If.....

[Athetotheist]

If human DNA shows that Native Americans are not descended from Semites,

.....and if that disproves the Book of Mormon,

.....and if Semites are supposed to be descended from Noah,

.....how does human DNA disprove the Book of Mormon without disproving the book of Genesis as well?

[A Freeman]

Theories are built on facts.

That would be true for a TRUE theory, but it certainly isn't true for man-made hypotheses, which take the backwards approach of working off of an initial assumption, to try to arrive at that presupposed answer through trial, error and trickery.

The word "THEOry" is from the root word "Theos" (θεός), which is the Greek word for "God," commonly used in the New Covenant/Testament to refer to The One True God. So a TRUE Theory is a thought/explanation that comes from God, which is always true and correct, i.e. a fact.

What is commonly referred to today in "science" as a theory, is actually a hypothesis (an assumption), usually made in a vain attempt to work against nature and its Creator.

hypothesis /hī-pŏth′ĭ-sĭs/
noun

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

A simple example of how dangerous these often baseless assumptions are, and that they definitely aren't based upon fact, is the viral hypothesis.

Until 1952, the virologists assumed that a virus was hypothetically a toxic protein or enzyme directly poisoning the body, and that it was somehow multiplied by the body itself and would spread in the body as well as between people and between animals, despite there being no evidence to support any of these assumptions.

Medicine and science gave up on this idea in 1951, because the suspected virus had never been seen in an electron microscope and, above all, no control experiments had ever been carried out. It was acknowledged that, during the process of decomposition, even healthy animals, organs and tissue would release the same decay products that had been previously misinterpreted as "viruses”. Virology therefore had refuted itself.

However, when the wife of the later Nobel prize winner Crick drew a double helix and this drawing was published in the famous scientific magazine Nature as an alleged scientifically developed model of the supposed DNA, a new and very successful hype began: so-called molecular genetics. From that moment on, the causes of disease were thought to be in the genes. The idea of a virus then changed, and overnight a virus was no longer a toxin, but rather a dangerous genetic sequence, a dangerous DNA, a dangerous viral strand etc. This new genetic virology was founded by young chemists who had no idea about biology and medicine, or that virology had already refuted itself, but what they did have was unlimited research money, to pay for the assumed solution they desperately needed to sell "vaccines", creating the multi-trillion dollar chemical-pharmaceutical-medical industry.

For over 2000 years we have the saying: forgive them, for they know not what they do (i.e. they are insane). Since 1995, questions have been asked about the evidence for these alleged viruses and answers to why there is no evidence of the existence of viruses has been published. But the "scientists" (microbiologists, virologists and supporting staff) can't admit that what they have learned and practiced isn’t true; and, further, that what they preach and practice is dangerous and even lethal. Because nobody until now understood the entire context and had the courage to tell the truth, we now have even more subsidiary hypotheses, such as the “immune system” or “epigenetics”, in order to maintain the fictitious notions assumed from the outset.

The idea of a virus arose from the coerced and irrational dogma of cellular hypothesis. Then came the idea of the pathogenic bacteria, the bacterial toxins, then the viral toxins, until this idea was finally given up in 1952. Starting with 1953, Virchow’s idea of a disease poison (Latin = virus) became the genetic virus, which in turn gave birth to the idea of the cancer genes. We then spent hundreds of billions on the alleged “war against cancer”, founded in the Nixon era, and later the idea of genes for everything appeared. In the year 2000, however, the entire genetic hypothesis was refuted as well, after the contradictory data of the so-called human genome project was published together with the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been mapped, even though more than half of it was completely invented.

"It's easier to fool someone then to convince someone they've been fooled."
- Mark Twain

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #20]

Everyone in the world, including both the Semites AND the Native Americans, would be descended from Noah, via his three sons: Shem, Japheth and Ham.

Semites would be exclusively descended from Noah's son Shem/Sem (including the Hebrews, descended from Eber).

Everyone else would either be descended from Japheth or from Ham

All of Noah's sons would have inherited his DNA, so they would all have passed the same Noahide DNA to their offspring. Semites would not have been "exclusively" descended from Shem because all of the lines of Noah's sons would have Noah for a common ancestor [like a common ancestor in evolution]. Since the Noahide DNA would have been passed to the lines of all of Noah's sons, they should all have those genetic markers.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #21]

What is commonly referred to today in "science" as a theory, is actually a hypothesis (an assumption), usually made in a vain attempt to work against nature and its Creator.

The scientific method begins with observation, which leads to the formation of hypothesis. Hypotheses are then tested to find out if they adequately explain all of the observations. Through this process, along with peer review, hypotheses are either discarded, revised or advanced to theories. Theories are propositions supported by the best available evidence.

As for the rest of what you wrote, what's your source?

[A Freeman]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #20]

Everyone in the world, including both the Semites AND the Native Americans, would be descended from Noah, via his three sons: Shem, Japheth and Ham.

Semites would be exclusively descended from Noah's son Shem/Sem (including the Hebrews, descended from Eber).

Everyone else would either be descended from Japheth or from Ham

All of Noah's sons would have inherited his DNA, so they would all have passed the same Noahide DNA to their offspring. Semites would not have been "exclusively" descended from Shem because all of the lines of Noah's sons would have Noah for a common ancestor [like a common ancestor in evolution]. Since the Noahide DNA would have been passed to the lines of all of Noah's sons, they should all have those genetic markers.

You began by trying to make the case that if DNA showed that Native Americans are not descended from Semites (which the Bible never claims), and if the Semites are descended from Noah (which they obviously are, according to the Bible), that this could disprove the Book of Mormon (which the Bible condemns, along with all religious books, traditions superstitions and legislation, etc.), which allegedly would discredit the Bible by association, even though that's completely illogical.

If human DNA shows that Native Americans are not descended from Semites,

.....and if that disproves the Book of Mormon,

.....and if Semites are supposed to be descended from Noah,

.....how does human DNA disprove the Book of Mormon without disproving the book of Genesis as well?

Now, when called out for talking total nonsense, you attempt to cover it up by claiming...

All of Noah's sons would have inherited his DNA, so they would all have passed the same Noahide DNA to their offspring.

...perhaps not realizing that you are contradicting your own hypothetical questions in the OP, or at least rendering them irrelevant because, according to what you've stated in the sentence above, there should be no difference in the DNA between Semites and Native Americans, because they were all descended from Noah.

Of course what you are attempting to distract attention from was the simple fact that Shem, Japheth and Ham each had their own wives, which would have contributed half of their genetic traits to each of the three different lines.

From Shem and his wife --> the Semites
From Japheth and his wife --> the Japhethites
From Ham and his wife --> the Hamites

And, of course, that even though Noah and his wife produced three sons, these three sons were NOT identical triplets, and had very different physical traits, meaning that the three brothers shared less than 50% of their DNA with Noah, and possibly as little as 37.5% with each other.

So even one generation later (from Noah's sons), Noah's grandchildren would would share less than 25% of their genetic traits with Noah. Several generations later, and there would only be trace amounts of Noah's DNA shared among his descendants, and the percentages of shared DNA between the descendants of the three sons of Noah -- Shem, Japheth and Ham -- after a few generations would likewise be very small.

[A Freeman]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #21]

What is commonly referred to today in "science" as a theory, is actually a hypothesis (an assumption), usually made in a vain attempt to work against nature and its Creator.

The scientific method begins with observation, which leads to the formation of hypothesis. Hypotheses are then tested to find out if they adequately explain all of the observations. Through this process, along with peer review, hypotheses are either discarded, revised or advanced to theories. Theories are propositions supported by the best available evidence.

As for the rest of what you wrote, what's your source?

Guesswork. What you're really talking about is guesswork.

It would be great if the biological and medical sciences followed the same logical testing protocols that are followed in engineering, e.g. those used to determine the strength and basic properties of materials, to set up meaningful tests that have control experiments, only change one variable at a time, and which are only accepted as fact when they are repeatable.

But engineers build structures that have to meet design and safety criteria for fit, form and function, or people die, and the engineers are held accountable. In the medical "sciences", none of these testing protocols are followed, and when people die it's blamed on the illness rather than the toxic solutions that are ingested and injected into the body, by doctors playing at being God, who very obviously have no idea what they're doing.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #24]

You began by trying to make the case that if DNA showed that Native Americans are not descended from Semites (which the Bible never claims), and if the Semites are descended from Noah (which they obviously are, according to the Bible), that this could disprove the Book of Mormon (which the Bible condemns, along with all religious books, traditions superstitions and legislation, etc.), which allegedly would discredit the Bible by association, even though that's completely illogical.

If human DNA shows that Native Americans are not descended from Semites,

.....and if that disproves the Book of Mormon,

.....and if Semites are supposed to be descended from Noah,

.....how does human DNA disprove the Book of Mormon without disproving the book of Genesis as well?

Now, when called out for talking total nonsense, you attempt to cover it up by claiming...

All of Noah's sons would have inherited his DNA, so they would all have passed the same Noahide DNA to their offspring.

...perhaps not realizing that you are contradicting your own hypothetical questions in the OP, or at least rendering them irrelevant because, according to what you've stated in the sentence above, there should be no difference in the DNA between Semites and Native Americans, because they were all descended from Noah.

Not that there would be no differences, but that there would be some similarities. Where there should be similarities, there aren't.

So even one generation later (from Noah's sons), Noah's grandchildren would would share less than 25% of their genetic traits with Noah. Several generations later, and there would only be trace amounts of Noah's DNA shared among his descendants, and the percentages of shared DNA between the descendants of the three sons of Noah -- Shem, Japheth and Ham -- after a few generations would likewise be very small.

With only three couples to produce offspring [Noah's sons and their wives], there would have been a severely limited amount of DNA to work with. Applying the "50/500" rule of conservation, the human species would need at least fifty members to avoid short-term inbreeding depression and at least 500 to ensure long-term adaptability.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to A Freeman in post #25]

The scientific method begins with observation, which leads to the formation of hypothesis. Hypotheses are then tested to find out if they adequately explain all of the observations. Through this process, along with peer review, hypotheses are either discarded, revised or advanced to theories. Theories are propositions supported by the best available evidence.

Guesswork. What you're really talking about is guesswork.

Hogwash. What you're really resorting to is hogwash.

It would be great if the biological and medical sciences followed the same logical testing protocols that are followed in engineering, e.g. those used to determine the strength and basic properties of materials, to set up meaningful tests that have control experiments, only change one variable at a time, and which are only accepted as fact when they are repeatable.

But engineers build structures that have to meet design and safety criteria for fit, form and function, or people die, and the engineers are held accountable. In the medical "sciences", none of these testing protocols are followed, and when people die it's blamed on the illness rather than the toxic solutions that are ingested and injected into the body, by doctors playing at being God, who very obviously have no idea what they're doing.

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-s ... -developed

Again, what's your source for all the brickbats you're tossing at the medical profession?

Developing medicines to save lives doesn't equate to "playing at being God".