Monday, March 6, 2017

What Has Happened to Common Sense? - Part IV

Continuing with the previous post, we take a look at other areas where common sense seems lacking as theorists taut their particular theories and maps regarding the geographical setting of the Land of Promise in the Book of Mormon. 
     As an example, take a look at Tom Wheeler’s map, where he has created “an ancient extension of the Gulf of Mexico,” where no geologist or oceanographer or historian has ever claimed the area was ever underwater.
Blue area (red circle) is the area of Wheeler’s “Ancient Extension of the Gulf of Mexico” where no historic evidence has ever been found of it being underwater, let alone any creditable scientific support

    In the region of his map, they have discovered an underwater cave and flooded tunnels near Hoyo Negro, just north of Tulum along the northeastern Yucatan coast of the Caribbean Sea where human remains dated to 8000 B.C. have been found (Glenn Hodges, National Geographic, May 15, 2014). There is also a flooded sinkhole in southern Mexico located in the Yucatan (A. R. Williams, National Geographic, Januaryh 16, 2014). An ancient submerged forest has been found ten miles off the Alabama coast in the Gulf of Mexico that was apparently uncovered by Hurricane Katrina and lies about 60 feet beneath the sea near the Mobile-Tensaw Delta (Ben Raines, Mobile Press-Register, Alabama Media Group, September 2, 2012, updated April 10, 2014). There are also ancient river basins now underwater in the Gulf of Mexico along the Florida coast (Florida Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee Florida/Rosenthal School Division of Marine Affairs). There are underwater cities discovered off the coast of Cuba (Frank Joseph, “The Atlantis Encyclopedia” p269). However, nothing whatever has been found along the eastern coast of Mexico, especially where Wheeler claims there was an ancient extension of the Gulf of Mexico into the Mexican inland area around central to northern Mexico.
    In addition, and most importantly, the area that Wheeler claims was underwater, has a relatively  high elevation of between 5,285 feet and 12,39 feet—which means to be underwater, the Gulf of Mexico would have had to rise high enough to get over the Sierra Madre Oriental mountain range, which runs parallel to the Gulf of Mexico and just inland from the coast!
Top left: Location of (red circle) Wheeler’s extension of the Gulf of Mexico. Note the mountain range in the midst of it; Top right: The Sierra Madre Oriental, rising to over 10,000 feet in height—could the sea-level Gulf have gotten over those mountains? Bottom: The Sierra Madre Oriental running just inland from the coast, completely blocks any inland movement of water from the sea

    Consider these areas, which pretty much covers the entire region of Wheeler’s “an ancient extension of the Gulf of Mexico” claim:
Cuates de Australia 5285-feet
San Luis Potosi  6069-feet
Guanajuato  6586-feet
Iturbide  6896-feet
San Antonio de las Alazanas  7150-feet
Zacatacas  8100-feet
Hildago  9160-feet
Tamaulpas  10760-feet
    In addition, the Sierra Madre Oriental mountains which run from the Texas border southward for 620 miles in an almost continuous chain of mountains, running to Puebla where it joins with the east west running Eje Volcánico mountain range. The Sierra Madre Oriental has several peaks over 10,000 feet, with the three highest peaks over 12,100 feet. How on earth could the Gulf of Mexico have risen high enough to have ran inland as Wheeler claims? 
    What has happened to common sense?
    After all, common sense alone should tell Wheeler that to be inundated with water, that such a huge rise in the ocean would have been impossible and there is no record of such happening in the Gulf of Mexico, which would have wiped out most of coastal Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and all of Florida. How ridiculous. Besides, without some type of supportive evidence, that such a claim is outright fallacious—sure it makes the map look good and creates a narrow neck, but the fact remains that there was never an inland sea there and therefore, never a narrow neck where he claims.
    Another case of a lack of common sense is seen in the Heartland and Eastern U.S theorists who clsim the Nephite Nation’s capitol of Zarahemla was located in eastern Iowa across the Mississippi River from Nauvoo, and claim the Mississippi River was the River Sidon of the Land of Promise. Neither could be further from the truth. One fact alone discounts this fallacy.
As the scriptural record so clearly tells us, the Land of Nephi was to the south of the Land of Zarahemla, and that the Land of Nephi was at a  higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla

    The problem, and lack of common sense, is in not accepting the clearly stated circumstance as the fact that the Land of Nephi, the Lamanite lands, were at a higher elevation than the Land of Zarahemla, for the Lamanites were continually “going down” to Zarahemla (Alma 27:5,8-9; 57:16:28,30). Yet, in a drastic ignoring of the scriptural record, the Heartland and Eastern U.S. theorists place Zarahemla in Iowa where there is no higher elevation lands anywhere around to the south of there.
Top: Looking south from Nauvoo, along the Mississippi (Zarahemla in Iowa is across the river to the right), the land as far as can be seen is flat as a pancake; Bottom: Further south from Nauvoo and Zarahemla, just below Keokuk, looking south. Again, flat as a pancake

    Common sense tells one that if he is going to find a place he wants to call the Land of Promise, then he obviously needs to make sure it matches the scriptural record. If not, then anyone can claim any place is the Land of Promise, which distorts and makes a mockery of the Book of Mormon.
Top: Continuing down the Mississippi southward from Zarahemla, we come to Quincy (47 miles). Note the flat land continues; Bottom: Further south, looking toward St. Louis, Mo. 184 miles from Zarahemla. Note the flat land still continues. This is true in every direction from the Mississippi River southward and northward of the so-called location of Zarahemla

    Another amazing lack of common sense stems from the misunderstanding of a simple statement Moroni abridged in Ether, when he wrote: “And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). Now this simple phrase has three parts:
1. Built a city
2. By the narrow neck of land
3. Where the sea divides the land
    This is not a separate sea, for in English, it is written “where the sea,” in which case the word “the” signals that the noun following has already been introduced, i.e., is already known—it is not a new sea not already mentioned.
Two possibilities based on the scriptural record and the descriptions of both Moroni and Mormon are shown in this sample of two land masses connected by a narrow neck with a "sea that divides the land"

    Thus, we can look for the narrow neck of land where the sea (in this case the West Sea or the East Sea) divides the land. We know this from Mormon’s writing: “by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34). Consequently, one of those two seas must cut into the land, dividing it. In Mesoamerica, there is no such indentation that separates the land anywhere around their Isthmus of Tehuantepec (narrow neck).
In South America, however, the West Sea extends into the land, cutting the lower land mass in two from the upper land mass, separating the two land masses, or divided them as the scriptural record states

As pointed out in the previous post, Voltair stated almost 300 years ago, that "Common sense is not so common." Today's numerous Land of Promise theorists are surely proving him correct.


  1. Oh Wheeler's map is really a hoot. I've never seen a circular fault like the one he is projecting in Mexico. This is pure fantasy. Thanks Del for pointing out another fantasy theory.

  2. Depends on how far back you go. You can get any geography to fit if you accept a window of millions of years.

    What is your upper limit on fitting geologic time into Book of Mormon time? 1 million years? 10 millions years? 100 million years? It will be much easier if we all just stay within accepted standards of time and space.

    1. How about 2000 years for the rising of the Andes to exceedingly great height. Does that work?

    2. Works for some people it seems. Not so much for anybody who follows geologic time.

      Couldn't Tom Wheeler also say that Mexico was once a narrow neck of land until the rising of the Sierra Madre Oriental around 2000 years ago?

    3. Two primary parts of the foundation for Del's theory is a "young earth" time-frame as well as the reality of a world-wide flood. Arguing the finer points of his theory may be fairly pointless if those primary points are a deal breaker for you. On the other hand, reading through Del's theory and seeing how many other points seem an excellent match (ocean currents, climate, flora and fauna, minerals, etc) may inspire one to seriously reconsider those primary points. To possibly (mis)use Occum's Razor; with all of the matching points of evidence that very strongly correlate between observed traits of South America and the traits recorded in the Book of Mormon, and with a lack of other (similarly strong) candidates, perhaps some "facts" that otherwise invalidate Del's theory may themselves need to be reevaluated.

      For full disclosure, this is currently the hardest part of Del's theory for me to accept.

  3. Well that's the rub. I'm a professional geologist and accept Noah's flood and a young earth. The science community does not. From a geologic standpoint the Wheeler idea does not appear plausable. You have a circular fault stretching 500 miles through Mexico. It's very odd looking from a geologic point of view. Faults tend to be fairly linear features. I don't know the Geology on the ground however but suspect there is no evidence of the area being submerged.

    That is not true of South America. There is plenty of evidence that the eastern portion was under water. Del has posted a number of things about that. So I stck to the SA model. It works very well.

  4. Unknown: You wrote: “Works for some people it seems. Not so much for anybody who follows geologic time.” You might be surprised by two things: 1) Geologic time was an evolutionary belief long before any type of “so-called” proof became available. When that proof began to emerge, it was forced to be placed within the geological time by evolutionists who simply shouted down anyone who didn’t agree with them. As one famous quote of the period, which we have printed here a few times, clearly states: “Geologic time is better than the alternative” the alternative being God created the Earth. We are dealing with godless men who pose as scientists, but demand mankind accept their absolutely absurd time frames, geological scale, etc., which time and again has been shown to be not only ridiculous to the common man, but extremely weak scientifically, and in almost all cases, indefensible; and 2) Geologic time is based on a principle that has never actually been found to exist anywhere on the Earth in its entirety. So one can tout that from the rooftops, but it does not make it correct. Only actual evidence can verify something scientifically, and the evolutionists who insist geologic time exists cannot do that in any way, shape, or form. Every time a hole is shown to exist in their models, they then change their models, rather than accept they do not work. Most scientists today understand the “elephant in the corner” of this discussion, but are unwilling to do anything about it because their reputations, income, careers, and funding all depend upon their following the evolutionary propaganda and embracing the geologic time scale and all the rest of the erroneous matters that are involved. To claim science is on a higher ground in this issue is truly a ground that is difficult to maintain and few arguments beyond shouting one down can be mounted in its defense. If you are a member of the Church, then you are in a very small minority in this issue—if you are not, then you are in a majority that have not basis to maintain their stance other than the diatribe that has been fostered by evolutionists on a very unsuspecting public for far too many years now. In Darwin’s day, evolutionists could get away with all sorts of statements and ideas, since they were uncontestable in the day; however, in our day, so much knowledge exists to make their arguments and tenets unfounded that they haven’t a leg to stand on. In my book, Scientific Fallacies and Other Myths, we point out so much of the modern knowledge of science that completely debunks evolution that no one knows much about that it makes evolution appear as the joke it really is. But the information is also available all over the internet of scientists who have been stepping forward in recent years to fight against the long-time monopoly of ignorance evolution has fostered, which includes the Geologic Time scale. Truth may not work for you, but it certainly does for me.

  5. Unknown: You wrote: “Couldn't Tom Wheeler also say that Mexico was once a narrow neck of land until the rising of the Sierra Madre Oriental around 2000 years ago?” The reason you cannot say that is because there is no scientific evidence, proof, or support to such a statement. If you would avail yourself of knowledge and stop just spouting off what others have said, you would know that even the most significant and top Orogeny scientists in the world tell you that the Andes are the youngest mountain range in the Western Hemisphere by far, and they “popped up” geologically speaking, then you have evidence that the event we describe happened. While so many, and perhaps yourself, like to make statements today that are both unfounded and unprovable, we do not. All that we state here in this blog has scientific backing—it may not be the so-called mainstream science of evolution, but it is certainly promoted by renowned and well respected scientists.

  6. Unknown: You wrote “Depends on how far back you go. You can get any geography to fit if you accept a window of millions of years.” Actually, you cannot. While evolution claims given enough time anything is possible as their vanguard “motto,” that is absolutely unprovable and even unsustainable. Given enough time is simply a statement to suggest that there is no way to disprove evolution’s numerous stupid stands and predictions of man evolving from the slime in a single cell amoeba. The Lord dictated to Moses what he was to write in Genesis:
    • Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. The origins of the cosmos
    • Genesis 2:5 - 5:2. The origins of mankind
    • Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a. The histories of Noah
    • Genesis 6:9b - 10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah
    • Genesis 10:2 - 11:10a. The histories of Shem
    From all of this comes a clear understanding of the ages of the world. When comparing this to the Book of Moses, you have two verification, and Abraham adds a brief third evidence. If you accept Joseph Smith, he added a fourth verification by usiung this information in his School of the Prophets in which he gave and then tested the brethren on what they learned and remembered of these dates, etc. Thus, whatever took place in the creation or organization of the Earth, happened within a rather short time frame. So there is no such idea as “given enough time.” You may think man’s knowledge trumps God’s, but I don’t.

  7. Unknown: Please keep in mind, that if you are not going to add to our knowledge and improve our understanding, then your comments have little value here. We deal in supportive facts and evidence, and cite our findings with specific information (see the book Scientific Fallacies and Other Myths; 560 pages, 1466 references footnoted). And if you are going to send us references with your ideas, cite specific statements or summation findings, not an entire article—that is simply lazy and not scholarly.