Deseret News | DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

448 comments | Read story

Rambis | 10:01 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Why are there Mesoamerican drawings of battles between light and dark skinned people?

Why are there Mesoamerican drawings of people with large beards, when modern Central Americans don't really grow beards?

Why are there artifacts and drawings of horses, when scholars said there were no horses in Mesoamerica?

Why did the Central Americans believe that the Spanish Conquistadors were the fullfillment of the Great White God's promise to return?

Why are there stories passed down through generations among some Central Americans that their ancestors came across the ocean in boats?

Why have there been defensive earthworks been found, as described by the BofM (do a search for defensive earthworks of Tikal)?

Why is chiasmus so prevalent in the BofM, when it wasn't even really understood at the time of its translation?

Oh, because it's not true, and there is no archaeological evidence.

Mr. Mr. | 10:13 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Why does Rambis provide a list of nonsense questions invented by those threatened by evidence that doesn't square with the stories of the B of M?

Nice try.

Book of Mormon | 10:14 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

The Bible and the Book of Mormon is the word of God, simply put. You have two choices, either you follow what God has said in the scriptures or you go against what he has said.

Comments continue below

philosoph | 10:26 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Any of you who know anything about philosophy of science would know that's it's categorically impossible to prove the negative. So refuting the Book of Mormon as not true, and everyone who believes it's knowledge as made-up, just because of the "lack of evidence" (either physical or spiritual) doesn't make philosophical sense.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that God doesn't want there to be physical evidence? If he created the Earth, surely he's capable of hiding any evidence that might pop up and confounding people so they wouldn't figure it out. Why? Because he doesn't need scientists to prove to people that it's true so that he can gain followers. He's capable of gaining followers his own way.

There may be no evidence, but you can still never prove it didn't happen. Don't think there's a God? Well, you can't prove that either.

Philosophically, the MOST you can say is that it's unprovable by science EITHER WAY.

Scientist | 10:31 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I have read the article on Southern's web site. It is apparent that he was rather looking to be offended before he did any genetic work. When something as spurious as this "evidence" could convince him the Book of Mormon is wrong, you know there never was much depth to begin with. Better to believe an uneducated farm boy made up the Book of Mormon out of bits and pieces. This is a major religious text, and it was just made up? The scientific evidence might or might not change our view on the Book of Mormon, but I am 99.9% sure that an uneducated person, such as Joseph Smith was at that time, could not have made it up even with a rough framework to begin with. Yet that is what some of you highly educated experts would have us believe. As a scientist myself, I cannot see it.

I think it was true to Joseph | 10:47 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

just like the Koran was "true" to Mohammad, just like the Old Testament was true to Moses and the New Testament to Paul (and many other ways of thinking) We can't just think that one way is the only way of thinking. Everyone will never agree and it's time that people take what is precious and make the world a better place. It's not fair to think that others have to think the way we think. If someone decides to that's fine, but don't think less of people because they have their own ways. I think the very fact the God allows our world to be this way tells us something.

Anonymous | 10:51 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

With due respect "Book of Mormon" ,the Bible and Book of Mormon is "the word of God" as you say, because someone told you it is.

TYLER | 11:04 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

TO "MICHEALANGELO" you clearly know nothing about the LDS church. First of all, we sure do not support Warren Jeffs, the man is in prison where he belongs, secondly, he does not belong to the LDS church, he belongs to the FLDS church which is a breakoff from us and we denounce any other sects that breakoff from the LDS Church. Maybe you should leave comments where you know what you're talking about. Last, when one reads the Book of Mormon it is more than a warm fuzzy feeling that tells them it's true. It's the Holy Ghost, who is a very real Spirit that can strenthen you physically and emotionally like no other thing in this world can.

I decided to change my | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

ways of thinking. I grew up loving the scriptures (Bible and BOM) and I still do. But, I realized my knowledge was limited and I researched. I don't believe in any one "truth". The world is full of "true" things and I don't believe that "God" chose any one church or way of thinking.
I now live my life in Peace and Love and "God" is my "ground of being".
Bless you all!

Google this | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

"Skulls in South America Tell New Migration Tale"

Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com
"For decades it has been believed that the first peoples to populate North and South America crossed over from Siberia by way of the Bering Strait on a land-ice bridge."

Ya think scientists wrong?
Wrong about American Indian origins? Asians, "AND" Africans, Australians! Who else? Nephites, Lamanites? Jaredites? Mulekites?
We know everything about DNA right? We might as well not study it anymore! Save money...Close down the research labs!
Think DNA theory ought to be reinterpreted by any new yet undiscovered evidence?

News flash! Scientist imperfect!
However, God is perfect! Knows end from the beginning!

D&C 101: 16
Therefore, let your hearts be comforted concerning Zion; for all flesh is in mine hands; be still and know that I am God.

God revealed to me many times through Holy Ghost to avoid things that could have caused harm.
I haven't been disappointed by the Lord.
Know what? He is God! He's in charge.
God debunks the debunkers!
Scoffers can't 'prove' work isn't true.
Let the heathen rage!
For now get spiritual proof through revelation!
Scientific proof? Our's will come when God's ready to reveal it!

Rambis | 11:14 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

To Mr Mr, why are the questions nonsense? Have you done any research yourself? I have. Those questions weren't "invented". Nice try, yourself, at completely ignoring evidence that has, indeed, been found.

To Anonymous | 11:22 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Yes someone did, GOD. No one else in my case.

Bryan | 11:22 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Why try to tear down when you can build. Why accuse and fight when we can be brother and sisters trying to make the world better. There are so much bad in the world and we should have the same goal to make it a better place no matter what the religious or scientific beliefs are. Non-believers and believers a like are all brothers and sisters in this amazing thing called life. We can all hide behind man created catergoizations of culture and race but we are all the same brother and sisters of God and we should strive to be the best we can be. Letting each other have there own beliefs without belittling them.

FreeAtLast | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

If what Rambis described actually exists (info. sources please, Rambis), why have no archeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, or other scientists who specialize in ancient Mesoamerican societies indicated that there is evidence supporting The Book of Mormon?

Furthermore, since the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians (according to the BoM) and the Lamanites began as a race sometime between 588 and 559 B.C. as a result of God 'magically' darkening the skin of Laman, Lemuel and their followers because of their rebellion (see 2 Nephi 5), how is it possible that American Indians existed millenia before 588 B.C., as scientific work relative to several archeological sites in the Americas and genetic research involving retrieved skeletons has proven?

Anonymous | 12:01 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

These are not good times to focus on setting ourselves apart from each other. Religiously or otherwise. To dunk or to sprinkle arguments is an absurd way of fostering brotherhood in man.

Thank you Bryan | 12:11 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Well put and my thoughts exactly. I've added a few such thoughts to this comment section and it's nice to see a few others that feel this way.
Things don't have to be complicated in life.
Bless You

Thank you geat philosopher | 12:17 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

To thinking-You wrote- "faith is not apart from reason"

Sounds like you sort of lifted the line from the movie "Leagally Blonde"!

Cognitive resoning why non-believers can't make the leap to a religious mind-set.

The problem with your "reasoning"...Religion can't be separated from faith. Religious people have to live by faith!

Stories abound in scripture of faithful people basically going against what made "sense" or "being reasonable". Abraham offering Isaac is great example. It sounds crazy, until one realizes that he was offering Isaac in similitude to Father's sacrifice of Jesus(His Son) on the cross.

"God told Moses to take us into the desert."
"He's nuts there's no food, or water!"
"I don't think I'll go"
Would have been reasonable thinking!
They'd missed out?
Exactly!

Reason probably told American colonies to just take what the British were giving out:
Because after all the British empire had most powerful army/navy in the world at the time.
America didn't have trained army, navy, industrial base.
Of course they had some help from the French navy at the end, but even that was almost too late in coming.
Guess what? We won, they lost!

God's revelation is "reason" enough to a believer!

Anonymous | 12:28 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Bible and Book of Mormon stories can be compared to Aesop's Fables. There must be something one can learn from them. But what has happened is that they have been used to set people apart today and this benefits no one.

Dr. Spokter | 12:31 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

How do you know that Jesus wasn't Indian?

A. W. | 12:32 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Is DNA really needed? Common sense works for me.

The supernatural can be used to "prove" anything. And, therefore, proves nothing.

DNAGenealogist | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Since not all the yDNA and none of the mtDNA in human cells recombine upon reproduction they pass to each following generation supposedly without change. However, occasional tiny mutations occur when the molecule is replicated. As the mutations accumulate and pass from generation to generation they create a text that tells our own personal history along with the history of all mankind. Modern science is learning how to read this text more accurately every day.

For a discussion of the power of DNA as a genealogical tool check out the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation website.

For a discussion of the power of DNA as an anthropological tool check out The Genographic Project, Atlas of the Human Journey. IBM and the National Geographic along with The Waitt Family Foundation jointly sponsor this project.

As the body of scientific knowledge grows it becomes more obvious that the Book of Mormon is a pseudepigraphic religious text. Mormons would be better off focusing on the powerful messages, teachings and principles in their book rather than as a history of the western hemisphere.

The time is coming when excommunicating Mormon scientists will no longer change Native Americans back into Lamanites.

Get Honest | 12:38 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

to Free at Last:
Here is an answer from personal experience. My father was a insulin dependant diabetic and during the 1950's, our family doctor diagnosed my father with gangrene in his foot, and set him up for amputation. My mother had been a nurse overseas during WW11, and knew a "trick" with boiling water,salt, baking soda and a good knife, with which she performed her own "operation" ( I watched this). Less than 24 hours later, the gangrene was declared cured by our doctor, with circulation returned to normal. To this day amputation is the rule for gangrene incident to diabetes, because our doctor was ridiculed by other scientists for this discovery.We could go on for three days talking about nothing but examples like this.
I could only excuse your Naivete and overt trust in "scientists" to you being very young, or as Anonymous says, you just believe everything you are told.

Really? FreeAtLast | 12:41 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

To FreeAtLast - read (Google this also)
Actually God wouldn't have had to "magically" darken their skins at all...Pigment does that quite well on it's own. The lamanites ran around in loin cloths...Out in the sun a lot hunting, fishing, (Read the book, suprise they're dark skinned!)etc.

My brother and I come from caucausian stock...However, you should have seen him in the summer as a kid. He looked like a "lamanite".
In fact now that he's a lot older and he doesn't spend near as much time in the sun...He's still tanned(Dark skinned). Go figure?
I've mostly stayed out of the sun. I look like more like a "Nephite", because I don't sun tan.
We're related, but you'd never know from the shade of our skins.
So your reason in your post for not believing the dark skin curse!
Really kinda flimsy isn't it? Ouch!

Anonymous | 12:57 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Now, that's a really nice testimony, "thank you geat(sic) philosopher.
But I am comfortable with my personal beliefs. Now what do we do?

Albert Einstien | 1:00 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Any good Latter-Day Saint knows that being able to receive revelation directly from the Lord enables them to confound the most learned person no matter how many years of education or experience that person may have. Therefore; if an illiterate deacon would state that the DNA evidence is wrong, it is WRONG, if that is what the Lord told him. Those science people waste so much time and effort when they could just become Mormon and ask the Lord.

Silly scientists.

Amen

Todd | 1:02 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Science is always "tentative". Just wait a little while and it changes.

Ronald Dato | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Book of Mormon will remain true to everyone who reads it with full intent of finding what's in it. How can you dispute something that change your life for good? Shall I say oh this man found a scientific breakthrough and it says that the BOM is not true therefore i will turn to my old ways? HAHAHA thats senseless. Is the BOM being tested for it's physical truthfullness? If one ever tries he will surelly doom to fail for the book is not at all that physical tangible object that one can examine and hold. It is that word which came from differrent prophets of old. It is that word that came from God himself. Why not this Scientist test the word of God?

Reality Check | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

The same warm, fuzzy, energizing, sacred feeling that tells the former RLDS members that the Book of Mormon is true also tells them that the LDS church is false, that polygamy was an abomination from the beginning, and that women should have the priesthood.

The same warm, fuzzy, energizing, sacred feeling that tells the FLDS members that the Book of Mormon is true also tells them that the LDS church is false, that polygamy should be practiced, and that Warren Jeffs is God's mouthpiece on earth.

That same warm, fuzzy, energizing, sacred feeling that tells LDS members that the BofM is true also tells them that...

Are you finally getting the picture now? Step outside of your perspective for a moment and think critically. It's not that hard to understand, but it is very, VERY hard to accept.

Thomas | 1:32 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Where reason can be applied, it should be applied. We don't use "faith" to decide whether a man is guilty of murder -- we put him on trial, look at all the evidence, and then decide as best we can. We know the evidence of reason is fallible -- that even in cases where the evidence looks clear-cut, it's at least theoretically possible we may be wrong. Yet we are willing literally to stake a man's life on our (imperfect) reading of the (imperfect) evidence.

If DNA evidence, even with its uncertainties, is good enough to hang a man, it's good enough to evaluate someone's claim to be a prophet -- if that claim is capable of being subjected to rational study.

We can use faith to choose to believe things that are beyond reason's ability to measure -- like the existence of a loving God, which can't be proven or disproven rationally. It's not "faith" simply to say we believe something we are genuinely convinced to be false. If Gordon B. Hinckley were to say tomorrow that Provo is five miles from Los Angeles, having "faith" wouldn't make it so.

Faith vs Science | 1:33 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I do not discredit the validity of science or its products. With out science I would not have a job. Life would not change and we'd be hunters and gatherers. My point is that in relation to life there are two possibilities. Science or faith. Science in its true form tells us the universe exploded into existence. Is constantly expanding, and changing. Our sun and its system are in a life cycle, which is possibly half way through. In millions of years the sun will lose its energy source, expand as it dies and consume earth. This is the cold cruel fact I'm talking about. Faith tells us we are created by a loving god who placed us here for a reason. Science ultimately discounts god and all religion, all religious recordsAccording to science both can't exist. Faith teaches God is the Master of Science. I am not advocating either. Either may be the reality. My point is we are our own agents in life. And we ultimately choose our beliefs. All the science and spiritual tests are subject to us individually. Death is the true absolute, the final inspiration.

E-Nuff | 1:34 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

No one is forcing you to believe it. If you do not, then you have nothing to worry about, if you do, then you also have nothing to worry about.

Religious freedom is the foundation of America, so shut up already

My goodness.... | 1:41 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

It is possible to get "dark skin" from being in the sun a lot, but it's not possible to pass it on to your children! Of course, probably over many years it is possible for a human to adapt to the environment. But the story told in the BOM is talked to as a "curse". How offensive that must be to all the people in the world with skins of different color (that a religion believes it was originally a curse.) Heaven help the human race!
People will make any kind of rationalization they can to believe what they want to believe.
Perfect example of the "Aesop Fairy Tales".

Todd | 1:42 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I remember a long time ago when President Kimball was recovering from illness on the Navajo Reservation he made the comment that Navajo's were not Lamanites.

Interesting. It is my limited understanding that the Nephite family landed in the area of Brazil and then later when the familys split up the Nephites went North and the Lamanites stayed in the southern portion of South America.

Navajo's language is a athabaskin based language that extends not only to Alaska but across to the peoples in Russia as well.

The bible is not a history of everyone in the old world. Neither is the Book of Mormon a history of everyone in the America's.

Science is often more a of a art than fact. We get some information and try and make sense out of it. Later on we learn that we did not interpret the data correctly. Science eventually gets it right.

Data does not lie but interpreters often do.

Thomas | 1:43 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Get Honest 9:56 --

You ask whether I'm saying that the Lamanites discussed at the end of the Book of Mormon weren't "cursed."

There is no account in the Book of Mormon of this having happened. The only two instances of "cursing" in the Book of Mormon are in 2 Nephi and Alma ch. 3 (when a bunch of Nephite dissenters joined the Lamanites and got "cursed" along with them.)

Now, the Alma passages do mention that any Nephite who "mingles his seed" with the descendants of the Lamanites would become subject to the same curse -- but again, if you read Fourth Nephi and the subsequent books, everybody mingled after the coming of Christ. (Presumably, the righteous Lamanites had gotten de-cursed and whitened.) There's no indication that this righteous population incurred a curse for "mingling" with former Lamanites; Mormon laments over a field full of "fair" Nephite corpses after the last battle.

So I have to conclude that there's no scriptural evidence that the "Lamanite" population at the end of the Book of Mormon didn't carry at least some unmodified Nephite -- i.e. Hebrew -- genes.

Sherwood | 1:52 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

reply to Johnny Rotten:
-In your first post you state among other things, that you are a recommend holder and former seminary teacher.
You then proceed to combat the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and also express your non-belief in the inspiration of church leaders. As it stands, the position you are taking would make it impossible to obtain the temple recommend without being dishonest. With this in mind, how could we lend any amount of truthfulness to your posts. Please explain.

you said it | 1:55 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

To DNAGenealogist - you wrote - "Modern science is learning how to read this text more accurately every day."
Base on imperfect knowledge of genetics...You expect all LDS people to drop their beliefs concerning the Book of Mormon based on somebody that tells me they can "create a text that tells our own personal history along with the history of all mankind."
REALLY? How does one "translate" this text? With a "DNA and Thummin"?
So, DNA can tell me who I had a crush on in high school? Who I went out on first date with?
No, it's only a personal history insofar as who parented whom. That still requires a complete DNA knowledge. More than you currently possess. To know for sure that someone's ancestor didn't ultimeately have some progeny somewhere else on the globe now you would need a perfect knowledge of events in the distant past. W/o the aid of your perfect science,which I'm going to make an "educated guess" based on your statement that you nor any of your eminent colleaugues seem to possess at this time or in the forseeable future(I'm guessing you're not claiming to have visions! Are you?)want me to leave.

Anonymous | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

When it comes to the Book of Mormon, it always boils down to this: Either Joseph Smith as telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - or was lying. After much study and an overwhelming gut-feeling (faith), I believe he was lying. Now what?

Anonymous | 2:08 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I just remembered that the BOM is an abridged book meant for spiritual purposes. What would you scientists do if we got the college edition unabridged version of Nephite history and it corroborated with the story.

Ronald Dato | 2:09 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Subjectivism is not the ground work for truth. The Word became flesh, why would we settle for some second hand unprovable stories to base our lives on instead of the Living Word of God, Jesus, said "search the scripture for in them you think you have eternal life, they are they that testifies of me." John 7:52 Why do we settle for anything else dna, newer testament or experince, like children forsaking a trip to the ocean and indstead settling for playing in a mud puddle.

Whose Revelation? | 2:11 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Just because the Mormon church receives a "revelation" doesn't make it true for the rest of the world.
It is very apparent that "revelation" is relative to someone's way of thinking.
And there have been many "revelations" that have been proven wrong and destructive in the world. Your "feeling" are not a good indication as to whether something is true or not.

RC | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Tyler wrote: "How does a 23 year old farmer with an elementary education write a 500 page book that can so perfectly refer to the past and present, that fits so perfectly with the Holy Bible,[....]"

This is what's called confirmation bias, Tyler. You see what matches and ignore what misses. And the things that are near misses you count as hits. What you're doing is the apologetic approach to the Book of Mormon, i.e. treat it all as true and look for points to support that. There's no objectivism in your approach.

Title Page of the Book of Mormon | 2:17 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I've copied and pasted some of the title page of the Book of Mormon...Nowhere on the title page does it say anything about the Lamanites being the direct progenitors of the Indians!

THE BOOK OF MORMON
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY

THE HAND OF MORMON

UPON PLATES

TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI

"Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanitesï¿½Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentileï¿½"

"...And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

However do pay particular attention to the last line from the title page. Just some friendly advice to especially those who are making it a habit of mocking the Book of Mormon. Fools mock.

The argument about what the book of Mormon says and doesn't say about the Lamanites and American Indians relationship is covered here. The rest is truly just conjecture.

Thomas | 2:20 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Frozen Chosen --

Yes, "Nahom"/"NHM", "sheum," etc. are interesting coincidences.

They are either evidence that the Book of Mormon is a translation of a document written in a Semitic language, or they are the result of chance. Which is more probable?

To answer that question, you need to calculate the odds of those coincidences occuring on their own. What we call coincidences are actually less improbable, mathematically, than they intuitively seem, so it's not enough just to point to similarities without actually showing that they are statistically too unlikely to be reasonably expected.

Joseph Smith was familiar with the Bible, which is full of Semitic names and placenames. Many of the unique non-English words in the Book of Mormon are at least vaguely Semitic-sounding. So it's not as unlikely that he might invent words that have parallels in actual Semitic languages than if he'd written names in a language with which he had no familiarity at all, like Chinese.

I'm not a statistician, but I suspect that if I made up a hundred vaguely Semitic-sounding words, like "Gathoni" or "Gaddriel" or "Eggonihah," FARMS could probably find a parallel or two in some historic Middle Eastern language or other.

Thomas | 2:31 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Todd -- Science may always be tentative at the fringes, but as time goes by, certain findings become more and more established.

The jury is not still out, for example, on the basic theory of gravity: Apples, regardless of their mass, will accelerate towards the center of the earth at roughly 9.8 meters per second (adjusting for friction, etc.) Ditto the germ theory: Inject Hep A-tainted blood into your veins, and you're likely going to get hepatitis.

Q and A | 2:37 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I don't know to much about the DNA analysis process but if there are Asian DNA in American Indians couldn't they be part other race as well? My kids are part caucasan, Brazilian which is a mix of European, African and Indian. I think it is shortsighted to say that they are only one race when we now that there have been plenty of mixing going on.

Chicago Perspective | 2:41 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I am still reading various reasons posters are giving for their not believing in the Book of Mormon.

But I have yet to be given a reason as to why I should care.

Yes | 2:45 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

A few people have said that science changes so we can't beleive what it tells us. With all due respect hasn't the church changed also.

Jon | 2:53 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I am a member of the church and I have noticed a few people have said that science changes so we can't beleive what it tells us. With all due respect hasn't the BOM been changed also.

JWK | 2:56 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Today's science seems more to be of consensus instead of true science. Ultimately, science cannot answer all questions because the human mind thinks too finitely.

For those who believe in a life after this one, one day we will all know the truth. If those who don't believe in a life after this, then anything having to do with faith is a waste of time to them.

I look forward to life after mortality when all questions will be answered. For now, I will continue believing the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

town Heathan | 3:02 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007

DNA is the least of LDS or any other "Christian" religion.

Christians can't even prove that the Great Flood in the bible existed, so why should they be concerned about DNA?

The beauty in religion is that they can ignore physical facts while claiming everything is a miracle.

So disproving Christian or any other religion is virtually impossable due to the fact that they DON"T HAVE to provide hard evidence.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.