Tuesday, August 8, 2017

How Maps Have Changed the World – Part II

Continued from the previous post, regarding how early map making has its impact on our understanding of maps today.
Left:  440 BC Map by Herodotus, copying the (Right) map of 500 BC by Anaximander, who was the first ancient Greek to draw a map of the known world. Note: in both cases there is no separate island shown for the area today known as the Malay Peninsula

Cartography continued to develop in China throughout its various dynasties and in 605 an early map using a grid system was created by Pe Ju of the Sui Dynasty, and in 801 the Hai Nei Hua Yi Tu (Map of both Chinese and Barbarian Peoples within the [Four] Seas) was created by the Tang Dynasty to show China as well as its Central Asian colonies. The map was 30 feet by 33 feet and used a grid system with a highly accurate scale. 
The Fra Mauro map, which is one great European/Asian/African map made around 1450 by the Ventian monk Fra Mauro. Note the circle and arrow pointing to the Malahy Peninsula, completely attached to the mainland (not an island as a reader has claimed)

In 1579 the Guang Yutu atlas was produced and contained over 40 maps that used a grid system and showed major landmarks like roads and mountains as well as the borders of different political areas. 16th and 17th century Chinese maps continued to develop to clearly show regions under exploration. By the mid-20th century China developed an Institute of Geography that was responsible for official cartography. It emphasized fieldwork in the production of maps focused on physical and economic geography.
    Like Greece and China (as well as other areas throughout the rest of the world) the development of cartography was significant in Europe as well. Early medieval maps were mainly symbolic like those that came out of Greece. Beginning in the 13th century the Majorcan Cartographic School was developed and consisted of a Jewish collaboration of cartographers, cosmographers and navigators/navigational instrument makers—they invented the Normal Portolan Chart, a nautical mile chart that used grided compass lines for navigation. 
    Consider for a moment that as a resident of North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, “up,” geographically, means northward toward what is considered by these individuals as the “top of the world.” On the other hand, if you were to live in South America, Africa, Australia and Indonesia, “up” means southward, to what would be to those people, the “top of the world.”
An image of the Earth taken in space showing the south pole at the top. In space there is no up or down—only in relationship to how individual faces

At the same time, if you were on a space station in outer space, looking down at the world, what would be the “top” and what would be the “bottom”? Of course there is no up or down because in space, everything is oriented to the direction one faces.
    In addition, the early Chinese compasses actually pointed “south.” Yet, that is not how Chinese maps were oriented, since, according to Jerry Brotton, a map historian from Queen Mary University, London, “the Emperor lived in the north of the country and was always put at the top of the map, with everyone else, his loyal subjects, looking up towards him.” Thus in Chinese culture, “the Emperor looks south because it’s where the winds come from, it’s a good direction. North is not very good but you are in a position of subjection to the emperor, so you look up to him.”
    Consequently, cartography developed in a myriad of ways, and not the same in each country or region. For example, in Europe during the Age of Exploration as cartographers, merchants and explorers created maps showing the new areas of the world that they visited, maps were designed with the mariner in mind, with detailed nautical charts and maps used for navigation.
    In the 15th century Nicholas Germanus (meaning Nicholas the German) invented the Donis map projection, which had equidistant parallels and meridians that converged toward the poles. The Spanish cartographer and explorer, Juan de la Cosa, who sailed with Columbus, produced the first maps during his second voyage when he commanded the Nina. He also traveled with Amerigo Vespuci when they explored the coast of South America.
In 1527, Diogo Ribeiro (Ribero), a Portuguese cartographer, working on the first scientific world map called the Padrón Real (Census or Register General) from 1518-1532, and made navigational instruments, including astrolabes and quadrants. His maps showed the coasts of Central and South America accurately as well as the extent of the Pacific Ocean. 
    In the mid-1500s Gerardus Mercator (Gerard de Cremer), a Flemish (Belgium) cartographer, invented the Mercator map projection, on which parallels and meridians are rendered as straight lines spaced to produce at any point an accurate ratio of latitude to longitude (he also coined the term
“atlas” for a collection of maps). His work was mathematically based and one of the most accurate for world-wide navigation that was available at the time, and by the time he was age 24, he was a superb engraver, an outstanding calligrapher, and a highly skilled scientific-instrument maker, developing the most-widely used map projection and a standard taught in cartography.

    As the 16th century continued, and on into the 18th century, cartographic techniques continued to grow in their accuracy and additional maps were created due to further European exploration, which  showed various parts of the world that had not before been mapped.
    The invention of the compass, telescope, sextant, quadrant and printing press all allowed for maps to be made more easily and accurately, ushering in a more modern cartographic era. These new technologies also led to the development of different map projections that more precisely showed the world. For example, in 1772 the Lambert conformal conic was created and in 1805 the Albers equal area-conic projection was developed. In the 17th and 18th centuries the United States Geological Survey and the National Geodetic survey used new tools to map trails and survey government lands.
In the 20th century the use of planes to take aerial photographs changed the types of data that could be used to create maps. Satellite imagery has since been added to the list of data and can aid in showing large areas in great detail. Finally, Geographic Information Systems, or GIS, is a relatively new technology that is changing cartography today because it allows for many different types of maps using various types of data to be easily created and manipulated with computers.
    Over all this time and effort, maps have accurately portrayed the world as it was known to the mapmaker of the time. To better understand some of the changes in the world that took place, it is helpful to know the mapping changes that occurred. As an example, we learn of the fourth part or fourth quarter, or quarter of the land mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which is the same concept used in early map making of the two parts, three parts and four parts of the world, or four quarters, or fourth quarter—giving us a different understanding of those terms than are used and understood today.
    For those who study history and know of its development that was recorded prior to the 1900s (when writing started its long downward slope of alteration and change), one gets a far different view at times of the history we think we know so well.
    Much like Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language aids us in better understanding the words and their meanings that Joseph Smith knew, as opposed to how we know them today, a knowledge of early map making and its progress over the centuries helps us better understand the world we live in and how it was viewed at different times by different peoples—which is not always the way we think today.

59 comments:

  1. "Note the circle and arrow pointing to the Malahy Peninsula, completely attached to the mainland (not an island as a reader has claimed)"

    This is a misrepresentation of the Malay models. If you zoom in closer on the map you will see that Malay is completely separated from the mainland. Take a look, it is definitely an island on the Fra Mauro map:

    https://cloudup.com/cslhZlBs3-I

    ReplyDelete
  2. I got out my magnifying glass and took a look at the thing and it is indeed connected to the mainland. So to me it just more nonsense from Jay. The Malay model is complete crap and this is just one of many nails in the coffin. Strange how the Malay model has been completely destroyed in the blog and yet Jay still thinks he can breath some life back into the dead corpse.

    The South American model is the only model that fits the scriptures completely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look again.

      https://cldup.com/-bsqxGxHV9.thumb.png

      If you are going to say that triangle-shaped island is connected to the mainland, then it is clear that you are prepared to ignore facts in order to validate your opinions.

      That is very definitely an island.

      Delete
  3. As I said - I looked at it and its a peninsula. If you want to ignore all the evidence then go right ahead. The issue for me is settled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what I don't understand about you. You can look at something that is one thing and say it is another. That is weird, but I have no problem with that.

      What puzzles me is how you can look at one thing and say it is another, and then claim that your skewed view is proof that others are wrong.

      Have a look again Ira.

      https://cldup.com/hUIIcoLluB-3000x3000.png

      Is that proof that Malay was not drawn as an island on the Fra Mauro map? Please explain how you reach this conclusion.

      Delete
  4. Jay, Del's map shows me it's a peninsula. There are so many other problems with this lousy model such as the lineage of the people, wrong continent, no sea path to Malaysia just to name the obvious. Your model is nothing but a rotten, smelly, corpse that doesn't need even a minute worth of consideration. With all the obvious evidence against this lousy model I don't understand why you want to keep spewing this lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you don't know how to open the links I have been providing. Because there is no way that you can honestly say that the link I provided above shows Malay as anything other than an island.

      If you aren't reading the material that you constantly request me to provide, there's no wonder we cannot have a productive conversation.

      Delete
    2. I don't look at your links as I've told you in the past because it isn't necessary. You haven't proven to me one thing when it comes to your model. Del has debunked it in so many ways, but you keep on repeating disproven stuff. No I'm not going to look at it because it's all garbage. Why haven't you accepted any of the information Del has provided. South America fits perfectly and you haven't said anything that disproves it. The burden is on you to show me why it doesn't work which you haven't done. Your model has already been shown to be garbage.

      Delete
    3. "I don't look at your links as I've told you in the past because it isn't necessary. You haven't proven to me one thing when it comes to your model."

      And how could I prove anything to you if you don't read the arguments I provide? For example, you have claimed time and time again that the inhabitants of ancient China are pagan "orientals" and could never be related to the Book of Mormon people. I could provide a link demonstrating that the people of ancient China were in fact Iranians from Mesopotamia, exactly as described in the Book of Mormon. But my evidence that the Book of Mormon got it right would be unacceptable to you because you are so hung up on your opinions that you refuse to even consider evidence that agrees with the Book of Mormon. Follow the link below for evidence that the Book of Mormon is right. A Jaredite-like group migrated from Mesopotamia to the Pacific Coast by at least the 2nd or 1st millennium BC.

      https://www.evernote.com/l/AAh6zJcs2-NBcKJabH_OAeXGsp2xewUSRm0

      Delete
    4. If you are having trouble following the links, try this: select the link text by hovering over it while holding down your mouse button. Then press Control and C together. Then move your cursor to the place in your browser where the website addresses go. Then press Control and V together. Hit enter and the link will load.

      Delete
    5. Jay,this is Del's blog. Del has already disproven your model completely. So let's go back to the REVELATION given to FG Williams. You said you don't believe. So the burden is on you to disproven that revelation. Del has shown a clear sea path out of Arabia to Chile at 30 South Latitude. The climate there is meditarianian. There are all the previous metals there Nephi describes. The animals he describes are there. The seeds would have grown exceedingly well there.

      So show me that this revelation is wrong first before you try to prove your lousy model that has already been disproven. Let's start there.

      Delete
    6. The burden of proof is on you to prove how the FG Williams note is REVELATION. The Church has already commented on the matter, and their comment holds more official weight than anything I could say about it. Here's the statement:

      Official statement from the LDS Church on the matter of the landing place of Lehi, given in The Instructor by Frederick J Pack, Chairman of the Gospel Doctrine Committee of the Church. In direct response to the statement in the Richards and Little’s Compendium supposedly revealing the landing place of Lehi in Chile. He states:

      “Its authenticity, however, is subject to grave doubt, as witness the following: the only known source of authority is a single sheet of manuscript presented to the Church’s Historian’s Office, in 1864, by Ezra G. Williams, son of FG Williams… But the Compendium caption [A Revelation to Joseph the Seer] is not on this sheet, although the writing ‘bears a good deal of evidence of having been written in the hand of FG Williams. ‘The Church has issued no information concerning the route followed by Lehi…until that is done, teachers and Gospel Doctrine departments should refrain from expressing definite opinions”

      So there it is. Concerning the Lehite landing point, there is no official statement. There is no revelation.

      Delete
    7. Doesn't cut it Jay because there isn't one for Malaysia either. Address the issue. Sea path works, climate works, metals work, animals work, and dna works. All fits

      Delete
    8. Sea paths work better for Malay. Climate works better for Malay. Metals work better for Malay. Animals work better for Malay. DNA works better for Malay. All fits better in Malay.

      Delete
    9. No sea path does not work better and Del has already destroyed that one for you. But let's go on to climate. We all ready know Chile has a Mediterranean climate so Malaysia can't be better than perfect. Why doesn't Malyasia have a Mediterranean climate?

      Delete
    10. No. You can't skip over sea paths. I've already demonstrated (through the links you never click) that testing has been done on sea currents and winds, and those tests show that floating objects released off the coast of Oman are pushed directly into the Malay Peninsula.

      None of the tests show a single floating object being pushed by winds and currents from the Arabian Peninsula to Chile. Not a single time. Never.

      Why do tests show that objects released off the coast of Oman are pushed to Malay, and not Chile?

      Here's the link again, just in case you decide to actually click this time:

      https://cloudup.com/cAtdnqd7tY6

      Delete
    11. Del showed conclusively that the second path slams into India. He showed that on his website and it is conclusive. So that is one nail in the coffin. Let's do climate because here is another nail. The average temp Malysia is 80.6. they get well over 100 inches precip per year. Jerusalem is semiarid and even at times has snow
      They aren't comparable in any way and their seeds would not grow in a tropical cimate that we find in Malaysia. So again why does it have a Mediterranean climate which is required for seed growth?

      Delete
    12. Spell check keeps getting me. Way doesn't Malaysia have the right climate let alone soil requirements?

      Delete
    13. What is "the second path"? If you put floating objects into the ocean near Oman they float, or are blown, to the Malay Peninsula. Just click the link, the research has already been done for you.

      Not one single floating object has been shown to float from Oman to Chile. So no, Del has not "shown conclusively"...rather, the research conducted on this very question shows that nearly all floating objects slam up against the Malay Peninsula. That is conclusive. Click the link, and watch the timelapse video:

      https://cloudup.com/cAtdnqd7tY6

      Once you click the link, then we can move on to climate.

      Delete
    14. Or you can try using the interactive map yourself. Try to find a place near Oman that provides a path for a floating object to bypass the Malay Peninsula to reach Chile. I can't find one.

      http://adrift.org.au/

      Delete
    15. I meant sea path and Del has already debunked your lousy path. The wind and current don't go there. But let's go on to climate because you didn't convince me before and you won,t convince me now.

      Delete
    16. Jay, while you are trying to come up with a reasonable explanation for the wrong climate in Malaysia you might t also try to tell me why they don't have corn, wheat, and barley as crops. They have them in South America but not in Malaysia. They have as their principle crop rice and coconuts. These are not mentioned in the Bom. So why aren't these crops grown there today? Could it possible be the wrong climate?

      Delete
    17. Jay, I noticed another problem with your model today. I took a look at the map that you think shows Malaysia to be an island and thought maybe he has something there (I’m sure you didn’t get the sarcasm in this statement and so I’ll tell that it’s there). I measured the distance from tip to tip and it’s only about 500 miles. There is no narrow neck of land. In fact, it’s almost circular. So, since there is no narrow neck this disqualifies this model. If you connect it as a peninsula then you do have a narrow neck but then you lose it as an island.

      Now from the land of their first inheritance to the hill Cumorah in the South American model is 2,300 miles give or take. Plenty of room for two civilizations to live. Ecuador alone is the same size as your Malaysia or about 500 miles long x 500 miles wide with no narrow neck. This is another nail in the coffin of the lousy Malaysian model as if we need any more.

      Why didn’t the Jaredites and the Nephites come in contact with each other if they would have landed at almost the same place? Nothing makes sense with your model.

      So, let’s recap the problems we’ve found just today.

      1. No sea path – this has been discussed by Del and no need to go into any more detail. But beyond that the Jaredites and Nephites would have to have landed at the same place roughly because the island that you propose is very small – only 500 miles round both length and width.
      2. There is no narrow neck of land on your island. If you put one in then it becomes a peninsula and not an island.
      3. Why would Hagoth build a great ship just to sail a short distance to the mainland? Doesn’t make sense. But again, there is no narrow neck to sail from as explain in the BOM in your model unless you connect it to the peninsula which would negate the model anyway.
      4. The climate of Malaysia is tropical with an average temperature of 80.6 degrees and a rainfall of around 100 inches a year. The climate of Jerusalem is semiarid and at times even has snow. Therefore, the crops Nephi would have brought would not grow in this climate.
      5. The principle crop of Malaysia is rice. You have two problems when considering the crops. First the Book of Mormon does not mention rice as a staple or even at all. The BOM mentions wheat, barley, and corn. None of these crops are grown in Malaysia and certainly would be grown today if this were Nephite lands. So, both the Book of Mormon mention of certain crops that aren’t grown in Malaysia is a problem as well as the lack of mentioning crops that are a main crop of the country. These are real problems that you cannot address adequately without resorting to lying. But I need a good laugh so please give it a shot.

      Delete
    18. Ira, thanks for finally providing some substantive arguments for discussion.

      (1) First off, had you followed the links I provided last time we talked about the island/peninsular setting you would have seen references to several geographers who have stated that it is very likely that the Malay Peninsula was at one point an island AND a peninsula. Meaning that at different points in time the narrow neck would flood and the peninsula would become an island. So this is not an issue.

      Secondly, the Malay Peninsula and land north WAS home to two distinct civilizations, one in the north and another in the south. There is evidence of this. These were large civilizations numbering in the millions at certain points in time. Indeed, in modern times peninsular Malaysia has a population of 22 million and Singapore another 5 million. You can't argue that there wasn't enough room for the Book of Mormon groups. Population and carrying capacity is not a problem.

      (1) Sea path. Again, for what must be the 10th time, testing has been done on ocean currents and wind and it has been found that floating objects dropped off the coast of Oman are driven directly to the Malay Peninsula, not Chile. Sea paths between the Arabian Peninsula and the Malay Peninsula exist, so this is not a problem.

      (2) Island/Peninsula. Yes, there is a narrow neck on the Malay Peninsula. It is around 60 miles wide and takes between one to two days to cross. At points of flooding and high sea levels in the past, the peninsula was said to become an island.

      (3) Hagoth. Yes, there is a narrow neck to sail from, and at the narrow neck there is a deep sea port that matches the description of a sea dividing the land. North of this point are ancient sea ports that would have received trading ships that departed from this narrow neck.

      (4) Climate. The fruits, grains and vegetables mentioned in the Book of Mormon are all found in the Malay Peninsula. These are documented back to the Book of Mormon time period. This is not true for South America where barley and wheat are not found.

      (5) Rice. The Book of Mormon mentions two unidentified grains. I believe one of these could have been rice. You say that wheat, barley and corn were not grown on the peninsula, but this is false. There are ancient texts that document the use of wheat and barley. In fact, the peninsula was referred to as Barley Island in some ancient texts. Arab traders describes wheat being sold in the market places. Corn is simply an English word for assorted grains.

      I have addressed the arguments you have made, so please stop saying that I do not address them or that I am lying. Please at least try to discuss the topic at hand instead of attack my character.

      Delete
    19. Sorry you still haven't addressed any of these things adequately because you can't. Look at the map that Del provided and you see there is no narrow neck. The grains are not grown there today that are mentioned in the Bom. Again you ignore the issue. I guess if you get caught as we've done you can't resort to lying about it. So again your model is a complete failure. We could go on to the animals but since you can't even address these obvious problems that destroy your lousy model there is no point. You did not address the climate at all. Seeds from Jerusalem would not grow in a tropical environment. So this alone destroys your model.

      I'll keep on attacking it and you can keep on ignoring the obvious errors that destroy this garbage model. How can anybody with any kind of sense accept such a pile of garbage as you've put out.

      Delete
    20. One thing at a time Ira.

      You say that there is no narrow neck of land on the Malay Peninsula. Please refer to the World Map. You will see that there is indeed a narrow neck of land that separates the Malay Peninsula from the mainland. This is so obvious, that it shouldn't require a mention.

      Just look at a map.

      Delete
    21. As for grains. It does not matter what is grown today, what matters is what was grown anciently. As I said in my comment. Wheat was found in markets in ancient times. So was barley. Were these things found in South America? Is there any evidence of barley and wheat in ancient South America?

      And how about animals:

      Elephants
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Horses
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Goats
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Sheep
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Cattle
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Swine
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Oxen
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Asses
      Malay Peninsula: Yes
      South America: No

      Etc. Etc. Etc.

      Delete
    22. Look at the map with the the circle. That is what I'm referring to. You can see that the tip of the peninsula is what you think is not connected. Fine! I'll go with that. There is only an island roughly 500 miles round. There is no narrow neck. If you connect it the island becomes a penisula. Yes then you do indeed have a narrow neck except now you do not have an island. Either way you are wrong. Also if you put the Jaredites on the North side of the narrow neck then you are in the mainland and no island either. So you have many problems that are not resolvable. The model simply is wrong and the maps prove it.

      Delete
    23. All those animals you mentioned are yes for South America. Ahhh why didn't Nephi mention the buffalo? The water buffalo is certainly indigenous to the area and yet it's not mentioned.

      You still haven't commented on the tropical climate vs semiarid. Kind if tough for ya?

      Delete
    24. Look at the map again because the one with the circle tells the entire story as to why this model is garbage.

      Delete
    25. So how do you resolve the problem of South America not being an island OR a peninsula? Now take your answer and apply it to all the other Book of Mormon geographies. Problem solved.

      Fortunately the Malay models aren't dependent on a condensed geological timeframe to work. The Malay Peninsula is already a peninsula (not a continent) with a narrow neck of land that has been an island during times of flooding and high sea levels...during the Book of Mormon time period.

      Can you cite one source outside of Del's blog that identifies elephants, horses, goats, sheep, cattle, oxen and asses as being present in South America during the Book of Mormon time period? Just one source and I will accept your argument.

      Then please give me the chapter and verse that states the Promised Land was a semiarid climate, or mentions anything at all about climate.

      Delete
    26. Jay, the seeds Nephi would have brought with him would be from Jerusalem. We know what the seeds are and they would not grow in a climate that have 100 inches of rain a year. THATS A FACT. The crops that are grown there today would be the same as the crops grown anciently and the main crop for thousands of years is rice. THATS A FACT. The main source of food for the Nephites is mentioned: Wheat, Barley and Corn. THATS A FACT. These are facts that your model does not support. The climate is completely wrong.

      Now as for the fact that South America was once an island. Del has gone into this extensively. Helaman 14 talks about mountains being lifted up and mountains sinking into valleys. The Andes is the youngest mountain range on this continent. Plate tectonics tells us clearly that this can happen in South America.

      I don't know why you don't believe in Noah's flood nor the idea that the earth is only thousands of years old and not millions. The bible as well as the BOM, and D&C clearly teach us this. My only conclusion is you simply do not believe in the power of God and that is the real reason you can't accept any of the scriptures. Too bad! because Noah's flood is a fact as well as the earth being only thousands of years old.

      The narrow neck doesn't work for several reasons as I'm mentioned to you. For one thing the Jaredites lived North of the narrow neck. North or your narrow neck is the mainland and therefore the island doesn't exist. If you look at the map with the circle the island doesn't have a narrow neck. So it fails in several ways. If you want to explain that one then go ahead. I need another good laugh. I have my atlas right here and so we can look it up. I suppose you are able to bluff most other people with your garbage because they won't take the time to look at a map to make sense of it all.

      So now we need to add to the list that you do not believe in the bible's chronology of events and the life span of people of the earth. There's another problem that needs to be addressed by you. Lots of nails in the coffin. Your model is simply garbage.

      Delete
    27. As for the animals all I would have to do is show that there are bones of all those animals in South America anciently which I can do. Since Noah's flood would have destroyed all evidence before had I can indeed show elephant bones in south America as well as horse and other creatures. Del has made a great case for the Curelom and Cumom. You might want to look at his book appendices XXVII for that one or his chapter 7 starting on page 240 for his list of Wild and domesticated animals. You can find it in his book Lehi Never Saw Mesoamerica. So YES all those animals are found in South America. And NO I do not believe all those animals are found in Malaysia. At least they were not listed online and so I rather doubt you have them there. But you can research this is you want too. I've looked at a number of sites that show that they did indeed have all the animals there in South America anciently. So far it all fits. Go get the book and read it. It destroys your model completely.

      Delete
  5. Del, I'm curious-I see many of these maps change the orientation of the maps, but do any actually change the cardinal directions? Or is that just John Sorenson?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Unknown:throughout our posting of the information you claim we cannot verify, we have listed the verification sources. On the other hand, you state: "As for grains. It does not matter what is grown today, what matters is what was grown anciently. As I said in my comment. Wheat was found in markets in ancient times. So was barley." but show no verification, source, etc. This leaves your statement in the speculation, belief, assumption area until you provide at least one, but preferably two sources to show that your information is legitimate. Until you do, you are not in the arena of discussion--merely speculation and questionable at that. And I don't meant sources no one can read, see, or understand, like your map recently shown on a cloud website.
    And as for what exists today, if it doesn't grow there today, it wouldn't have grown there anciently, because today with all the added technology, almost anything can grow almost anywhere, but anciently, the soil, temperature and climate determined what would grow where--not man's technology. And wheat and barley cannot grow in peninsular Malay today--it has been tried and failed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown: Just to put us on some type of even footing, STOP making statements without verification. As an example, show proof of the fact that elephants, horses goats, sheep, cattle, swine, oxen, asses, existed in the Jaredite period (2100 BC to about 600 BC) in the Malay Peninsula. By verification, I mean professional zoologists or paleontologists statements that BONES OF EACH OF THESE ANIMALS HAS BEEN FOUND DATED TO THAT PERIOS AT LEAST 2000 BC. I don't mean someone's belief, assumption, or speculation (which is common for such dates among archaeologists and anthropologists) but actual FACTS. Until you do, your comments have no weight or acceptance on this website!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough. However, if you insist on equal footing, do you want to use Biblical geological time and compress millions of years of biological history into the last 6000 years, or do you prefer the accepted scientific geological history?

      If you allow for Biblical time in your model, I expect it should be allowed in all others. So I propose we stick to standard scientific chronologies.

      Delete
  8. Unknown: What you seem to not understand is that your references and internet sites to check out are not professional research websites of information, but something someone made and uploaded to this cloud website. No professional researcher would use that source to publish a professional research paper--they use professional journals. These are the sources we are interested in. The last one of these cloud or private sites you gave us I checked out in great detail and finally found after a lot of source bouncing around of "hidden" information as to the originator of the map and found it was made by a theorist for the Malay Land of Promise theory. If you can't understand how to play on a level field, then you simply are over-matched in all your efforts by those who play by the rules of intelligent and professional discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I added the Cloudup link to make it easier to find the information. Please note that I also included the link to the website where I screengrabbed that video. Here it is again:

      http://adrift.org.au/

      "Since the late 1970s, ocean scientists have tracked drifting buoys but it wasn't until 1982 the World Climate Research Programme put forward the idea of a standardised global array of drifting buoys. These buoys float with the currents just like plastics except - like Twitter from the sea - they send a short message to scientists every six hours about where they are and the conditions in that location.

      With this information, we have been able to create a statistical model of the surface pathways of our oceans. The Adrift website uses this model and generates an animation of the likely path and destination of floating debris over a ten year period into the future."

      The website is funded by a partnership of scientific institutions including the Imperial College London, Grantham Institute, Data Science Institute and the ARC Center of Excellence for Climate System Science.

      Erik van Sebille is the lead researcher and his website and associated published papers on the topic are available at http://www.erik.vansebille.com/science/.

      Delete
  9. Jay, I find it interesting that you are able to cherry pick what you want to see and hear. I've told you a number of times that you can't grow wheat, corn and barley in a tropical climate. Yet you keep going back to pound on one thing. It takes all of them to make a good model which you simply don't have. The climate is WRONG. Absolutely 100% WRONG. What is the main crop in South America today? It's wheat and corn. Barley is part of it as well and these are not grown in Malaysia. So your model fails.

    If you think a buoy is going to save your lousy model think again. The winds blow out of Arabia into the Indian ocean. Sorry buddy but your model fails. There are so many problems with it that it's laughable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets go back and look again at your narrow neck. If the Jaredites lived north of the narrow neck they would be located on the mainland. Again, your model fails because it was Jacob that said it was an island. If you say that it is an island then where is the narrow neck? You claim that the map Del provided shows that Malaysia is an island. Yet if that is the case then your island is only 500 miles by 500 miles. There is no narrow neck and so the model fails again. So the geography does not work in any way possible. I'm still waiting for a response to this and haven't heard one yet. I know it's kind of tough to come up with a reasonable explanation when there isn't one to be had. You just can't make a crappy model fit correctly. You might want to find a different hobby than trying to tell stories to people that can detect your errors.

      Delete
    2. Ira, I find it interesting that you keep hopping around from one demand to another. Please try to focus on one thing at a time. Cherry picking your complaints and throwing them out in a single paragraph over and over again makes for a confusing discussion. I suggest we begin with animals and move from there. But first I need to know if you and Del prefer only Biblical chronologies or geological time as is the standard in science. Once we've established that the playing field, as Del put it, should be level.

      Delete
    3. Jay, I'm a geologist. I've dealt with geologic time all my life. I studied it in school and I dealt with it on the job. I understand what geologic time is and I know that there is a great divide between Christians and atheism on this subject. You either accept the bible record or you don't. If you want scientific research on this topic and is rigorous then go to a place like Institute for Creation research and there you will find PhD's who are working on many things using science. Their research through looking at Helium diffusion rate from zircons showed that the earth is only 7,000 years old. If you want that kind of research go there. I for one accept the bible,BOM, And D&C and what it says. These are prophets of God speaking and in none of them do they say that the earth is old. Adam was the first man on the earth and the 1st flesh according to the Pearl of Great Price. That means he created the animals. The flood created the fossil record on this earth. There were no animals on earth before Adam and that is what the PofGP says. Now you can believe it or not. If you don't believe it then I have to tell you I don't believe you believe in revelation. You certainly do not accept the scriptures if that is the case. You want to make a case the earth is old from the scriptures then lets hear it. I'll be glad to show you the relevant scriptures that will show that the earth is young and Adam was the 1st flesh on the earth. Go for it buddy.

      Delete
    4. Biblical time is fine for me. I have no problem accepting that as the standard for comparing models. I just want to be sure that we are on the same page as it will be very difficult to insist that Biblical chronology is acceptable for your model, but scientific geological standards must be applied to all others.

      My concern is that you will accept things like 15,000 year old mastodon bones as proof of domesticated elephants in Chile while not accepting 15,000 year old mastodon bones as proof of domesticated elephants in Malay.

      Just want to be sure we level the playing field.

      Delete
  10. Mastodon bones can after the flood. They are not I repeat Not 15,000 years old. The dating system is all screwed up as I mentioned from the work of ICR. There are mastodon bones found in Chile and these are the ancient elephants of course.

    The ice age came after Noah's flood and not before.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You still haven't talked to me about climate, and your geography that I brought up earlier. I gave you some references to Del's book to look up about the animals. You ought to buy his book. It has some good information. It'll show you the right location for the Nephites and Jaredites.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One thing at a time please. You are hopping around between too many topics and it will be impossible to provide references to meet Del's requirements for sources if we don't focus on one thing at a time. Again, would you like to use Biblical chronological time to compare models, or do you prefer standard geological time. I need to know that before I can "talk to you about climate, geology, biology etc.

      Delete
  12. We started out very simply but your reluctance to answer anything is quite telling.

    I don't care what you use. Lets talk about 100 inches of rain a year and the fact that wheat/corn aren't grown in Malaysia. Lets talk about the fact that the climate is totally different between Jerusalem and the tropical climate of Malaysia.

    Lets talk about the geography of Malaysia and the fact that your island according the map that Del provided shows that it does not have a narrow neck. If you put one in then it becomes a peninsula. The Jaredites lived north of the narrow neck and that would mean the mainland. And too if you think the narrow neck is the skinny part then we have another problem. the 60 mile width is far too long. So there are multiple problems with the geography. All of these things destroy the model completely. How are you going to overcome these simply little criticism? Everything fits in South America including the revelation to FG Williams.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never been reluctant to answer anything. Quite the opposite, you have confessed to be reluctant to open and read my answers.

      How about let's talk about one thing at a time. We have invested the most time on ocean currents and sea paths, but haven't resolved it yet. So lets complete that before moving on to all the cherry picked things you don't like about the Malay models. Have you looked at the link I provided several times? If you follow the link (or watch the screengrab I provided at the Cloudup link) you will see how decades of research into ocean currents demonstrate that floating objects off the coast of Oman drift directly towards the Malay Peninsula. None of the buoys in this study arrived in Chile. So that is very strong documented scientific evidence that the currents and winds would be more likely to drive a ship to Malay, not Chile.

      Once we have determined the most likely location that currents and winds would drive Lehi's vessel, we can open a discussion about the dozens of other topics you have listed.

      But first, you must be willing and able to open links to external sources. Try with the one I mentioned above:

      http://adrift.org.au/

      If you have trouble opening it, just let me know and I can try to help.

      Delete
  13. I found the link quite telling actually. Look if you are basing your model on a rubber ducky floating in the ocean then you are certifiably nuts!!!! What we are talking about is a ship built for sea travel. You are NOT taking into consideration the winds. The winds and currents blow out of Arabia now that is a FACT. Thats a FACT that you cannot seem to understand. They did NOT build a raft. There are certain times of the year that the winds blow in a direction that would take a vessel down near Madagascar to the lower hemisphere and from there it would pick up the easterly winds that would carry the vessel to the Humbolt current off of South America. That is what the revelation to FG Williams says the Lord did. You still do not believe in revelation.

    So here is the problem, you are not counting on what the Lord is doing and where the Lord is taking them in your lousy model. The Lord is taking them to a land WHERE NO ONE LIVED. That isn't true of your lousy model. People have lived in your area of China and the surrounding area since the tower of Babel. People went there and they were pagan. They would have corrupted the Nephites as happened to the lost tribes of Israel. So YOUR MODEL FAILS. I do not base our model on a floating rubber ducky in the ocean. The winds is what you are discounting. The currents also flow out of there as well. If you look at your floating rubber ducky it does end up off the coast of southern Africa. But that's as far as it goes. There some rubber ducky's that do make it into the Atlantic but how did they get there around the Horn of Africa without crashing and joining the graveyard of ships? Oh its a rubber ducky - that'w why. In other words you are not comparing like things here but a bunch of floating garbage which is exactly what your model is.

    So with that put to bed lets look at your geography and climate. I want you to tell me exactly where the narrow neck is and where the island is located. Then talk to me how wheat and corn which are the main staples of the Nephites can be grown in 100 inches per year tropical rain forest.

    You see everything has to fit and NOTHING fits in your model. Oh I guess there is one thing - they had elephants. So some things fit but not much. The geography will be interesting because I think you are full of crap there too. Tell me where your narrow neck is located.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at your lousy model the place I think you put the narrow neck is at 10 degrees North latitude is that right? There is a narrow neck there which is about 60 miles wide. Its at the Isthms of Kra. There is another narrow neck but not much of one at Songkhla on the northeast coast.

      So a couple of problems I see with your lousy model.

      1. If it were an Island then it would have to be cut off at North of 10 degrees North Lat, but that is the mainland of Thailand and so that doesn't work. Where did the Jaredites live? So that one fails.

      2. If the narrow neck is at Songkhla then the Jaredites then the island would be created at the North 10degree lat and the Jaredites would have lived in a 130 mile section of country. They had over 3 million people at the destruction. There is no way that an ancient society without modern food production and world wide trading could have existed in that small area. Couldn't happen. So the model fails on that account too.

      So these are just a few of the problems I see with the geography. But there is another problem that I pointed out before. The map Del provided shows that it is an island at about 6 or 7 degrees North Lat. That means your narrow neck is underwater. They would have lived on an island about 400 miles long and actually measuring the thing about 200 miles wide. Well that doesn't make any sense at all because the geography is much too small and there isn't a narrow neck. Since we know that your rubber ducky landed on the Southern tip of Malaysia where did Nephi go then when he left the land of his first inheritance? He would have only traveled a maximums of about 250 miles. Well thats nothing at all.

      So there are so real problems with this model. I don't think you and what was his name Olson that came up with this nonsense has really thought it through much. The model doesn't work. So lets talk about the geography because this will be a real tough one for you to explain.

      Delete
    2. The studies were conducted using high grade floatation buoys with on board GPS trackers. These were not rubber duckys, or garbage.

      So before you get too far ahead of yourself, can you explain why these buoys all float towards the Malay Peninsula? Knowing this, are you still going to say that there is no possible way that a floating ship could not have been driven forth before the wind to the Malay Peninsula?

      Can you demonstrate that is feasible to float from Oman to Chile?

      Let's resolve this before we move on to narrow necks etc.

      Delete
    3. Doesn't cut it Jay. They don't have a rudder nor a sail. Sorry It doesn't work for me. Maybe you can fool someone else with this garbage but I don't buy it.

      Yes and Del has already resolved it for us. Buy his book and he'll lay out for you the winds and currents that blow out of Oman to Chile. Where have you been? Haven't you read any of his research on this subject. This is the bedrock evidence that he has presented to you. This is RESOLVED Jay. I would have no problem climbing into a ship today with a rudder and sail and sailing to South America. The winds and currents go that way. The boat is not a bunch of floating garbage like your lousy model.

      Don't tell me that Nephi sat on a raft and waited for the Lord to float him to Malaysia. The problem there too is he would have landed on the southern tip of Malaysia. How did your floating rubber ducky pull that one off by floating all the way down the Strait of Malacca? This is nonsense Jay it din't happen. I don't care about your stupid buoys. We are talking about real people with real boats. You haven't in anyway possible proved your case.

      Delete
    4. "This is RESOLVED Jay. I would have no problem climbing into a ship today with a rudder and sail and sailing to South America."

      This pretty much sums up everything wrong about your arguments.

      Delete
  14. Why? The winds and current flow out of Oman and arrive in South America. With a rudder and a sail this voyage is possible and Del has shown how the winds and currents work. If you want to repeat it all then that's fine but your model doesn't work if you are using floating garbage (Buoy) to make your lousy model work. The Lord showed Nephi how to build a ship. He didn't build a raft. It was sea worthy and not built after the manner of men. The sea path out of Oman has already been mapped by Del and you just have to understand it. So take the time to get his stuff out and read it. Don't try to change my mind with a bunch of floating garbage. I don't buy it and I won't buy it.

    If you have anything else to offer on this subject then bring it on. Else-wise lets move on and destroy your geography of Malaysia. That should be interesting and fun.

    Del's posting today might be a good starting point because that island that you are fond of doesn't have a narrow neck and it is far too small of an area to put two great civilizations anciently.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jay if you want to read the very well written description of how Nephi/Lehi sailed to Chile then get Lehi Never saw Mesoamerica and read starting on page 465 Appendix VI Winds and Currents. It's all laid out for you and does not rely on floating garbage. Nephi would have left during the window of January-April of the year. The winds and currents flow out of Oman and blow south. All he would have had to do is hang on and point the rudder in the direction the Liahona told him to point the thing. He sailed down to the lower latitudes where he would have picked up the eastern winds blowing south of Australia. And there again all he would have to do is hang on and point the rudder to keep the ship on course. After sailing to near the tip of South America the current and winds actually turn north and sail up the coast. This is the Humboldt current. The winds and currents slow to a standstill at 30-degrees South Latitude where FG Williams said they landed by revelation. This is all very simple and easy to understand when you have the right information.

    A bunch of floating garbage and a buoy is not like a ship. the buoy would have been spinning around in the sea discounting any action of the wind. A ship is different Jay, can't you understand the difference? You are discounting the winds and the use of a rudder Jay. That's why your model stinks so bad because it doesn't work and you can't make it work using a bunch of absurd assumptions. The buoy would NOT have floated down the strait of Malacca without running ashore closer to the northern end. It's nonsense to think that Jay. The model fails and I think your floating garbage idea proves the model to be absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, Ira, the landing point in the model I propose is not down the Malacca Strait, it is just above the northern tip of Sumatra. This is where the first civilization in Southeast Asia appears in the 6th century BC, within just a few decades of the Lehite voyage.

      This also happens to be the point where the currents and wind drive garbage, buoys, rubber duckys and ships.

      Delete
    2. BTW - I was thinking that if a buoy or rubber ducky would have been put into the ocean the January-April time frame because they would not be driven any appreciable distance by the wind when the winds change they would blow your junk into Indian. From there the garbage would either land on shore or go around to the island of Malay. So again it all fails because Nephi would have sailed the ship long past a point where your garbage would be floating. So that is why you can't use garbage as a defense of your model. It simply doesn't work.

      So now we know your sea path to Malay and it has to do with floating garbage. Why not use a little bit of common sense and use a ship with a sail for once. That should change your ideas. I think your idea that this is the sea path is absolutely ridiculous.

      Delete
  16. Oh no Jay, Now you have another problem because the maps that Del has provided show very conclusively that the bulb looking land mass at the tip of the peninsula is the only island. So what you are saying then is the entire narrow strip is the land of promise. Then where is the narrow neck? It all of a sudden disappears. Where is the island? Your island no longer exists. So the geography is all wrong.

    So lay out where the island is and the narrow neck so that we can clearly see what you are saying. So far I think we can pretty well discount completely your model because the island does not match the ancient maps that have been provided. Lets get it right Jay - so far you've got it all wrong.

    ReplyDelete