wrong.
Who are you to tell me that my understanding of my book of scripture is wrong? You don't believe the book in the first place; why should I trust your opinion over mine?
I'm not saying "it cannot be true".
You have repeatedly stated, "The Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be."
It claims to be true.
Therefore you have repeatedly stated that the Book of Mormon cannot be true.
Don't try to wiggle out of that.
Second, a problem with your whole line of argumentation is that you treat each coincidence separately [...] Smith only made a single choice/guess.
Oh? Choosing where to have the Nephites land was the same guess as choosing when a natural disaster would strike hundreds of years later, which was the same guess as choosing precisely when they would suddenly develop expert cement-working skills, which was the same guess as determining methods and strategies of warfare unique to the Americas (about which Joseph knew nothing, as you've already agreed)...
No, you cannot collapse all evidence into a single "lucky guess".
If you want to prove to me that the evidences I've presented are statistically insignificant, you're going to have to do the math.
As for me, I see lots of evidence, and I see no reason to mistrust that just because you say I shouldn't.
I say again: why should I trust your word - you, a random slashdotter of unknown qualifications - over just about anyone else?
Wouldn't it be odd if I did merely take your word? Wouldn't that show me as a weak-willed person?
No, you see, you are the one that brought up the idea that the evidence is statistically insignificant, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you to show it.
If you want to make an archaeological argument, you need to come up with an archaeological hypothesis and history that is both consistent with physical evidence and the Book of Mormon and you have not done that.
... Except I *have* done that, you just consistently refuse to even skim-read the sources I give you.
And even better, you haven't read the Book of Mormon yourself, and if you had, I could make specific references.
You see, you have no frame of reference - to you, the examples I've brought up seem chaotic and unrelated.
But if you had read the Book of Mormon, you would already know where these things fit in in the timeline, and you'd be able to clearly see how it fits into the archeological timeline.
So we go back to that.
Read the Book of Mormon and get back to me. My other post gave you four or five ways to get ahold of it for free, or you can buy it at your local bookstore or Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble.com... it's not exactly a hard book to obtain.
I believe this life is primarily a means to an end.
It's fascinating that you can make such a statement without even realizing how obscene it is.
It could be argued that the Bible teaches that something is immoral if and only if it is against God's will.
Yes, that is obviously your view of morality. See above for what I think of it. But it also isn't consistent with the Bible.
I still say your objection is rooted in the fact that you don't believe in an afterlife.
Oh, dear, have we gone off script? Is your neat division into Christian/materialist falling apart? Why do you ignore me when I'm telling you: I'm an atheist, not a materialist. I don't reject faith or an afterlife, I reject your kind of faith and afterlife as intrinsically immoral.
It's fascinating that you can make such a statement without even realizing how obscene it is.
There is a lot of value in a college education. One could learn a lot spending his life doing nothing but going to college. There is no doubt that college is A Good Thing(TM).
But college is a means to an end. I went to college to learn some things, sure; but that was not my ultimate purpose in going to college. My purpose in going to college was to get a degree so I could move on with my life.
College, despite its inherent value, was for me and is for many, many people, simply a means to an end - a stepping stone on the path to bigger and better things.
I am simply saying that because I believe we existed before we were born here, and because I believe we will continue to exist after we die here, this life is merely a stepping stone on the path to bigger and better things - which does not at all diminish the inherent value of this life!
Just as college being a stepping stone does not diminish the value of a college education, this life being a stepping stone does not diminish the value of the education it gives us.
I see nothing obscene about that.
But to each his own. My system of morals is, at the very least, self-consistent; if you disagree with it that is your choice, but that doesn't make either of us more "inherently right" than the other, at least not until one of us turns out to be right - but hey, if I die before you, I'll see if I can drop by your place and let you know how things are going in the afterlife.
It could be argued that the Bible teaches that something is immoral if and only if it is against God's will.
But it also isn't consistent with the Bible.
Cite or retract.
Based on my readings, the Bible pretty consistently describes morality in terms of God's will. Do you have any counter-examples?
I'm an atheist, not a materialist. I don't reject faith or an afterlife, I reject your kind of faith and afterlife as intrinsically immoral.
*Sigh* I suppose I wasn't quite clear enough.
You reject the notion of an afterlife in which God judges us for our actions during this life.
And from there stems much of our argument.
My view is just the existing, mainstream archaeological view: the Americas got settled via the Bering bridge somewhere 13000-40000 years ago.
You seem to be under the impression that the Book of Mormon contradicts that idea.
Except for Viking contacts, they developed independently until Columbus landed.
Sure, that's the current archeological understanding; but there's no reason to pretend it's impossible for a small group of newcomers to have absorbed themselves into the larger group of existing natives.
Basically, you're merely saying "the evidence may not contradict it, but it doesn't support it."
It's a monumentally magic leap of logic to go from that to your earlier statement that the Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be. (Yes, those were your words. Want me to link you to a specific post?)
All you ever do is point to Mormon apologetic web sites.
... did you even look at them? Of course not - if you had, you'd see that every single site I've linked to has provided sources for its statements.
And I do read the sites you point to, and all I can say is: you don't convince me.
You obviously didn't read the site regarding Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan; you thought the site had just four examples as the entirety of its proof!
Had you actually read the site, you'd have seen:
a) A summary of Stubbs' findings, with links to his full research
b) A full description of the methodology used
c) A comment of "here are four examples"
d) A cited, non-LDS scholar's comments on Stubbs work as being thorough and well-done
e) A five-part video presentation on the subject - a video that refers to a FEW HUNDRED such pieces of evidence conforming to the rigorous process outlined in part a, all of which I'm sure can be found in the full research linked to in part a.
You clearly didn't read any of that except the four examples (part c), because if you had, you would not have tried to pretend that the four examples were the entirety of the evidence.
No, I have faulted you for not coming up with specific dates and times.
Yet again you're proving you didn't read any of the sources I linked. Yes, jefflindsay.com is the site of an LDS apologist. That does not make his information irrelevant, and it's arrogant in the extreme of you to imply that is the case.
Guess what? The sources I link have consistently provided specific academic or historical sources for all of their statements.
You want to know when cement was supposed to have been used? You could have read the article on cement in the Book of Mormon that I've linked you to four or five times now, and you would have found reference to ancient American cement being used in "the middle of the first century B.C." right near at the beginning of the section linked.
And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:
"46 B.C."
Gee. It sure seems to me that "the middle of the first century B.C." matches up pretty well with "46 B.C."
And just to make sure you're convinced:
One of the most notable uses of cement is in the temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present-day Mexico City. According to David S. Hyman, the structural use of cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record. And yet its earliest sample "is a fully developed product." The cement floor slabs at this site "were remarkably high in structural quality." Although exposed to the elements for nearly two thousand years, they still "exceed many present-day building code requirements." This is consis
That's true only if you follow a philosophy that denies any intrinsic value to life itself and views life as a purely utilitarian event.
I believe this life is primarily a means to an end.
To wit, this life has three purposes:
1) To gain a body, which we did not have before being born, but which we can take with us after we're resurrected
2) To learn things
3) To see whether we'll obey God's commandments and thus return to his presence
In the eternal scheme of things, this life is only a blip on the radar; but it's also of the utmost importance. Points 1 and 2 are going to work for everyone, whether or not they believe in God, to some degree or another.
Point 3 is what makes it wrong for us to kill each other - if I kill you, I have artificially shortened the time you have left in which you could repent and improve yourself.
I do not believe this belief removes the inherent value of life; quite the contrary, I believe it shows a great respect for the value of life.
Any Christian who claims to kill in the name of their religion is ignoring their religion. Haven't I said that before?
(You're making me tread dangerously close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but I think it's fairly demonstrable through Biblical scriptures that killing in God's name is virtually never acceptable.)
for you, there are two different sets of morals, those that apply to men and those that apply to God, despite the fact that the Bible clearly says that right and wrong are universal.
It could be argued that the Bible teaches that something is immoral if and only if it is against God's will.
Thus there is only one "set" of morals - God's will. A thing is immoral if it is against God's will.
God does not want us to kill; therefore, it is immoral to kill. God does not want us to steal, therefore it is immoral to steal. God does not want us to take his name in vain, therefore taking his name in vain is immoral. God wants us to treat each other with respect, therefore mistreating each other is immoral.
Furthermore, God's will is in fact universal.
From that point of view, there is in fact one universal moral law - God's will.
I still say your objection is rooted in the fact that you don't believe in an afterlife. That is inextricably tied to the idea of responsibility for one's actions and morality in general.
everything you describe is plausibly explained by chance (look up "coincidence").
Ok:
"a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance"
Notice the use of the word apparently. Things can appear to be coincidence, and not be.
Furthermore, you have offered nothing more than your opinion that they are coincidences.
Let me be clear:
Your opinion that they are coincidences does not mean they are not evidence. It merely means you are choosing to disregard them.
It's absurd to call evidence "coincidence" merely because you find it difficult to believe.
Suppose I don't believe in gravity. You attempt to prove it to me by showing the math, and by showing objects falling to the ground, and by showing a large object's gravitational pull on a smaller object.
Suppose my response is "that's just coincidence."
That's exactly what you're doing.
What's worse, you're refusing to even read the evidence I'm providing - you're blindly assuming it's all "bogus research" and "coincidence".
people didn't accept pre-Columbian Viking presence in the Americas as an established fact until L'Anse aux Meadows.
No, but they also didn't say "it cannot be true", as you are doing.
You see, your logic has consistently been:
"It can thus far be explained by coincidence, and therefore it cannot be what it claims to be."
If you can't see the logical fallacy in that, we're done talking.
And God certainly didn't act in self-defense when destroying Sodom. No, you simply need to face the fact: you are worshiping a mass murderer. Your God meets the definition of a mass murderer. Where we differ is that you think it's OK, while I think it's not.
You're ignoring what I said about why you think it's so immoral - you believe existence ends with death.
If you remove that assumption, your complaint is irrelevant, because people do not cease to exist merely because they die.
That's because while children also have free will, they are immature.
So? I know plenty of 30-year-olds who are still quite immature. Does that mean their parents are still responsible for their actions?
How can God have perfect foreknowledge if people have free will?
Suppose God can move freely through the fourth dimension (that is, time).
"Foreknowledge" ceases to mean anything in that context.
Since you seem to think that the mass murder of the inhabitants of Sodom was justified, you must think that the death of anybody who rejects your God is justified.
Your objection is quite interrelated with the idea that God is the judge of our behavior.
That is, you don't believe in an afterlife, and as such, you don't believe we'll be held accountable for our behavior during this life.
If you assume God will judge you for your actions during this life, then clearly God is in a position to determine how long your life should last and how you leave it. As such, any action he takes with respect to the length of your life is inherently just, because he's the one that's going to judge it anyway.
If your objection is that you don't believe in an afterlife, then stop arguing this nonsense about whether God is justified in doing what he does, and address the real issue - the fact that you don't believe in an afterlife.
Let me repeat myself in case I wasn't clear: your objection is relevant if and only if there is no afterlife during which we are judged by God for our actions in this life.
If you're going to argue about whether the Christian God's actions are justifiable, you cannot ignore that important facet of Christian doctrine.
They exist, they just don't relate in any way to the Middle East.
Nobody said they did.
Yes, bogus claims.
"I didn't even bother with basic fact-checking" (which is what you did, or rather didn't, do) is never followed by "therefore their claims are bogus".
You can't just say "OMG BIAS THEREFORE FALSE". No degree of bias automagically invalidates the evidence, especially when the methodology and data are clear and public, as is the case with Stubbs' research, and especially when non-biased parties concur with the conclusion, as is also the case with Stubbs' research.
Do you have evidence that Stubbs' research methodology was wrong, or are you just going to fall back on "because I said so" again?
I'm saying there is not a shred of DNA evidence for the presence of Jews. You simply come up with all sorts of reasons why we haven't seen it.
Suppose I travel deep into China, marry a chinese farmer, have a few kids, and then die. A thousand years pass by, and you take random DNA samples of Chinese people in the area.
Your argument is like complaining that, a thousand years later, you can't find my DNA among the Chinese people, and that therefore I must not have gone there at all.
Regardless of whether or not I actually did go there, the conclusion is absurd - the best you can say is that there's no DNA corroborating the idea that I lived China, you cannot extend that to rule out the idea.
You are extending your DNA complaint well beyond the scope of the question DNA can answer, and as such your argument is baseless.
Show me peer-reviewed, non-religiously affiliated studies and journals, together with multiple independent fact checking.
The same site I linked you to quotes a non-LDS scholar approving of Stubbs' work.
But it's not like your opinion that it's "junk science" even matters - you didn't even read it.
You simply haven't even been able to come up with a single plausible timeline and scenario that would explain what we see today.
You're pretending I've tried to "come up with" a timeline during this discussion.
In fact, the only claim I've made has been to say "the Book of Mormon's claims about specific events and technologies have thus far been entirely corroborated by archeological evidence."
The fact that you think a plausible scenario can't exist merely means that you haven't bothered to even research whether such a timeline is possible - that is, you have apparently not read the book you claim is false.
So, let me ask you directly - have you ever read the Book of Mormon in its entirety?
If not, you have no reasonable basis for claiming it "cannot" be what it claims to be, because you don't even know what it says.
If you have, then could you kindly provide an example of some claim it makes that is contradicted by archeological evidence?
As I have indicated, you're clearly unwilling to bother reading the linguistic research I have cited, and as such your complaints on that matter are irrelevant.
Oh, and if you want me to provide a timeline for things, you're going to need to be more specific. Do you just want me to corroborate particular archeological or other discoveries and their dates with their counterparts in the Book of Mormon?
Or do you want me to provide a detailed timeline of the Book of Mormon and point out every single detail that's corroborated by archeological or other empirical evidence? This I am not willing to do myself - it would literally be a lifetime of work.
Instead, I would link you to others who have done much of the work already. If you refuse to research those on your own, you wo
The linguistic claims are bogus: four vaguely similar words do not establish a relationship between langugaes.
You clearly didn't read the section just above those four examples. You know, the part that explains how the evidence does not consist of merely four words:
Any two languages can have a few similar words by pure chance. What is called the comparative method is the linguist's tool for eliminating chance similarities and determining with confidence whether two languages are historically—that is, genetically—related. This method consists of testing for three criteria. First, consistent sound correspondences must be established, for linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns in related languages; for example, German tag and English day are cognates (related words), as well as German tür and English door. So one rule about sound change in this case is that German initial t corresponds to English initial d. Some general rules of sound change that occur in family after family help the linguist feel more confident about reconstructing original forms from the descendant words or cognates, although a certain amount of guesswork is always involved.
Second, related languages show parallels in specific structures of grammar and morphology, that is, in rules that govern sentence and word formation.
Third, a sizable lexicon (vocabulary list) should demonstrate these sound correspondences and grammatical parallels.
When consistent parallels of these sorts are extensively demonstrated, we can be confident that there was a sister-sister connection between the two tongues at some earlier time.
The methodology is sound - he points out as his very first item that random similarities do not establish a relationship.
In the five-part Youtube video linked to by the source I provided, Dr Stubbs goes into great detail on the matter..
It wasn't just four random words.
The video is titled "A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan,"
Not four.
A few hundred.
And he describes the methodology he used to determine that these were not mere coincidences.
Why should I take the unsubstantiated word of a random slashdotter with unverified credentials - that's you - over the empirical evidence provided by a credentialed linguist who has studied both of the languages in question?
It would be absurd of me to reject credentials in favor of a random stranger on the internet, and it's at least equally absurd of you to expect me to do so.
You're obviously not interested in the truth of the matter - you, despite your claims to be a linguist, refuse to bother investigating the claims of another linguist!
If you have a reason I should set aside Dr Stubbs' extensive research in favor of your unsubstantiated "because I said so", feel free share it with me.
Anthon's response is not relevant to the point;
On the contrary - it's directly relevant. Anthon's response was basically blackmail: "if you don't give me the book so I can translate it myself, I'm not going to vouch for its accuracy."
A person who would do such a thing is not worthy of trust - Anthon was clearly after the fame, not the intellectual accuracy of the matter.
What possible reason could you have to claim that Joseph should still have trusted Anthon with the book after that intellectual blackmail?