Horse Refereences
Copperhead
>> >features described in the BOM.
>> >
Agkistrodon:
>> How come Dowis hasn't responded to the posting of all those references
>> he denied existed?
>
Charles:
>I have no clue what you are talking abt.
>
>
Charles has deliberately ignored the citations given four times now.
Here they are:
This list of references that was posted here a couple of days ago and
on Sci.archaeology a couple of months ago. As you can see, the list
is fairly extensive.
The skeletal remains of horses have been recovered in
abundance in from both Pleistocene and Holocene deposits
of Europe, including Germany. Unfortunately, much of the
published literate has Been understandably published in
German and other European languages. A small sample of
such citations are:
Allen, J. R. L. (1997) Subfossil mammalian tracks
(Flandrian) in the Severn Estuary, S.W. Britain:
Mechanics of formation, preservation and distribution.:
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
B Biological Sciences. vol. 352, pp. 481-518.
[Sporadic Holocene age horse tracks from tidal flat
deposits deposited over the last 8000 to 9000 years.]
Azzaroli, A. 1966. Pleistocene and living horses of
the Old World. Palaeontographia Italica. vol. 6,
pp. 1-15. [discusses Holocene and Pleistocene horse
remains found in Europe]
Azzaroli, A. (1999) Notes on some middle and late
Pleistocene Equids of Italy. Bollettino della Societa
Paleontologica Italiana, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 97-108.
(Large horses [Equus ferus Boddaert) present in the late
Pleistocene of Italy and the rest of Europe.]
Bocherens, H., D. Billiou, A. Mariotti, M. M. Patou, M.
Otte, D. Bonjean, and M. Toussaint (1999)
Palaeoenvironmental and palaeodietary implications of
Isotopic biogeochemistry of last interglacial neanderthal
and mammal bones in Scladina Cave (Belgium). Journal of
Archaeological-Science. Vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 599-607. [horse
Bones from Paleolithic cave site in Belgium]
Burns, J. A., R. R. Young, and L. D. Arnold (1993).
Don't look fossil gift horses in the mouth. GAC/MAC
Joint Annual Meeting, Edmonton. Program & Abstracts
v.18 A
Clason, A. T. (1996) Wild and domestic horses in the
Netherlands and NW Europe. - in: Proceedings of the XIII
Congress Forli - Italia 1996, 8-14 september. volume 6,
1. workshop 3, The horse and its domestication, diffusion
and role in past communities, pp. 51-63, Forli:
International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Sciences. [discusses Holocene - Late Pleistocene horse
bones and fossils found throughout northwest Europe]
Dechert, B., E. Stephan, and H. P. Uerpmann (1999) Horses
from Pleistocene sites in the Rhineland, Germany.
Archaeofauna. Vol. 8, pp. 159-167. [Equus ferus]
Durisova, A. (1987) Finds of fossil horse remains
(Equidae, Mammalia) in the Late Pleistocene terraces of
the Morava River near Male Levare in the district of
Senica (West Slovakia) (Czechoslovakia). Zbornik
Slovenskeho Narodneho Muzea Prirodne Vedy. vol. 33,
pp. 11-22. [Fossil horse bones and teeth from Pleistocene
terrace deposits of Morava River approximately 1 km
southwest of Male Levare.]
Forsten, A. (1988) The small caballoid horse of the upper
Pleistocene and Holocene. Journal of Animal Breeding and
Genetics. vol. 105, pp. 161-176 [Discusses fossils of
horses found in Holocene and upper Pleistocene
sediments and archaeological sites in Europe]
Forten, A. (1991) Size decrease in Pleistocene-Holocene
true or caballoid horses of Europe. Mammalia. Vol. 55, no.
3, pp. 407-420. [analysis of horse teeth and bones from
all over Europe spanning the period of time from Middle
Pleistocene to Recent. Demonstrates that European horse
remains have been found in deposits from the entire
Holocene and Late and Middle Pleistocene with no
significant hiatus.]
Gardeisen, A. (1999) Middle palaeolithic subsistence in
the West Cave of "Le Portel" (Pyrenees, France). Journal of
Archaeological-Science. Vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1145-1158.
[butchered horse bones associated with typical
Mousterian tools in cave site.]
Grigorieva, G. V. (1999) The bone assemblage from the
upper palaeolithic site Yudinovo (Russia). Anthropologie
Paris. Vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 265-287. [horse bones recovered
Paleolithic cave site in European Russia]
Groves, C. P. (1986) The taxonomy, distribution and
adaptations of recent Equids. In Richard H.Meadow and
Hans-Peter Uerpmann, eds., pp. 11-65, Equids in the
Ancient World. Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden,
421 pp. [includes dicussion of the numerous fossils
/ bones of horses recovered from the Holocene and
Pleistocene of Europe]
Lundholm, B. (1947) Abstammung und Domestikation des
Hauspferdes. Zoologisk Bidrag Uppsala, vol. 27, 288 pp.
Nobis, G. (1986) A wild ass from the Copper Age
settlement of Durankulak, district of Tolbukhin,
northeastern Bulgaria. Bonner Zoologsche Beitraege, vol.
37, no. 3, pp. 195-208. [Remains of small equids
recovered from copper age site of Durankulak, District
of Tolbuchin, NE-Bulgaria. Dated at 5645 +- 87 B.P.
(HV 13.433) by the C-14. These remains belong to Equus
(Asinus) hydruntinus Regalia, 1907. The bones of this
species have been recovered in Germany and the rest of
Europe from deposits ranging in age from Pleistocene to
early Holocene.]
Pucher, E. (1991) First observation of the European Ass
(Equus hydruntinus, new record Regalia, 1907) in the
Holocene of Austria. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums
in Wien Serie B Botanik und Zoologie. vol. 92, pp. 31-48.
[Animal bones recovered from the earliest Neolithic
of Donnerskirchen (Austria) contained bones from Equus
hydruntinus, the European Ass.]
Pucher, E. (1992) The Middle Bronze Age horse skeleton
from Unterhautzenthal, P. B. Korneuburg (Lower Austria),
and observations on some other "early" horse finds from Austria.
Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien
Serie-B-Botanik-und-Zoologie. Vol. 93, pp. 19-39. [Pucher
describes the partial skeleton of a Middle Bronze Age
horse.]
Rink, W. J., H. P. Scwarcz, H. K. Lee, V. V. Cabrera,
De Q. F. Bernaldo, and M. Hoyos (1997) ESR dating of
Mousterian levels at El Castillo Cave, Cantabria, Spain.
Journal-of-Archaeological-Science. Vol. 24, no. 7,
pp. 593-600. [horse bones found in cave deposits with
Mousterian artifacts.]
Rogers, R. A., and L. A. Rogers. (188) Notching and
anterior beveling on fossil horse incisors: Indicators of
domestication? Quaternary Research. vol. 29, no. 1.
pp. 72-74. [Horse teeth from from upper and middle
Paleolithic sites in Europe showing notching and anterior
beveling of incisors of horses interpreted as evidence of
the human control of horses during these periods.]
Sala, B. (1996) Climatic changes in the Quaternary
inferred from variations in the mammal associations.
Allionia Turin. Vo. 34, pp. 89-94. [middle and late
Pleistocene horse remains from Europe]
Sanchez, C. B., M. T. Alberdi, G. Leone, F. P. Bonadonna,
B. Stenni, and A. Longinelli (1994) Oxygen isotopic
composition of fossil equid tooth and bone phosphate: An
archive of difficult interpretation. Palaeogeography
Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology. Vol. 107, no. 3-4, pp.
317-328. [fossil horse bones and teeth from 13 localities
in Spain ranging in age from from Maspinian (late
Pleistocene) to Middle Villafranchian (Pliocene)]
Schibler, J., and K. Steppan (1999) Human impact on the
habitat of large herbivores in eastern Switzerland and
southwest Germany in the Neolithic. Archaeofauna.
Vol. 8, pp. 87-99. [Documents the occurrence of
substantial amounts of horse remains occurring in
Neolithic bone assemblages from sites in the Alpine
foreland and the adjacent areas in the north dating
to between 4000 BC to 3500 BC. (6000 to 5500 BP).]
van der Made, J. (1999) Ungulates from Atapuerca TD6.
Journal of Human Evolution. vol. 37, no. 3-4,
pp. 389-413. [lower to middle Pleistocene Equus from
archaeological site]
Vereshchagin, N. K., and G. F. Baryshnikov (1980)
Paleoecology of late mammoth fauna in the Arctic zone of
Eurasia. Byulleten' Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei
Prirody Otdel Biologicheskii. vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 5-19.
[Late Pleistocene) fauna in the Arctic zone of Eurasia
consisted of mammoths, horses, hairy rhinoceroses, bison,
saigas, cave lions and others, inhabiting steppe and
tundra-steppe.]
Zeiler, J. T. (1999) Prehistoric fauna and landscape
in The Netherlands. Levende-Natuur. Vol. 100, no. 1,
pp. 19-21. [Animal bones from archaeological sites show
that wild horses and elk, although low in number,
were present throughout the Netherlands during the
Neolithic, circa 4350-2000 BC (6350-4000 BP).]
Maybe he should go back and review what he was told before he says he
was not told anything. Clearly, this denial is absurd.
Agkistrodon
Kevin Larson
Copperhead wrote in message <3a2da3e6....@news.mindspring.com>...
I see, everyone else can post just the citations to literature, but when
Mormons post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed
literature)
free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump on it
like wild dogs on steak.
Kevin
Agkistrodon
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> I see, everyone else can post just the citations to literature, but
when
> Mormons post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed
> literature)
> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump on
it
> like wild dogs on steak.
>
> Kevin
>
>
Charles didn't jump on it. He ignored it. Four times.
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kevin Larson
Agkistrodon wrote in message <90lq0i$el3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>when
>> Mormons post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed
>> literature)
>> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump on
>it
>> like wild dogs on steak.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>
>
>Agkistrodon
>
>--
>By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
>people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
>and vice versa, the most miserable life for
>Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I was talking about my post concerning FARMS lit
published in peer-reviewed Journals, Ag... read my
post a little more carefully
Kevin
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> I see, everyone else can post just the citations to
> literature, but when Mormons post just citations
> (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed literature)
> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a
> right to jump on it
> like wild dogs on steak.
As I recall, Kevin, your references were beside the point. That is,
the question never has been one of
"show me references written by Mormon appologists on any subject under
the sun, or subjects unrelated to the discussion at hand."
On the contrary, it has always been one of
"show me verifiable evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon. And
make that verifiable evidence in the form of citations to the peer-
review science literature -- not unverifiable propaganda from the
Mormon apologetic mill. And, if you don't mind, please quote the
pertinent sections so I don't have to go get the journal and look it up
myself."
You will notice that is what I've been doing in the thread on Mormon
beliefs and the age of the earth. While Jim Allison, Patent_Worm, and
other Mormons have been throwing ad hominem arguments like steak to
dogs I've replied (and so has Harry) with volumes of quotations and
citations from verifiable sources that illustrate what Mormons teach.
Furthermore, I made that very clear to you what I'm looking for, and
you went off promising to return with the right references, but I still
haven't seen them. Have you returned to play games, or do you actually
have some verifiable evidence from the scientific literature supporting
the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims?
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Copperhead
>
>Agkistrodon wrote in message <90lq0i$el3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <90lma2$h32$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
>> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see, everyone else can post just the citations to literature, but
>>when
>>> Mormons post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed
>>> literature)
>>> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump on
>>it
>>> like wild dogs on steak.
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Charles didn't jump on it. He ignored it. Four times.
>>
>>Agkistrodon
>>
>>--
>>By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
>>people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
>>and vice versa, the most miserable life for
>>Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>I was talking about my post concerning FARMS lit
>published in peer-reviewed Journals, Ag... read my
>post a little more carefully
>
>Kevin
>
>
Not sure I saw that. Please repost here Point here is that CD has
been asking (numerous times) for archaeological evidence of "Hun"
horses going back 4 KY. Since there were no "Huns" 4KYA, there were
no "Hun horses" but, beyond his simplism, we have every reason to ask
if CD means archaeological evidence of any form of domesticated
Eurasian horses from the time period (other than artistic depictions
and written records). If that is what he means, the citation list
gives him his evidence but he has ignored this at least four times and
then told me he didn't know what I was talking "abt". I suppose he
could have missed it and will give him the bnft of the dbt.
Agkistrodon
Clovis Lark
> In article <90lma2$h32$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> I see, everyone else can post just the citations to
>> literature, but when Mormons post just citations
>> (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed literature)
>> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a
>> right to jump on it
>> like wild dogs on steak.
When you can post cogent PEER REVIEWED literature that has been
independently substantiated by other authors, you'll get the same respect.
> Duwayne Anderson
cdo...@my-deja.com
agkis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> >It doesn't matter. Name the civilization that had the cultural
> >> >features described in the BOM.
> >> >
>
> Agkistrodon:
>
> >> How come Dowis hasn't responded to the posting of all those
references
> >> he denied existed?
> >
> Charles:
>
> >I have no clue what you are talking abt.
> >
> >
>
> Charles has deliberately ignored the citations given four times now.
Not really.
> Here they are:
>
> This list of references that was posted here a couple of days ago and
> on Sci.archaeology a couple of months ago. As you can see, the list
> is fairly extensive.
>
> The skeletal remains of horses have been recovered in
> abundance in from both Pleistocene and Holocene deposits
> of Europe, including Germany. Unfortunately, much of the
> published literate has Been understandably published in
> German and other European languages. A small sample of
> such citations are:
What does that have to do with mesoamerica?
1. The difference in $$ spent in archeology in europe and mesoamerica
2. The climatic differences? Recently almost an entire country of
central america (Honduras?) was almost completely washed away by floods
caused by a hurricane.
3. The geographic differences: rainforest, vast wilderness areas,
extrememly active volcanic activity.
4. Where are the Hun horses? Where are the horses from Egypt?
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Copperhead
>In article <3a2da3e6....@news.mindspring.com>,
> agkis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >> >It doesn't matter. Name the civilization that had the cultural
>> >> >features described in the BOM.
>> >> >
>>
>> Agkistrodon:
>>
>> >> How come Dowis hasn't responded to the posting of all those
>references
>> >> he denied existed?
>> >
>> Charles:
>>
>> >I have no clue what you are talking abt.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Charles has deliberately ignored the citations given four times now.
>
>Not really.
>
>> Here they are:
>>
>> This list of references that was posted here a couple of days ago and
>> on Sci.archaeology a couple of months ago. As you can see, the list
>> is fairly extensive.
>>
>> The skeletal remains of horses have been recovered in
>> abundance in from both Pleistocene and Holocene deposits
>> of Europe, including Germany. Unfortunately, much of the
>> published literate has Been understandably published in
>> German and other European languages. A small sample of
>> such citations are:
>
>What does that have to do with mesoamerica?
It has to do with the fact that you denied "Hun" horse "fossils"
existed and appealed for us to find the references.
>
>1. The difference in $$ spent in archeology in europe and mesoamerica
Irrelevant. The amount of money spent in Mesoamerican archaeology is,
in fact, quite large and we have found no horses.
>
>2. The climatic differences? Recently almost an entire country of
>central america (Honduras?) was almost completely washed away by floods
>caused by a hurricane.
This is baloney. Please provide information on how any Latin American
country has been "almost completely washed away." Horses seem to do
well in many environments and have established themselves from equator
to taiga... well, almost taiga.
>
>3. The geographic differences: rainforest, vast wilderness areas,
>extrememly active volcanic activity.
>
How does this stop horses from living? Vast wilderness is what they
like and there is no more indication of "extreme volcanic activity in
Mesoamerica than many places (Pacific Rim of Fire) where they
prospered. You also seem to be uder the delusion that Latin America is
one vast area of impenetrable rainforest. Take a look at biotome
maps.
>4. Where are the Hun horses? Where are the horses from Egypt?
In museums.
Agkistrodon
Duwayne Anderson
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> 4. Where are the Hun horses? Where are the horses from Egypt?
<snip>
You can see lots of images of horses in Egyptian art. Where are the
images of the horses in Nephite art? Where *is* Nephite art? How about
some relief carvings that show horses and chariots, like those described
in the Book of Mormon, Charles? How about finding Egyptian and Hebrew
characters in those carvings? Why is it that the Book of Mormon
mentions hardly any of that animals that we know existed among the
ancient Americans, but mentions a whole slew of animals that science
tells us were unknown to the ancient Americans?
This is not just an issue of missing horses. It is an issue of missing
*domesticated* horses. When people domesticate horses they leave
evidence of that domestication in their art -- just as the Egyptians
did. And its not just domesticated horses, either. Where are the
elephants? The cattle? The swine? The honeybees? The old-world
fruits and grains? The Book of Mormon describes all these among the
ancient Americans -- yet all we get out of Mormon apologists is one
exuces after another.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Markg91359
>You can see lots of images of horses in Egyptian art. Where are the
>images of the horses in Nephite art? Where *is* Nephite art? How about
>some relief carvings that show horses and chariots, like those described
>in the Book of Mormon, Charles? How about finding Egyptian and Hebrew
>characters in those carvings?
I've looked at plenty of Indian Petroglyphs and Pictographs in my journeys
through the west, and there aren't any that depict what you are saying. Its
this total absence of corroboration that causes many of us to question what is
claimed in the BOM.
>Why is it that the Book of Mormon
>mentions hardly any of that animals that we know existed among the
>ancient Americans, but mentions a whole slew of animals that science
>tells us were unknown to the ancient Americans?
It doesn't mention dogs at all does it? Those were around before the Europeans
came to America and played a prominent role in the life of many Indian tribes.
There is no evidence that horses, asses, cows, pigs, and donkeys were here at
all.
> When people domesticate horses they leave
>evidence of that domestication in their art -- just as the Egyptians
>did.
Where is the evidence of bridles, saddles, corrals, crops grown to feed
domesticated horses, wagons, and of course, chariots? For that matter where is
a Nephite suit of armor?
>The old-world
>fruits and grains?
Wheat and barley were not grown here until the Europeans brought them over.
On the other hand corn was grown here and the Book of Mormon doesn't mention
corn one single solitary time that I am aware of.
> yet all we get out of Mormon apologists is one
>exuces after another.
Its a case of having first made up your mind that the Church is true, than
having to mentally organize everything in you know and learn to substantiate
that one core belief. That's a different process than beginning with the
assumption that you don't know what is true and looking objectively at evidence
to show you what is. Sadly, its the way both many non-Mormons and Mormons
*both* approach life.
Mark
"I don't believe the Devil is a real person, but every devil I do know is a
real person"
lpau...@my-deja.com
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> Agkistrodon wrote in message <90lq0i$el3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >when
> >> Mormons post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed
> >> literature)
> >> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump
on
> >it
> >> like wild dogs on steak.
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >>
> published in peer-reviewed Journals, Ag... read my
> post a little more carefully
>
> Kevin
>
>
Kevin, what references did you post? Can you give me a thread id or
repost the references?
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of my long lost sisters, forgotten in
the books that record our science. Caroline Herschel**
cdo...@my-deja.com
Here is one of your references:
Allen, J. R. L. (1997) Subfossil mammalian tracks
(Flandrian) in the Severn Estuary, S.W. Britain:
Mechanics of formation, preservation and distribution.:
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
B Biological Sciences. vol. 352, pp. 481-518.
[Sporadic Holocene age horse tracks from tidal flat
deposits deposited over the last 8000 to 9000 years.]
Now, please show me how this reference has anything to do with the
huns, and I will be happy to continue this discussion.
snip
Copperhead
It has notyhing to do with Huns but it is clear evidence of the
presence of horses in Europe. If there were horeses in the Americas,
there should be similar evidence. Indeed, there is, but not from
later than about this time. It was not a question of Hun horses in
2000 BCE (there were no Huns then) but whether or not there was any
archaeo or paleo evidence of any horses in Europe. Your implication
was that the absence of such in Europe would support the absence
thereof in America. We now have provided you with evidence of the
continuity of horses in Europe but not America.
Agkistrodon
TheJordan6
>>1. The difference in $$ spent in archeology in europe and mesoamerica
To which Cpprhd replied:
>Irrelevant. The amount of money spent in Mesoamerican archaeology is,
>in fact, quite large and we have found no horses.
D'ya remember a few months ago when Charlie D. directed us to Joseph Allen's
"Exploring the Lands of the BOM?"
That was supposed to show us some "BOM evidence." It's 406 pages. Allen has
made numerous exploratory trips to MesoAmerica, as other Mormons did before
him, such as Jack West, Milton Hunter, Thomas Ferguson, etc. They all went
down there looking for "BOM evidence." And found nothing. And neither has the
money-laden apologetic vehicle FARMS.
But when Charlie needs a line of argument to explain why no "BOM evidence" has
been found, he claims it's because there hasn't been enough money spent to dig
it up. Incredible how he can assert one line of reasoning one day, and the
exact opposite the next.
>>2. The climatic differences? Recently almost an entire country of
>>central america (Honduras?) was almost completely washed away by floods
>>caused by a hurricane.
>
>This is baloney. Please provide information on how any Latin American
>country has been "almost completely washed away." Horses seem to do
>well in many environments and have established themselves from equator
>to taiga... well, almost taiga.
As I wrote a couple of years ago, horses being grass-eaters would naturally
gravitate to the most desirable grasslands. That's why escaped Spanish horses
thrived on the American prairies for 400 years.
Charlie's theory that horse evidence all got "washed away" is just another
juvenile, tired excuse for lack of evidence, not evidence itself.
Randy J.
cdo...@my-deja.com
Then why did you say it did?
Quite frankly I'm tired of the deception. I asked a very simple
question and the answer was a misstatement.
When I called you on your bluff, and only then, the truth comes out.
I have no desire to test each of your statements for veracity....
wearing me down with misstatements.
When you can have an open, **honest** discussion on the issues, let me
know.
snip
Clovis Lark
Read above how Charles shifted the parameters each time his query was
answered.
> Quite frankly I'm tired of the deception. I asked a very simple
> question and the answer was a misstatement.
> When I called you on your bluff, and only then, the truth comes out.
> I have no desire to test each of your statements for veracity....
> wearing me down with misstatements.
> When you can have an open, **honest** discussion on the issues, let me
> know.
And then Charles pulled the "liar card", surely the most base tactic of
apology.
Copperhead
>When I called you on your bluff, and only then, the truth comes out.
The truth is that there are many examples of archaeologic horses
recovered from European and Asian tombs of kings, chiefs, and others
that date to the times considered. There are none that date to any
such time in America.
>
>I have no desire to test each of your statements for veracity....
>wearing me down with misstatements.
Quite right. And yet you have no such test for any of your claims at
all.
>
>When you can have an open, **honest** discussion on the issues, let me
>know.
>
>
When you can properly state the issues, understand the the responses
and stick to them, let me know.
Agkistrodon
cdo...@my-deja.com
agkis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >When I called you on your bluff, and only then, the truth comes out.
>
> The truth is that there are many examples of archaeologic horses
> recovered from European and Asian tombs of kings, chiefs, and others
> that date to the times considered. There are none that date to any
> such time in America.
OK. You are speaking fact, and no quibble.
Your implied conclusion, however, is debatable.
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
cdo...@my-deja.com
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> Duwayne wrote:
>
> >You can see lots of images of horses in Egyptian art. Where are the
> >images of the horses in Nephite art? Where *is* Nephite art? How
about
> >some relief carvings that show horses and chariots, like those
described
> >in the Book of Mormon, Charles? How about finding Egyptian and
Hebrew
> >characters in those carvings?
>
> I've looked at plenty of Indian Petroglyphs and Pictographs in my
journeys
> through the west, and there aren't any that depict what you are
saying. Its
> this total absence of corroboration that causes many of us to
question what is
> claimed in the BOM.
Very clever.
There is corroboration for the BOM, but you and the antis present
a "shopping list" of evidence, and lacking that, you claim that there
is *no* evidence.
>
> >Why is it that the Book of Mormon
> >mentions hardly any of that animals that we know existed among the
> >ancient Americans, but mentions a whole slew of animals that science
> >tells us were unknown to the ancient Americans?
>
> It doesn't mention dogs at all does it?
Now you have added "dogs" to the shopping list.
Those were around before the Europeans
> came to America and played a prominent role in the life of many
Indian tribes.
> There is no evidence that horses, asses, cows, pigs, and donkeys were
here at
> all.
>
> > When people domesticate horses they leave
> >evidence of that domestication in their art -- just as the Egyptians
> >did.
>
> Where is the evidence of bridles, saddles, corrals, crops grown to
feed
> domesticated horses, wagons, and of course, chariots? For that
matter where is
> a Nephite suit of armor?
>
> >The old-world
> >fruits and grains?
>
> Wheat and barley were not grown here until the Europeans brought
them over.
Here is the second prob with the antis. As new evidence is found, they
either ignore it or are ignorant of the discovery.
Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
on ARM.
> On the other hand corn was grown here and the Book of Mormon doesn't
mention
> corn one single solitary time that I am aware of.
So what? A math book does not mention shakespearian drama, a science
book does not delve into poetry. Do you criticize those books for
their "absence" of these things?
What is the whole theme of the BOM, what is its purpose? Is it
scientific, anthropological, historical? Is its purpose to list all of
the animals, foods, clothing, languages, political leaders, etc etc?
It is a *religious* record, and the name of Christ is mentioned many
times, "sin", "baptism" etc etc. Some of these other items are indeed
mentioned but only in passing.
Why is that concept so difficult?
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
Clovis Lark
> In article <20001208121159...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
>> Duwayne wrote:
>>
>> >You can see lots of images of horses in Egyptian art. Where are the
>> >images of the horses in Nephite art? Where *is* Nephite art? How
> about
>> >some relief carvings that show horses and chariots, like those
> described
>> >in the Book of Mormon, Charles? How about finding Egyptian and
> Hebrew
>> >characters in those carvings?
>>
>> I've looked at plenty of Indian Petroglyphs and Pictographs in my
> journeys
>> through the west, and there aren't any that depict what you are
> saying. Its
>> this total absence of corroboration that causes many of us to
> question what is
>> claimed in the BOM.
> Very clever.
> There is corroboration for the BOM, but you and the antis present
> a "shopping list" of evidence, and lacking that, you claim that there
> is *no* evidence.
Charles has never seen an NA site nor a pictograph or petroglyph. He
assuredly would not even know the difference between the terms. He also
likes to distort the intent of remarks he responds to. He answers the
comment that no NA drawings corroborate bom claims and tries to make it a
blanket statement covering other documentation.
>>
>> >Why is it that the Book of Mormon
>> >mentions hardly any of that animals that we know existed among the
>> >ancient Americans, but mentions a whole slew of animals that science
>> >tells us were unknown to the ancient Americans?
>>
>> It doesn't mention dogs at all does it?
> Now you have added "dogs" to the shopping list.
They were always there. I mentioned them a couple of years back as a food
staple of ancient mesoamericans. The post is correct in wondering why
this staple is not mentioned, while phantom horses and elephants are.
> Those were around before the Europeans
>> came to America and played a prominent role in the life of many
> Indian tribes.
>> There is no evidence that horses, asses, cows, pigs, and donkeys were
> here at
>> all.
>>
>> > When people domesticate horses they leave
>> >evidence of that domestication in their art -- just as the Egyptians
>> >did.
>>
>> Where is the evidence of bridles, saddles, corrals, crops grown to
> feed
>> domesticated horses, wagons, and of course, chariots? For that
> matter where is
>> a Nephite suit of armor?
>>
>> >The old-world
>> >fruits and grains?
>>
>> Wheat and barley were not grown here until the Europeans brought
> them over.
> Here is the second prob with the antis. As new evidence is found, they
> either ignore it or are ignorant of the discovery.
> Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
> on ARM.
And you never responded to Lee's point that this is hardly the type of
barley you want it to be. You also never responded to the geographical
irrelevance of it. You also never responded to the documented research
that showed no ancient pollen samples for wheat or barley in Mesoamerica.
This too is a Dowisism, as is the predicted refusal to respond to this
post I am writing, indicating your intellectual cowardice.
>> On the other hand corn was grown here and the Book of Mormon doesn't
> mention
>> corn one single solitary time that I am aware of.
> So what? A math book does not mention shakespearian drama, a science
> book does not delve into poetry. Do you criticize those books for
> their "absence" of these things?
> What is the whole theme of the BOM, what is its purpose? Is it
> scientific, anthropological, historical? Is its purpose to list all of
> the animals, foods, clothing, languages, political leaders, etc etc?
> It is a *religious* record, and the name of Christ is mentioned many
> times, "sin", "baptism" etc etc. Some of these other items are indeed
> mentioned but only in passing.
Christ is mentioned completely out of historical context, much like a
child makes up a fantastic timeline.
> Why is that concept so difficult?
you tell us. You are the one with difficulties. You refuse to
acknowledge literature and documentation that runs counter to your world
view. You are the one with the cowardice that makes it difficult to
respond coherently to my posts.
Copperhead
>In article <3a325020...@news.mindspring.com>,
> agkis...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >When I called you on your bluff, and only then, the truth comes out.
>>
>> The truth is that there are many examples of archaeologic horses
>> recovered from European and Asian tombs of kings, chiefs, and others
>> that date to the times considered. There are none that date to any
>> such time in America.
>
>OK. You are speaking fact, and no quibble.
>
>Your implied conclusion, however, is debatable.
>
What? That we have no such horse findings? Not debatable.
Charles, tell us your exact question here. What do you want to know
about European horses and their continuity and what you think it
means.
Agkistrodon
cdo...@my-deja.com
What you find in europe may or may not be lead to a valid conclusion
regarding mesoamerica.
Now that is my personal take on it. You probably disagree, as I am
sure that we disagree on many things.
snip
>
> Agkistrodon
>
>
--
lpau...@my-deja.com
Not to mention that horses are notably prolific animals--they take "go
forth and multiply" seriously. You'd think with all those horses, we'd
find SOME evidence of their existence.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of
my long lost sisters, forgotten in the books that record our science.
Caroline Herschel**
lpau...@my-deja.com
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20001208121159...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> > Duwayne wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wheat and barley were not grown here until the Europeans brought
> them over.
>
> Here is the second prob with the antis. As new evidence is found,
they
> either ignore it or are ignorant of the discovery.
>
> Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
> on ARM.
Not what you're thinking, Charles. Tell us about this barley
research. What type of barley was it, Charles? What did the find
indicate about quantities? And WHERE was it found, Charles?
Here's a clue--I read the article the first time it came up on arm.
The barley grain that was found was NOT indicative of domesticated
barley in mesoamerica.
Now I could parlay that into your argument in the post to which I am
responding, which is that the antis are ignorant or refuse to
acknowledge more recent research, and say that you (not all LDS,
however) are either ignorant of or refuse to read the research but
instead quote snippets that support your arguments, without
acknowledging the meaning of or the factual content of such research.
But I won't do that.
> It is a *religious* record, and the name of Christ is mentioned many
> times, "sin", "baptism" etc etc. Some of these other items are indeed
> mentioned but only in passing.
>
> Why is that concept so difficult?
>
Oh good. That concept is not difficult. Why are you so insistent on
proving a religious work with science?
> snip
>
> Best regards,
> Charles dowis
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of my long lost sisters, forgotten in
the books that record our science. Caroline Herschel**
Agkistrodon
lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:
Deletia>
> Not to mention that horses are notably prolific animals--they take "go
> forth and multiply" seriously.
Like Clever Hans?
Deletia ad terminis
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Not to mention that horses are notably prolific animals--they take "go
> forth and multiply" seriously. You'd think with all those horses,
we'd
> find SOME evidence of their existence.
<snip>
Indeed. The circumstances at the time the Europeans discovered the
Americas were such that wild horses thrived. Last summer I bought a new
horse -- a mustang off the Nevada range. His mother and father were
wild, and came from stock that escaped the Spaniards hundreds of years
ago. These horses do, in fact, thrive in the wild. So much so that,
without natural predators, they have a tendency to overrun their range.
That's where people like me come in. We adopt these horses and give
them good homes.
Having been bred in the wild for hundreds of years my mustang is quite
different from my other two horses (both pedigreed paints from Quarter
Horse stock). His feet are tougher and his coat is heavier. He is also
more intelligent -- less likely to plant over a bird rustling in the
bushes -- more attune to his environment. One of the first things I
noticed about him is that he picks his feet up more than the other
horses. All these things are easily explainable in terms of adaptations
that enhanced the survival of his ancestors -- literally evolution
before our eyes.
But the point is, these Nephite horses (if they ever existed -- and god
knows they didn't) would have escaped just like horses always have.
Just as they did with the Spaniards. And they would have populated the
whole continent -- just as they did after the Europeans arrived.
Instead of reporting no horses in America when they arrived, the
Europeans would have reported a continent thriving with horses. And
with mounted natives, they would have had a helluva tougher time
enforcing Christianity by the sword as well.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Clovis Lark
> In article <90ttbt$qq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <20001208121159...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
>> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
>> > Duwayne wrote:
>> >
>> > snip
>> >
>> > Wheat and barley were not grown here until the Europeans brought
>> them over.
>>
>> Here is the second prob with the antis. As new evidence is found,
> they
>> either ignore it or are ignorant of the discovery.
>>
>> Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
>> on ARM.
> Not what you're thinking, Charles. Tell us about this barley
> research. What type of barley was it, Charles? What did the find
> indicate about quantities? And WHERE was it found, Charles?
Lee, Charles will exhibit intellectual cowardice and refuse to address
this. At best, he'll demand you provide the citation and then ignore its
existence with a post repeating this erronious data a couple months into
the new millenium.
> Here's a clue--I read the article the first time it came up on arm.
> The barley grain that was found was NOT indicative of domesticated
> barley in mesoamerica.
We told him that several years ago.
> Now I could parlay that into your argument in the post to which I am
> responding, which is that the antis are ignorant or refuse to
> acknowledge more recent research, and say that you (not all LDS,
> however) are either ignorant of or refuse to read the research but
> instead quote snippets that support your arguments, without
> acknowledging the meaning of or the factual content of such research.
> But I won't do that.
>> It is a *religious* record, and the name of Christ is mentioned many
>> times, "sin", "baptism" etc etc. Some of these other items are indeed
>> mentioned but only in passing.
>>
>> Why is that concept so difficult?
>>
> Oh good. That concept is not difficult. Why are you so insistent on
> proving a religious work with science?
And why is he so spineless that he cannot respond to my counter arguments?
Agkistrodon
Didn't Charles explain how come the Nephite horses died out before the
Spanish came? He said they were all killed in a volcano. Sounds abt
rgt to me.
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
Duwayne Anderson
Funny thing, this volcano seems to be very discriminating. It seems not
to have bothered the local animals, but to have just killed off the ones
the Book of Mormon describes. Animals like honey bees, domesticated
cattle, swine, etc.
Duwayne Anderson
>
> --
> By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
> people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
> and vice versa, the most miserable life for
> Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
lpau...@my-deja.com
Well, I suppose it's possible that you and I have been pseudo killfiled
again.
It is a curious Charlesism, though, that he repeats items over and over
with no more substantiation the 10th time than he had the first.
Clovis Lark
No, it is blatant mis-informing. We post the citations and refutations
upon his demand. He stops posting. 6 months later, he returns and posts
the same mis-information. We remind him and he plays his intellectual
cowardice card and refuses to acknowledge our points. It is the lowest
behavior on this group.
Markg91359
>Very clever.
>
>There is corroboration for the BOM, but you and the antis present
>a "shopping list" of evidence, and lacking that, you claim that there
>is *no* evidence.
The corroboration that I have seen is very weak and questionable. I'll never
forget the day someone told me that they had incontrovertible evidence of the
fact that BOM was true. I listened patiently....What I got was rendition of
Jesus' scripture in the New Testament about "having sheep of another fold".
Even when I was 14, and heard that for the first time, the thought that struck
me was that Jesus could be talking alot of other things than followers
supposedly in the Americas. I hardly find this type of corroboration powerful
evidence of the truth of the BOM.
>Now you have added "dogs" to the shopping list.
>
Unlike horses, anthropologists have produced lengthy evidence of the existence
and importance of dogs in Indian culture. When one tries to prove the truth,
or untruth of an historical event, one looks for evidence. The evidence for
horses living in the Americas from 600 BC to 400 AD isn't there. Don't take
my word for it, read the BH Roberts collection of writings in "Studies of the
Book of Mormon".
>Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
>on ARM.
This barley you referred to existed in a very limited area, and is not like the
barley in the old world at all. Even if I grant you the truth of your
statement, its like saying "1 down, 100 more to go".
>So what? A math book does not mention shakespearian drama, a science
>book does not delve into poetry. Do you criticize those books for
>their "absence" of these things?
You really have this totally out of context. Math is a hard science that is
provable by doing computations, no question of its truth or invalidity. A
Shakespeare drama is fiction acted out for entertainment. Proving its truth is
not an issue to anyone.
Science books and the concepts inside them are provable by taking hypotheses
and testing them. The whole point is that the Book of Mormon is offered as
proof of a metaphysical system of religious beliefs. Of course, people will
seek proof of its validity.
>It is a *religious* record, and the name of Christ is mentioned many
>times, "sin", "baptism" etc etc. Some of these other items are indeed
>mentioned but only in passing.
>
>Why is that concept so difficult?
Because what it always seems to come down too (according to active Mormons) is
that the only way you can know whether its true or not, is to acquire a
"testimony" of it. Those of us who have spent entire lives having to prove
things through scientific and logical means find the whole concept
"mind-boggling".
Some pray and don't acquire a testimony. These are generally told they don't
have enough faith or they haven't read it long enough. The possibility that
maybe you can't learn the "truth" of anything in this manner is not conceded.
The BOM is open to many, many legitimate challenges unless one has already made
up one's mind of its "correctness" before viewing the evidence.
lpau...@my-deja.com
Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <9132ei$hf$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >> lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > In article <90ttbt$qq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >> In article <20001208121159...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
> >> >> markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
> >> >> > Duwayne wrote:
> >> >> >
snip
> >>
> > arguments?
> >>
>
> > Well, I suppose it's possible that you and I have been pseudo
killfiled
> > again.
>
> > It is a curious Charlesism, though, that he repeats items over and
over
> > with no more substantiation the 10th time than he had the first.
>
> No, it is blatant mis-informing. We post the citations and
refutations
> upon his demand. He stops posting. 6 months later, he returns and
posts
> the same mis-information. We remind him and he plays his intellectual
> cowardice card and refuses to acknowledge our points. It is the
lowest
> behavior on this group.
But, but, but. . . !!!
That's what Charles said about the antis! That they give
misinformation or deliberately mislead readers. I think one of his
examples was that Jesus and Satan were brothers--that although it might
be true, it's stated in such a way that it misleads people! And that
antis take only a little piece and use it to build misleading
arguments! Oh dear! What now? Perhaps Drs. Wallace and Brown could
be put to rest by Charles, now that he clearly knows he is indulging in
reprehensible behavior?
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Very clever.
>
> There is corroboration for the BOM,
Charles, I've never seen you post any corroborating evidence for the
Book of Mormon. Lots of the stuff you say about the Book of Mormon is
inconsistent with the text of the Book of Mormon. Most of the rest is
inconsistent with science.
> but you and the antis present
> a "shopping list" of evidence, and lacking that, you claim that there
> is *no* evidence.
Charles, this does not make sense. You've contradicted yourself several
times in one sentence.
<snip>
> Now you have added "dogs" to the shopping list.
<snip>
Dogs have always been on the list. You just have not been paying
attention.
The issue is really very simple. The Book of Mormon names lots of
animals that were supposedly used by ancient Americans. Among them are
domesticated horses, cattle, sheep, swine, honey bees, and elephants.
The problem is that science tells us the ancient Americans had *none* of
these animals.
But science does tell us what animals the ancient Americans *did* have
and *did* use. The problem for the Book of Mormon is that it mentions
virtually none of those animals. There is no mention of deer or elk.
The only mention of dogs is in connection with wild animals eating dead
bodies -- not as useful animals (which dogs were for ancient Americans).
So the problems with the Book of Mormon are twain. On the one hand it
describes lots of animals being used by ancient Americans when science
says those animals were not even on the continent during Book-of-Mormon
times. On the other hand, the animals the ancient Americans *did* use
get virtually no mention at all.
See the problem, Charles? This is not just a problem of a few missing
elephant and horse bones -- it's a problem with the entire texture of
the Book of Mormon making no sense at all.
<snip>
> Here is the second prob with the antis. As new evidence is found,
they
> either ignore it or are ignorant of the discovery.
I've yet to see a single argument put forward by Mormons on ARM that has
not been dealt with. You would know that if you didn't put so many of
the answers into your killfile.
>
> Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
> on ARM.
>
See? This is a good example. The issue of the "barley" has been
discussed and dealt with many times.
First of all, look at the issue with the Book of Mormon. The Book of
Mormon says that the people of ancient America used grains and fruit
that they brought over from the old world. So if the Book of Mormon is
true, we expect to find clear evidence of extensive cultivation of
old-world grains. The Book of Mormon specifically mentions barley and
wheat. But the barley in ancient America was not from the old world as
described in the Book of Mormon, and is not associated with any of the
civilizations that Mormons present as possible explanations for the
Nephites.
This illustrates one of the common techniques used by Mormon apologists.
Namely, using unrelated evidence. In other words, you guys find bits
and pieces of unrelated evidence, scattered all over time and all over
the continent, and try to pull it all together as "evidence." You
steadfastly refuse to deal with details -- focusing instead on what you
call "interesting similarities." This is just mental masturbation,
though. It makes you feel good, but the actual evidence does not
support the Book of Mormon at all.
As with animals in the Book of Mormon, foods are a problem both because
of what the Book of Mormon says they used (old-world grains) and what it
never mentions. Corn, for example, is mentioned only once (and in a
generic sense only). Squash is never mentioned, or virtually any of the
foods ancient Americans actually used.
<snip>
> So what? A math book does not mention shakespearian drama, a science
> book does not delve into poetry. Do you criticize those books for
> their "absence" of these things?
<snip>
The Book of Mormon is nearly 600 pages of text that claims to have been
written by ancient Americans. It makes testable statements both in
terms of what it says the ancient Americans used (animals, food, metals,
etc.). The problem is, the ancient America described in the Book of
Mormon does not look anything like the one found in scientific research.
Not just in what it says they used, but in failing to actually describe
many of the things they *did* use.
> What is the whole theme of the BOM, what is its purpose?
Joseph Smith wrote it as a first step in starting a new religion.
> Is it
> scientific, anthropological, historical?
It purports to be a record written by ancient Americans. Most of it is
religious mythology, but there are many pages that give descriptions of
what Joseph Smith thought every-day life was like for ancient Americans.
The problem is, those descriptions are incorrect.
> Is its purpose to list all of
> the animals, foods, clothing, languages, political leaders, etc etc?
The fact is, the Book of Mormon *does* list animals, food, clothing,
language, politics, etc. that supposedly existed in ancient America.
And where it describes these things it is *wrong* almost all of the
time. And it almost *never* mentions animals, foods, clothing,
language, and political systems that actually existed among ancient
Americans.
> It is a *religious* record, and the name of Christ is mentioned many
> times, "sin", "baptism" etc etc. Some of these other items are indeed
> mentioned but only in passing.
>
> Why is that concept so difficult?
Charles, you are being very dishonest with this argument. First, you
seem to think that a book that is religious in nature cannot be held
accountable for any of the testable statements it makes regarding
society. Secondly, Mormon apologists are the ones who most frequently
bring up "evidence" that they think supports the Book of Mormon in a
vain attempt to show it is true. Remember the Arabian river argument?
You posted a reference from FARMS claiming to have found the river --
thus supporting the Book of Mormon. But when those claims were
examined, and found to be false, you started singing your song about how
the Book of Mormon is a religious document that cannot be used like a
text book.
Your argument is pure hypocrisy because it pretends that apologists
don't try to support the Book of Mormon where they think they can get
away with it -- and because it tries to deny the testable claims made by
the Book of Mormon.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
TheJordan6
>with no more substantiation the 10th time than he had the first.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Lee Paulson
You have just defined Mormon apologetics in a nutshell. In the spirit of
Stalin, just keep repeating the "big lie" until it becomes the truth to
whomever is credulous enough to believe it.
Randy J.
lpau...@my-deja.com
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <90ttbt$qq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Very clever.
> >
> > There is corroboration for the BOM,
>
> Charles, I've never seen you post any corroborating evidence for the
> Book of Mormon. Lots of the stuff you say about the Book of Mormon is
>
> Your argument is pure hypocrisy because it pretends that apologists
> don't try to support the Book of Mormon where they think they can get
> away with it -- and because it tries to deny the testable claims made
by
> the Book of Mormon.
>
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
Well, geez, Duwayne. Now you'll get killfiled too.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of
my long lost sisters, forgotten in the books that record our science.
Caroline Herschel**
Bill Williams
<lpau...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:915tmv$tci$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <915rph$rlt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <90ttbt$qq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Very clever.
> > >
> > > There is corroboration for the BOM,
> >
> > Charles, I've never seen you post any corroborating evidence for the
> > Book of Mormon. Lots of the stuff you say about the Book of Mormon is
> > snip
>
> >
> > Your argument is pure hypocrisy because it pretends that apologists
> > don't try to support the Book of Mormon where they think they can get
> > away with it -- and because it tries to deny the testable claims made
> by
> > the Book of Mormon.
> >
> > <snip to end>
> >
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
> Well, geez, Duwayne. Now you'll get killfiled too.
Have I been killfiled? I don't want to be left out of that exclusive club!
Bill Williams
Duwayne Anderson
lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <915rph$rlt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <90ttbt$qq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Very clever.
> > >
> > > There is corroboration for the BOM,
> >
> > Charles, I've never seen you post any corroborating evidence for the
> > Book of Mormon. Lots of the stuff you say about the Book of Mormon
is
> > snip
>
> >
> > Your argument is pure hypocrisy because it pretends that apologists
> > don't try to support the Book of Mormon where they think they can
get
> > away with it -- and because it tries to deny the testable claims
made
> by
> > the Book of Mormon.
> >
> > <snip to end>
> >
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
> Well, geez, Duwayne. Now you'll get killfiled too.
Charles killfiled me months ago.
Duwayne
>
> --
> Regards,
> Lee Paulson
>
> **Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
> another secret, I say the names of
> my long lost sisters, forgotten in the books that record our science.
> Caroline Herschel**
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Clovis Lark
Such cowardice...
Clovis Lark
> <lpau...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:915tmv$tci$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <915rph$rlt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > In article <90ttbt$qq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> > > Very clever.
>> > >
>> > > There is corroboration for the BOM,
>> >
>> > Charles, I've never seen you post any corroborating evidence for the
>> > Book of Mormon. Lots of the stuff you say about the Book of Mormon is
>> > snip
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument is pure hypocrisy because it pretends that apologists
>> > don't try to support the Book of Mormon where they think they can get
>> > away with it -- and because it tries to deny the testable claims made
>> by
>> > the Book of Mormon.
>> >
>> > <snip to end>
>> >
>> > Duwayne Anderson
>>
>> Well, geez, Duwayne. Now you'll get killfiled too.
> Have I been killfiled? I don't want to be left out of that exclusive club!
Speak a few documentable facts. You will be cyber-assassinated.
TheJordan6
>forth and multiply" seriously. You'd think with all those horses, we'd
>find SOME evidence of their existence.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Lee Paulson
A couple of years ago, Mormon Red Davis challenged someone to come up with a
"mathematical model" for theoretical horse population growth. Red contended
that the wild mustang herds on the plains couldn't have multiplied to their
degree as found in the late 1800's, if they had only escaped from Spaniards in
the 1500's. His point being, that the wild herds must ahve descended from
"Nephite" horses some 2000 years earlier. Below is my reply to Red. I never
heard from him again about it, so I guess he had no argument with it.
I had a little time today to look up a few facts about this horse-poop. As to
Red's contention that Spanish horses couldn't have multiplied fast enough to
have provided the thousands found on the western American plains in the 1700s,
Bernal Diaz Del Castillo, Cortes' historian, recorded that they had sixteen
horses when they invaded Mexico. They didn't have to transport them all the
way from Spain, as Spanish outposts had already been established on islands
such as Hispaniola, Cuba, and San Salvador. Cortez mustered his force from
Cuba in 1519. Del Castillo reported that the Indians were terrified of the
horses, as they had never seen them, and initially thought that horse and rider
were a single animal. The horses' whinnying and neighing also frightened them,
and this was a major factor in Cortez' ability to conquer them.
My World Book Encyclopedia, under "horse" states that "The colonists found no
horses in North America. The American Indians did not know about horses until
Spanish conquerors under Hernando Cortes brought them to Mexico in 1519. Some
of the horses of these and later explorers may have been left behind. They
probably became the ancestors of the wild horses of the western plains. At
first the American Indians feared horses. This helped the Spaniards conquer
the Indians. The Indians, especially the tribes of the western plains, began
to use horses about 1600."
World Book, under "Marquette" tells us that in 1673, "Marquette and Joliet led
their party down the Mississippi to the mouth of the Arkansas River. Strange
Indians with guns suddenly surrounded them there.....Some of them became
friendly enough to tell Marquette that the guns came from other white men who
were some ten days' journey farther south. These could have only been
Spaniards."
Hernando De Soto landed at Tampa Bay in 1539 (20 years after Cortes invaded
Mexico.) He explored the entire
southeastern US, and crossed the Mississippi near present-day Memphis----which
would have been roughly where Marquette's party came close to Spaniards 132
years later-----the point being, that the Spaniards had that length of time to
introduce their horses from at least Florida to the Mississippi River and
across into Arkansas----which would explain Red's contention that the "English
and French encountered herds of horses." We simply have to realize that the
Spanish had wide access to the New World for more than 100 years before most
other European explorers did.
As to Red's contention that Lewis and Clark found wild horses in the Northwest,
that is just as easily explained when one realizes that the Spanish colonized
the entire west coast of America during the 1500s as well. Cortes himself
settled Lower California in 1536, and made his way as far inland as Kansas.
Wild horses did not need to find any "water
routes to North America", horses were brought there by the Spanish 200 years
before Lewis and Clark. Obviously, horses can travel great distances in a
short time, and is quite reasonable to assume that they could migrate from
California to the Great Plains in a matter of months, seeking out the best
grazing land as buffalo do. As I quoted from World Book above, western plains
Indians began using the horse about 1600 (the discussion on the origin of wild
mustangs on the plains could really end here).
As to Red's contention as to numbers, as I mentioned earlier, Cortes had 16
horses when he invaded Mexico. He did NOT take his horses back from America,
in fact he scuttled all his ships but one. Del Castillo reported that within a
few months, hundreds of Indians were mingling with and fighting for the
Spaniards--in fact, it was Indians who killed Montezuma, not Spaniards. It is
reasonable to assume that over
the years of the invasion, the conquistadors would have begun sharing the use
of their horses, and resulting progeny, with their Indian allies.
I did a short, unscientific math model on horse population growth, using only
Cortes' original 16 as a starting base. World Book states that mares begin
foaling at age three, and have anywhere from five to nineteen foals. Stallions
begin siring at age two. Horses live 25-30 years, although some have lived to
age 40. Gestation period is 10-14 months.
I use very low estimates for my model, assuming that 8 of Cortes' horses were
mares, and that only four of them were fertile. I assumed that those four
mares each had one foal every two years, and each had only three foals total.
I use low rates to take in natural deaths, diseases, sterility, stillbirths,
etc.
I'm sure that someone with more time could do a more exact and scientific model
than I, but with my 20 minutes or so, using the above figures, I come up with
those original 16 horses turning into 64 in 12 years (from 1519 to 1531), which
is basically a quadrupling of the population every twelve years. (Heck, some
Mormons do that well--my mother alone has 12 children, 55 grandchildren, and
about 30 great-grandchildren in sixty years).
By 1615, about 100 years, following the same rates, the horses would number
1,046,576. Obviously, by the time of Lewis and Clark, 200 years later, the
population could have been innumerable, and in fact, that was the case---the
vast wild
mustang herds only began decreasing, as did the buffalo, with the settling of
the west and the
fencing in of grazing lands.
To repeat, this is factoring in ONLY Cortes' horses, not even considering other
Spaniards who may have contributed to the growth, such as Balboa, Pizarro,
Ponce de Leon, etc. But the rapid and continuous influx of Spanish
conquistadors after Columbus makes Red's contention that "one or two" horses
escaped insensible, and wishful thinking on his part.
One more note on Red's harping on the "water route" contention----horses are
grass-eaters, as are other animals such as buffalo. If Red contends that there
wasn't enough water to sustain horses, then he should be able to inform us as
to how buffalo survived for eons in the same conditions. Buffalo, like horses,
have no natural enemies (that they couldn't out-populate), so therefore there
is no reason why both animals would not thrive on the American plains.
Buffalo, of course, were killed off by Americans in order to reduce Indian
population.
I also feel that Red has inadvertenly inserted a fatal flaw into his argument
which destroys his premise from the outset---if modern horse WAS in the
Americas, by the millions according to Red, then why were Indians ignorant and
frightened of them in 1519? And where is the EVIDENCE of horse use by NAs, not
just from BOM times, but from 421 AD to 1519 as well? Defenders of the horse
issue in the BOM must come up with a credible explanation as to what happened
to the horse in the short 1100 years from "BOM times" to 1519. Evidence for
horse use by NAs up to and including the Spanish invasion should be widespread
and conclusive, as the BOM claims it was. The horse is the most valuable
animal in the history of mankind, and was every man's most valuable possession
until the automobile age. If domesticated horses existed in pre-Columbian
America, artwork, buildings, toys, fossils, implements, etc., would be
scattered from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego indicating such.
A few "possibilities" here and there, and skewing of dates and species, just
don't cut the mustard.
In my opinion, the horse issue in the BOM totals only about one percent of its
authenticity problems, but it is one of the most blatant inconsistencies. When
combined with the other 99% of the evidence, the entire case against the
authenticity of the BOM is devastating.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Spanish came? He said they were all killed in a volcano. Sounds abt
>rgt to me.
>
>
>Agkistrodon
Yep. Those volcanoes, earthquakes, etc., mentioned in the BOM only killed off
BOM animals. All other "non-BOM animals" were impervious to them, such as
jaguar, capybara, crocodile, caiman, monkeys, buffalo, deer, elk, moose,
bighorn sheep, llama, alpaca, vicuna, guanaco, bears, cougars, raccoons,
opossums, groundhogs, beavers, badgers, wolverines, tapirs, armadillos, and
dozens of other indigenous American animals not mentioned in the BOM.
Randy J.
cdo...@my-deja.com
markg...@aol.com (Markg91359) wrote:
snip
>
> >Now you have added "dogs" to the shopping list.
> >
>
> Unlike horses, anthropologists have produced lengthy evidence of the
existence
> and importance of dogs in Indian culture.
And...?
When one tries to prove the truth,
> or untruth of an historical event, one looks for evidence. The
evidence for
> horses living in the Americas from 600 BC to 400 AD isn't there.
Uh, the last mention of horses in the BOM is in 3 Ne chapter 6, which
is hardly 400AD.
Don't take
> my word for it, read the BH Roberts collection of writings
in "Studies of the
> Book of Mormon".
>
> >Domesticated barley has been discovered in NA. Just do a search here
> >on ARM.
>
> This barley you referred to existed in a very limited area, and is
not like the
> barley in the old world at all.
It is domesticated barley. And we take each discovery at a time. We
have imperfect knowledge of mesoamerica in the BOM time period. There
are virtually no records extanct from that time period.
The evidence for Biblical events come slowly as well.
Even if I grant you the truth of your
> statement, its like saying "1 down, 100 more to go".
Not really. The BOM mentions a highly sophisticated civilization which
included writing, the calendar, various sophisticated religions (which
included towers), a knowledge of astronomy, vast cities -- cement
cities in the "land northward", cities covered by a lake, many wars,
records kept on metal plates -- including storage in a stone box, etc
etc. The BOM has nonbiblical names which have been verified by recent
discoveries. The description of the great destruction in third nephi
is consistent with known geological facts -- earthquakes, vocanic
eruptions etc.
There is a tapestry of evidence for the BOM, not one of which proves
anything and can be dismissed as a "coincidence", but that tapestry is
building as new discoveries are made. Some of the evidence is rather
compelling ("Alma" is a male Hebrew name used at the BOM time period,
while most of the antis mocked the use of a female, Latin name) while
others are of moderate interest -- for example, we know that the Maya
had a hierarchy of kings, and the BOM also indicates that for the
Lamanites. The BOM indicates the use of a tower in (false) worship,
and the mayans used towers.
The latest evidence regarding Nahum is extremely interesting, and
further confirmation of the details may indeed give us that a 'slam
dunk" piece of BOM evidence.
Well, yes, and there is a "shopping list" of things which have not been
found. But they are coming closer to verification -->> elephants and
horses which were completely dismissed only a few years ago -- the
latest fossils were millions of years old -- are now only a few
thousand years away from the BOM time period. The old Bering land
bridge migration only theory is now completely dismissed as new
evidence shows the possibility of multiple migrations.
Another issue is a better understanding of the BOM. For example, we
now are certain that when Lehi landed in America there were people
living here, including the Jaredites, because Lehi found the ox and
domesticated goat when they arrived.
Scattered groups of Jaredites may have survived the great destruction
of the Jaredite nation. And what was their racial group? The BOM
mentions at least five racial groups who may have come here to America,
not just "Jews".
Only within the last couple of decades have we been able to formulate a
fairly solid BOM geography -- mesoamerica. We now have tenative
identification of actual sites with BOM cities.
>
> >So what? A math book does not mention shakespearian drama, a science
> >book does not delve into poetry. Do you criticize those books for
> >their "absence" of these things?
>
> You really have this totally out of context. Math is a hard science
that is
> provable by doing computations, no question of its truth or
invalidity.
If a math book contains only one recipe, why complain that it is not a
cook book?
A
> Shakespeare drama is fiction acted out for entertainment. Proving
its truth is
> not an issue to anyone.
The BOM has a way to prove its truth, if you are willing to follow it.
Many demand scientific proof of the BOM, while ignoring the test that
the BOM itself gives. It is a book focusing on religion, and the test
is a religious test. If it were a book on science, you would expect
scientific tests to prove it. The BOM is a book on religion, and the
test is religious in nature -->> the secular, historical references in
the BOM are incidental compared to the religious record.
Now you decide how to test it. If you demand a scientific test, that
is your affair, and your responsibility for the decision you make based
on that test. But science has not yet proven that there is a God, so
using science to *prove* the BOM will fail until it at least proves the
basics of religion.
Duwayne Anderson
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> Uh, the last mention of horses in the BOM is in 3 Ne chapter 6, which
> is hardly 400AD.
<snip>
3 Nephi 6 is (according to the Book of Mormon) 26 AD. First mention of
horses is Ether 9:19, which also mentions those elephants: "And they
also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and
cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the
elephants and cureloms and cumoms."
The verse in Ether is roughly 2,000 BCE, so the Book of Mormon
describes horses used by ancient Americans over a period of roughly
2,000 years.
<snip>
> There are virtually no records extanct from that
> [Book-of-Mormon] time period.
<snip>
According to the Book of Mormon the people left *lots* of records:
"But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea,
the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and
contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their
prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their
building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their
righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their
robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and
whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work. But behold, there are many
books and many records of every kind, and they have been kept chiefly
by the Nephites." [Heleman 3: 14-15]
The fact there are, as you say, "virtually no records" from ancient-
American civilizations argues against the Book of Mormon. If the Book
of Mormon were true there would be lots of examples of ancient
Americans writing in Hebrew and Egyptian characters on metal plates.
<snip>
> Another issue is a better understanding of the BOM. For example, we
> now are certain that when Lehi landed in America there were people
> living here, including the Jaredites, because Lehi found the ox and
> domesticated goat when they arrived.
<snip>
Actually, this illustrates the problems Joseph Smith had keeping his
story straight. It also illustrates how Mormon apologists misrepresent
what the Book of Mormon says in a last-ditch attempt to defend it from
critical examination. This is how Lehi described the promised land
when he arrived:
"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the
knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the
land, that there would be no place for an inheritance." [2 Nephi 1:8]
Did you catch that, Charles? Lehi is telling his sons, upon their
arrival in the promised land, that it had been "kept from other
nations."
In fact, Lehi makes it clear that the promised land is reserved
exclusively for those that god would bring out from "the land of
Jerusalem:"
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those
whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep
his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and
they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this
land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his
commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and
there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their
inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. [2 Nephi 1:8]
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <90phg3$ica$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <90lma2$h32$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I see, everyone else can post just the citations to
>> literature, but when Mormons post just citations
>> (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed literature)
>> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a
>> right to jump on it
>> like wild dogs on steak.
>
>As I recall, Kevin, your references were beside the point. That is,
>the question never has been one of
>
>"show me references written by Mormon appologists on any subject under
>the sun, or subjects unrelated to the discussion at hand."
>
>On the contrary, it has always been one of
>
>"show me verifiable evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon. And
>make that verifiable evidence in the form of citations to the peer-
>review science literature -- not unverifiable propaganda from the
>Mormon apologetic mill. And, if you don't mind, please quote the
>pertinent sections so I don't have to go get the journal and look it up
>myself."
>
>You will notice that is what I've been doing in the thread on Mormon
>beliefs and the age of the earth. While Jim Allison, Patent_Worm, and
>other Mormons have been throwing ad hominem arguments like steak to
>dogs I've replied (and so has Harry) with volumes of quotations and
>citations from verifiable sources that illustrate what Mormons teach.
>
>Furthermore, I made that very clear to you what I'm looking for, and
>you went off promising to return with the right references, but I still
>haven't seen them. Have you returned to play games, or do you actually
>have some verifiable evidence from the scientific literature supporting
>the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims?
>
>Duwayne Anderson
>
>--
>American quarter horse - the ultimate
>all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne, if you recall, I posted references in peer-reviewed literature
about transpacific travel and metallurgy in Mexico, to which you replied
you wanted data on **other** BoM claims.
I told you IF I found those references, IF they did exist, I would post
them.
I have yet to find any, and there is no shame in saying that.
I never "play games", Duwayne. Our exchanges in the past were due
to a misunderstanding of what data you wanted and needed, and that
is the end of this.
Kevin
Kevin Larson
lpau...@my-deja.com wrote in message <90r6e1$qtp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <90pe1i$4lt$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>>
>> Agkistrodon wrote in message <90lq0i$el3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <90lma2$h32$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
>> > "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I see, everyone else can post just the citations to literature, but
>> >when
>> >> Mormons post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed
>> >> literature)
>> >> free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump
>on
>> >it
>> >> like wild dogs on steak.
>> >>
>> published in peer-reviewed Journals, Ag... read my
>> post a little more carefully
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>
>Kevin, what references did you post? Can you give me a thread id or
>repost the references?
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Lee Paulson
>
>**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
>another secret, I say the names of my long lost sisters, forgotten in
>the books that record our science. Caroline Herschel**
When I refind the post, I will try to print it. I don't use Deja,
unfortunately,
and I never saved it.
It was some minor stuff about transpacific travel and metallurgy in Mexico,
I think both done by Sorenson
Kevin
Duwayne Anderson
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Duwayne, if you recall, I posted references in peer-reviewed
> literature about transpacific travel and metallurgy in
> Mexico, to which you replied you wanted data on **other**
> BoM claims.
Wrong. I asked for references that deal directly with non-trivial
claims by the Book of Mormon.
The references you provided did *not* do that. It was commonly
accepted among early American settlers that the American Indians were
transplanted Hebrews. That was a common theme in Joseph Smith's neck
of the woods, and finding that theme in the Book of Mormon is expected
if the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Furthermore, the references you
posted show only the possibility (not actuality) of minor and limited
transoceanic contact. They were, in a word, nothing more than
apologetic bait.
As I said, I asked for references for non-trivial claims of the Book of
Mormon. None of your references, for example, support the Book of
Mormon's claims that ancient Amerindians smelted iron and steel, or
that they used steel swords. They did not support the Book of Mormon's
claims of significant migrations from the old world that served as the
basis for any major civilization in the Americas.
> I told you IF I found those references,
> IF they did exist, I would postthem.
> I have yet to find any, and there is no shame in saying that.
The point being that you still have not provided references from the
scientific literature supporting any of the Book of Mormon's non-
trivial claims.
>
> I never "play games", Duwayne.
Oh, I think you do. In this thread you pontificated: "when Mormons
post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed literature)
free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump on it
like wild dogs on steak."
See what I mean? Here you are, complaining that you post references
and they get jumped on.
> Our exchanges in the past were due
> to a misunderstanding of what data you wanted and needed, and that
> is the end of this.
I don't think so. Apparently, even after sorting out what you thought
our differences were, you are still accusing me of being somehow
unreasonable in requesting references from the scientific literature
that support the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims. You somehow seem
to think that you should be allowed some measure of respectability for
posting references that, as far as the Book of Mormon are concerned,
are essentially beside the point.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
lpau...@my-deja.com
When I refind the post, I will try to print it. I don't use Deja,
> unfortunately,
> and I never saved it.
>
> It was some minor stuff about transpacific travel and metallurgy in
Mexico,
> I think both done by Sorenson
>
> Kevin
>
>
I'd appreciate it seeing it. However, FARMS is not a peer-reviewed
publication, and most of Sorenson's material has not been peer-reviewed.
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of my long lost sisters, forgotten in
the books that record our science. Caroline Herschel**
lpau...@my-deja.com
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >Not to mention that horses are notably prolific animals--they
take "go
> >forth and multiply" seriously. You'd think with all those horses,
we'd
> >find SOME evidence of their existence.
> >
> >--
> >Regards,
> >Lee Paulson
>
> A couple of years ago, Mormon Red Davis challenged someone to come up
with a
> "mathematical model" for theoretical horse population growth. Red
contended
> that the wild mustang herds on the plains couldn't have multiplied to
their
> degree as found in the late 1800's, if they had only escaped from
Spaniards in
> the 1500's. His point being, that the wild herds must ahve
descended from
> "Nephite" horses some 2000 years earlier. Below is my reply to Red.
I never
> heard from him again about it, so I guess he had no argument with it.
> By 1615, about 100 years, following the same rates, the horses would
number
> 1,046,576. Obviously, by the time of Lewis and Clark, 200 years
later, the
> population could have been innumerable, and in fact, that was the
case---the
> vast wild
> mustang herds only began decreasing, as did the buffalo, with the
settling of
> the west and the
> fencing in of grazing lands.
>
> To repeat, this is factoring in ONLY Cortes' horses, not even
considering other
> Spaniards who may have contributed to the growth, such as Balboa,
Pizarro,
> Ponce de Leon, etc. But the rapid and continuous influx of Spanish
> conquistadors after Columbus makes Red's contention that "one or two"
horses
> escaped insensible, and wishful thinking on his part.
snip
I do indeed remember when you posted that. Red probably had no time
to respond, what with all those homosexuals looming on the horizon.
lpau...@my-deja.com
Probably you have. I find it interesting that Charles killfiles all
opposition, so the only way he sees any discussion is if someone he
hasn't killfiled picks up the thread. Pretty soon, he will have
eliminated all opposition, and all that will be left will be apologists
agreeing with each other.
But actually, I think Charles sees more than he lets on.
--
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <916uv7$pd9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <916qq7$nqp$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Duwayne, if you recall, I posted references in peer-reviewed
>> literature about transpacific travel and metallurgy in
>> Mexico, to which you replied you wanted data on **other**
>> BoM claims.
>
>Wrong. I asked for references that deal directly with non-trivial
>claims by the Book of Mormon.
>
>The references you provided did *not* do that. It was commonly
>accepted among early American settlers that the American Indians were
>transplanted Hebrews. That was a common theme in Joseph Smith's neck
>of the woods, and finding that theme in the Book of Mormon is expected
>if the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Furthermore, the references you
>posted show only the possibility (not actuality) of minor and limited
>transoceanic contact. They were, in a word, nothing more than
>apologetic bait.
>
>As I said, I asked for references for non-trivial claims of the Book of
>Mormon. None of your references, for example, support the Book of
>Mormon's claims that ancient Amerindians smelted iron and steel, or
>that they used steel swords. They did not support the Book of Mormon's
>claims of significant migrations from the old world that served as the
>basis for any major civilization in the Americas.
Actually, if you would read the citations I posted, instead of dismissing
them off-hand, you would realize that you are in error.
But we aren't going to expect that to happen, are we?
>> I told you IF I found those references,
>> IF they did exist, I would postthem.
>> I have yet to find any, and there is no shame in saying that.
>
>The point being that you still have not provided references from the
>scientific literature supporting any of the Book of Mormon's non-
>trivial claims.
Mistaken once again, I see
>>
>> I never "play games", Duwayne.
>
>Oh, I think you do. In this thread you pontificated: "when Mormons
>post just citations (like I did, citations of peer-reviewed literature)
>free-thinkers (Duwayne and Clovis, at least) have a right to jump on it
>like wild dogs on steak."
>
>See what I mean? Here you are, complaining that you post references
>and they get jumped on.
You missed the point. When I post references, you then demand I do
your research for you and post the whole article.
Sorry, that won't cut it. I post the references, you look them up, and then
we can debate those merits. I won't do all your research for you Duwayne.
>> Our exchanges in the past were due
>> to a misunderstanding of what data you wanted and needed, and that
>> is the end of this.
>
>I don't think so. Apparently, even after sorting out what you thought
>our differences were, you are still accusing me of being somehow
>unreasonable in requesting references from the scientific literature
>that support the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims. You somehow seem
>to think that you should be allowed some measure of respectability for
>posting references that, as far as the Book of Mormon are concerned,
>are essentially beside the point.
I never said you were being unreasonable. Please find a post of me saying
something as ridiculous as that. I think it is a reasonable request, but I
doubt if anything besides the 2 references I posted actually exist.
Kevin
Duwayne Anderson
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, if you would read the citations I posted,
> instead of dismissing
> them off-hand, you would realize that you are in error.
<snip>
Well, I see we are back to where we started. You assert that you have
references from the scientific literature that support the Book of
Mormon's non-trivial claims.
I haven't seen any, you claim I'm somehow dismissing your citations out
of hand -- and through all this, it's still too much trouble for you to
repost these citations, describe what they say, and show that it
supports the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims.
You say you don't play games. Fine. Repost the citations. Quote the
relevant passages showing that they support the Book of Mormon's
non-trivial claims. Make sure that the citations are from the
scientific literature. No more excuses. No more promises. No more
games.
Just do what you should do -- that is, support your claims with
verifiable evidence.
<snip to end>
Agkistrodon
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
I've done some searches and can't find Kevin's references... but he
seems to think that FARMS is a valid reference for a scientific paper.
Agkistrodon
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <918m5b$71d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <918ike$bg5$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Actually, if you would read the citations I posted,
>> instead of dismissing
>> them off-hand, you would realize that you are in error.
><snip>
>
>Well, I see we are back to where we started. You assert that you have
>references from the scientific literature that support the Book of
>Mormon's non-trivial claims.
>
>I haven't seen any, you claim I'm somehow dismissing your citations out
>of hand -- and through all this, it's still too much trouble for you to
>repost these citations, describe what they say, and show that it
>supports the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims.
>
>You say you don't play games. Fine. Repost the citations. Quote the
>relevant passages showing that they support the Book of Mormon's
>non-trivial claims. Make sure that the citations are from the
>scientific literature. No more excuses. No more promises. No more
>games.
>
>Just do what you should do -- that is, support your claims with
>verifiable evidence.
>
><snip to end>
Been there, done that Duwayne, you then instructed me to find the
entire articles and post THEM as well.
Do the research yourself. Find the citations in Deja and then find the
articles. Then we can discuss them
Kevin
Kevin Larson
Agkistrodon wrote in message <918mie$7gj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <916qla$np8$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>I've done some searches and can't find Kevin's references... but he
>seems to think that FARMS is a valid reference for a scientific paper.
>
>Agkistrodon
This just gets better and better, doesn't it? When did I say I thought
FARMS was a valid reference for scienfic papers? I know full well
FARMS is not peer-reviewed by no one except those on the
FARMS staff. Sheesh.
I posted references concerning transpacific travel and metallurgy
that was not, repeat, NOT published by FARMS, but by Sorenson
Kevin
Duwayne Anderson
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> Agkistrodon wrote in message <918mie$7gj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <916qla$np8$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> > "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
> >I've done some searches and can't find Kevin's references... but he
> >seems to think that FARMS is a valid reference for a scientific
paper.
> >
> >Agkistrodon
>
> This just gets better and better, doesn't it? When did I say I
thought
> FARMS was a valid reference for scienfic papers? I know full well
> FARMS is not peer-reviewed by no one except those on the
> FARMS staff. Sheesh.
>
> I posted references concerning transpacific travel and metallurgy
> that was not, repeat, NOT published by FARMS, but by Sorenson
>
> Kevin
And those references do not, repeat, NOT support any non-trivial claims
by the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon says the promised land was reserved exclusively for
the people that god would lead out of the "land of Jerusalem," and that
it was an "inheritance" for Lehi's family. But the article you cited
offers only indirect evidence for limited contact with the Old World,
mostly inconsistent with Book of Mormon dates, and fully inconsistent
with the Book of Mormon's theme that the great civilizations of the new
world are all transplanted from the old.
And (as I recall) the article on metal work had very little to do with
the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims as well. It certainly provided
no evidence or conclusion that the ancient Americans smelted iron and
stell, as the Book of Mormon claims, or that they forged iron/steel
sword in abundance for their wars.
In other words, the references you cited did not support the Book of
Mormon's non-trivial claims. Which is the issue here. The issue is
not one of making Sorenson into some sort of authority so you can
accept on faith his baseless arguments that try to add validity to the
Book of Mormon.
Duwayne Anderson
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
Been there, done what? Instead of replying with one-line comments like
this, why cannot you simply repeat these references, summarize their
conclusions, and show how they support the Book of Mormon's non-trivial
claims?
I'm guessing it's because you have never even *read* these references,
and you are just asserting what they say on second-hand evidence.
Otherwise it would be a simple thing to go to your files, pull out the
papers, write a paragraph or two (which is far less than the bla bla
bla you write trying to avoid your duty) and show how it supports the
Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims.
You wouldn't do it for me. It would be powerfull evidence for
Mormonism. It would make you a hero on ARM. You'd do it if you could -
- and you don't do it because you cannot.
> you then instructed me to find the
> entire articles and post THEM as well.
The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. I've been consistent in
what I've said. Post the references, summarize what they claim (copy a
paragraph or two -- NOT (as you so dishonestly assert) the whole
document). Show enough to prove that what you assert is true.
If you want credibility on ARM you need to provide verifiable evidence
of the claims you make. You are acting in pure apologetic form by
continuing to assert that you have these references, and that they
support non-trivial claims of the Book of Mormon, while resisting all
efforts to get you to post even the barest evidence that what you
assert is true.
> Do the research yourself.
> Find the citations in Deja and then find the
> articles. Then we can discuss them
Well, we have certainly been *here* before. This is how it always
ends. Appologist makes assertions. Appologist wont provide verifiable
evidence. Appologist tells others to do "the research yourself."
Well, I have news for you, Kevin. I've done the research. That's why
I left the LDS Church. It's a crock, Kevin, and there is no better
evidence of that than the way Mormon apologists try to defend it.
Kevin Larson
>Well, I have news for you, Kevin. I've done the research. That's why
>I left the LDS Church. It's a crock, Kevin, and there is no better
>evidence of that than the way Mormon apologists try to defend it.
Then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, aren't you?
Kevin
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <919d03$qh2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <918uod$tkg$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>>
>> Agkistrodon wrote in message <918mie$7gj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >In article <916qla$np8$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
>> > "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>> >I've done some searches and can't find Kevin's references... but he
>> >seems to think that FARMS is a valid reference for a scientific
>paper.
>> >
>> >Agkistrodon
>>
>> This just gets better and better, doesn't it? When did I say I
>thought
>> FARMS was a valid reference for scienfic papers? I know full well
>> FARMS is not peer-reviewed by no one except those on the
>> FARMS staff. Sheesh.
>>
>> I posted references concerning transpacific travel and metallurgy
>> that was not, repeat, NOT published by FARMS, but by Sorenson
>>
>> Kevin
>
>And those references do not, repeat, NOT support any non-trivial claims
>by the Book of Mormon.
>The Book of Mormon says the promised land was reserved exclusively for
>the people that god would lead out of the "land of Jerusalem," and that
>it was an "inheritance" for Lehi's family.
Then that is your interpretation of our scripture, is it not? There are
other
interpretations Duwayne, and we are under no obligation to accept
yours. Don't bother posting those verses again, I've read them enough
from you and your "analysis" of it to make my own conclusions
But the article you cited
>offers only indirect evidence for limited contact with the Old World,
>mostly inconsistent with Book of Mormon dates, and fully inconsistent
>with the Book of Mormon's theme that the great civilizations of the new
>world are all transplanted from the old.
Actually, the transoceanic reference was, first of all, not indirect, and
secondly, the BoM theme is ***not*** that great civilizations of the
new world are ALL transplanted from the old.
Careful reading will see that there were others in the Americans when
Lehi landed. You have your interpretion of these scriptures, I have mine.
Let's leave it at that, ok?
>And (as I recall) the article on metal work had very little to do with
>the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims as well. It certainly provided
>no evidence or conclusion that the ancient Americans smelted iron and
>stell, as the Book of Mormon claims, or that they forged iron/steel
>sword in abundance for their wars.
You are correct in this regard, that reference I posted did not have much
to do with forging iron/steel, and I regretted posting it, especially since
I did not read that article (I did, however, read the other one, and am in
the process of checking out some of the references it used for data)
>In other words, the references you cited did not support the Book of
>Mormon's non-trivial claims. Which is the issue here. The issue is
>not one of making Sorenson into some sort of authority so you can
>accept on faith his baseless arguments that try to add validity to the
>Book of Mormon.
I am not making Sorenson into some sort of authority. Once
again, our omniscient Duwayne can read my mind and figure out what
I am trying to do by posting Sorenson material. I am merely using him
to show that he has posted material in peer-reviewed material that is
scientific and does support one claim of the BoM, namely that a group
of people could have travelled here to the Americas.
Kevin
Duwayne Anderson
"And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the
knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the
land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I,
Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God
shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments,
they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept
from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.
And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be
blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest
them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall
dwell safely forever." [2 Nephi 1:8-9]
> There are other
> interpretations Duwayne, and we are under no obligation to accept
> yours.
The interpretations offered by Mormon apologists make a travisty of the
English language and are in direct conflict with what Mormon leaders
have taught.
For a look at what Mormon leaders have said on the subject (loads and
loads of quotations) go to
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9830/religion/lamaniteindianref.h
tml
The point is, Mormon apologists deny not only what the Book of Mormon
says, but how Mormon leaders have interpreted it. This is not a matter
of Mormon critics misreading the Book of Mormon. It is a matter of
Mormon apologists denying what it says, and denying what Mormon leaders
have said.
> Don't bother posting those verses again, I've read them enough
> from you and your "analysis" of it to make my own conclusions
Well, you see, this is the difference between you and I. I *do* post
references. I back up my claims with something besides my repeated
assumptions and assertions. That's the difference between you and I.
>
> But the article you cited
> >offers only indirect evidence for limited contact with the Old World,
> >mostly inconsistent with Book of Mormon dates, and fully inconsistent
> >with the Book of Mormon's theme that the great civilizations of the
new
> >world are all transplanted from the old.
>
> Actually, the transoceanic reference was, first of all, not indirect,
Call *again* for the references you refuse to give.
> and
> secondly, the BoM theme is ***not*** that great civilizations of the
> new world are ALL transplanted from the old.
The above is a good example of how Mormon apologists lie and
misrepresent the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon is very specific. It describes three migrations from
the old world to the new world and makes no mention or even hint of any
other people not associated with those migrations.
It says the people that came from the old world established
civilizations that covered the whole face of the land. And it says,
point blank, that the land had been reserved for the people god would
lead out from the land of Jerusalem, and that those people would be kept
from *ALL* other nations. It's right up there in the verses I quoted
from 2 Nephi.
>
> Careful reading will see that there were others in the Americans when
> Lehi landed.
Well, you have two choices here. You can admit that the Jaredites
(which *also* came from the old world, from the region of the
mythological tower of Babel) were from the "land of Jerusalem." That
will allow you to keep internal consistency with the Book of Mormon, but
maintains the problem of the Book of Mormon claiming that all people
came from the old world.
Or you can claim that the Jaredites were not from the land of Jerusalem,
in which case you have a direct contradiction in the Book of Mormon
between the case of the Jaredites and 2 Nephi 1. And you *still* have
the problem of the Book of Mormon claiming that all people came from the
old world because no amount of squirming or denial will erase 2 Nephi 1
or the proclamations of Mormon leaders.
> You have your interpretion of these scriptures,
> I have mine.
I have the statements of Mormon leaders. You have an ad hoc reading,
the only purpose of which is to help you keep one eye closed while
trying to maintain your faith in a book of fiction.
> Let's leave it at that, ok?
Kevin, as long as you keep misrepresenting the Book of Mormon and what
Mormon leaders teach, I'm going to keep pointing it out.
>
> >And (as I recall) the article on metal work had very little to do
with
> >the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims as well. It certainly
provided
> >no evidence or conclusion that the ancient Americans smelted iron and
> >stell, as the Book of Mormon claims, or that they forged iron/steel
> >sword in abundance for their wars.
>
> You are correct in this regard, that reference I posted did not have
much
> to do with forging iron/steel, and I regretted posting it, especially
since
> I did not read that article (I did, however, read the other one, and
am in
> the process of checking out some of the references it used for data)
The question about these references will not be settled until you can
post them. So far, we've seen nothing but a long string of assertions
and nothing more out of you.
>
> >In other words, the references you cited did not support the Book of
> >Mormon's non-trivial claims. Which is the issue here. The issue is
> >not one of making Sorenson into some sort of authority so you can
> >accept on faith his baseless arguments that try to add validity to
the
> >Book of Mormon.
>
> I am not making Sorenson into some sort of authority. Once
> again, our omniscient Duwayne can read my mind
I'm not reading your mind, Kevin. Now stop trying to change the subject
and do you job. You claim that you post references and we don't accept
them. Well, this recent exchange is a perfect example of what you
really do. You assert, assert, assert. But refuse to actually post
anything from the scientific literature that supports any of the Book of
Mormon's non-trivial claims.
> and figure out what
> I am trying to do by posting Sorenson material. I am merely using him
> to show that he has posted material in peer-reviewed material that is
> scientific and does support one claim of the BoM, namely that a group
> of people could have travelled here to the Americas.
Kevin, that is not a non-trivial claim of the Book of Mormon. It's like
Charles Dowis claiming that the Book of Mormon is validated by the fact
that it describes cities in ancient America, and that cities have been
found in ancinet America. That's what's called a trivial claim.
Duwayne Anderson
Obviously you are unable to provide any non-trivial validation of any
Book of Mormon claims, or you would do it. This thread started out with
you complaining that you post references and they don't get enough
respect.
Now, after about a week of asking, you still won't post the references,
summarize them, or show how they support any non-trivial claims made by
the Book of Mormon.
That's exactly what virtually every Mormon apologist has done on ARM.
There is, as Russell and Pacumeni made so clear, *NO* scientific
evidence for the Book of Mormon. And that is more than just my opinion.
Agkistrodon
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> Agkistrodon wrote in message <918mie$7gj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <916qla$np8$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> > "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
> >I've done some searches and can't find Kevin's references... but he
> >seems to think that FARMS is a valid reference for a scientific
paper.
> >
> >Agkistrodon
>
> This just gets better and better, doesn't it? When did I say I
thought
> FARMS was a valid reference for scienfic papers? I know full well
> FARMS is not peer-reviewed by no one except those on the
> FARMS staff. Sheesh.
>
> I posted references concerning transpacific travel and metallurgy
> that was not, repeat, NOT published by FARMS, but by Sorenson
>
> Kevin
>
>
Then, as has been asked, repost them. I have searched through the NGs
and can't find your references.
Agkistrodon
--
lpau...@my-deja.com
Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <918uod$tkg$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agkistrodon wrote in message <918mie$7gj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >In article <916qla$np8$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> > > "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
> > >I've done some searches and can't find Kevin's references... but he
> > >seems to think that FARMS is a valid reference for a scientific
> paper.
> > >
> > >Agkistrodon
> >
> > This just gets better and better, doesn't it? When did I say I
> thought
> > FARMS was a valid reference for scienfic papers? I know full well
> > FARMS is not peer-reviewed by no one except those on the
> > FARMS staff. Sheesh.
> >
> > I posted references concerning transpacific travel and metallurgy
> > that was not, repeat, NOT published by FARMS, but by Sorenson
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
>
> Then, as has been asked, repost them. I have searched through the NGs
> and can't find your references.
>
> Agkistrodon
>
Nor could I. Kevin, I did not see them, and unless I'm mistaken, you
did not respond to my request a few days ago to post the citations. In
any case, I've searched the Library of Congress and come up with the
following. Perhaps you could tell us the relevant citations from those
below. (And what's the map published in 2000?)
LC Control Number: 98009753
Main Title: Mormons, scripture, and the ancient world : studies
in honor of John L. Sorenson / edited by Davis Bitton.
Published/Created: Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon Studies, c1998.
Related Names: Sorenson, John L.
Bitton, Davis, 1930-
Description: xliv, 519 p. : ill., map ; 24 cm.
ISBN: 0934893314 (hardcover)
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index.
Subjects: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--
History.
Book of Mormon--Evidences, authority, etc.
Book of Mormon--Antiquities.
Mormon Church--History.
LC Classification: BX8611 .M674 1998
Dewey Class No.: 289.3/09 21
======================================================================
______________________________
LC Control Number: 90029124
Main Title: Rediscovering the Book of Mormon / edited by John L.
Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne.
Published/Created: Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo,
Utah :
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon
Studies,
c1991.
Related Names: Sorenson, John L.
Thorne, Melvin J.
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
Description: x, 274 p. ; 23 cm.
ISBN: 0875793878 :
Notes: Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
Subjects: Book of Mormon--Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Book of Mormon--Evidences, authority, etc.
LC Classification: BX8627 .R397 1991
Dewey Class No.: 289.3/22 20
========================================================================
LC Control Number: 83621108
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Bray, Warwick.
Main Title: Metallurgy in ancient Mexico / Warwick Bray, John L.
Sorenson, and James R. Moriarty III.
Published/Created: Greeley, Colo. : University of Northern Colorado,
Museum
of Anthropology, 1982.
Related Names: Sorenson, John L.
Moriarty, James R. (James Robert)
Description: [28] leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references.
Subjects: Metallurgy--Mexico--History.
Mexico--Antiquities.
Series: Museum of Anthropology miscellaneous series ; no. 45
LC Classification: GN4 .U53 no. 45
Dewey Class No.: 669/.00972 19
Geog. Area Code: n-mx---
______________________________
========================================================================
========
LC Control Number: 96177793
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Sorenson, John L.
Main Title: An ancient American setting for the Book of
Mormon / John
L. Sorenson ; foreword by Leonard J. Arrington,
Truman
G. Madsen, and John W. Welch.
Published/Created: Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo,
Utah :
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon
Studies,
c1996.
Description: xxi, 415 p. : ill., maps ; 24 cm.
ISBN: 1573451576 (pbk.)
087747608X (hard)
Notes: Originally published: c1985.
Includes bibliographical references (p. 357-403) and
indexes.
Subjects: Book of Mormon--Geography.
Book of Mormon--Evidences, authority, etc.
LC Classification: BX8627 .S64 1996
Dewey Class No.: 289.3/22 20
______________________________
========================================================================
========
LC Control Number: 84043240
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Sorenson, John L.
Main Title: An ancient American setting for the Book of
Mormon / John
L. Sorenson ; foreword by Leonard J. Arrington,
Truman
G. Madsen, and John W. Welch.
Published/Created: Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Co. ; Provo,
Utah :
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon
Studies,
c1985.
Description: xxi, 415 p. : ill., maps ; 24 cm.
ISBN: 087747608X
Notes: Maps on lining papers.
Includes indexes.
Bibliography: p. 357-403.
Subjects: Book of Mormon--Geography.
Book of Mormon--Evidences, authority, etc.
LC Classification: BX8627 .S64 1985
Dewey Class No.: 289.3/22 19
______________________________
========================================================================
========
LC Control Number: 97039237
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Sorenson, John L.
Main Title: Images of ancient America : visualizing book of
Mormon
life / John L. Sorenson.
Published/Created: Provo, Utah : Research Press, c1998.
Description: vii, 241 p. : ill. (some col.), col. maps ; 31 cm.
ISBN: 0934893284
Notes: Includes bibliographical references (p. 236-237) and
indexes.
Subjects: Book of Mormon--Geography.
Book of Mormon--Evidences, authority, etc.
LC Classification: BX8627. .S644 1998
Dewey Class No.: 289.3/22 21
______________________________
========================================================================
========
LC Control Number: 99059013
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Sorenson, John L.
Main Title: Mormon's map / John L. Sorenson.
Published/Created: Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon
Studies, c2000.
Description: 154 p. : maps ; 23 cm.
ISBN: 0934893489 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Notes: Maps also on lining papers.
Includes bibliographical references (p, [129]-134)
and
indexes.
Subjects: Book of Mormon--Geography.
LC Classification: BX8627 .S646 2000
Dewey Class No.: 289.3/22 21
______________________________
========================================================================
========
LC Control Number: 98211099
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Sorenson, John L.
Main Title: Pre-Columbian contact with the Americas across the
oceans
: an annotated bibliography / John L. Sorenson and
Martin H. Raish.
Edition Information:
2nd ed., rev.
Published/Created: Provo, Utah : Research Press, 1996.
Related Names: Raish, Martin.
Description: 2 v. ; 29 cm.
ISBN: 0934893225 (v. 1)
0934893233 (v. 2)
0934893217 (set)
Notes: Also issued on CD-ROM.
Includes index.
Subjects: Indians--First contact with Europeans--Bibliography.
America--Discovery and exploration--Pre-Columbian
Bibliography.
America--History--To 1810--Bibliography.
LC Classification: Z1209 .S58 1996 E59.F53
Dewey Class No.: 016.97001/1 21
Other System No.: (OCoLC)36463724
Geog. Area Code: n------ s------
--
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of
my long lost sisters, forgotten in the books that record our science.
Caroline Herschel**
Agkistrodon
Okay, I found the references you did, love of my three-chambered heart,
and I also went back to a thread back in October and found the
following interesting citation (check Kevin's posts in "The Apoplexy of
Science):
>There is scientific evidence for a Semetic influence on Meso-American
>languages, especially Egyptian
>http://www.earthmatrix.com/linguistic/kemi-mesoamerican.htm
Being somewhat interested in languages, I checked it out. It's a site
established by some guy who not only is a von Danikenist but also a
numerologist. He's got extensive files regarding various geometric
formulae and the areas and volumes of the pyramids, the size of the
astronomical unit, etc. All garbarge, of course. His language site as
cited, takes the similarity between a few sords and stretches it to
mean that they are from a single language. The words are in Mayan,
Nahuatl (an ancient language, supposedly)and "ancient Egyptian." No
references, other than to Budge's Hieroglyphic Dictionary are
presented.
Here's the connection and I have preserved the grammatical errors in my
transcription:
"Now, in consulting E.A.W. Budge's _An Ancient Hieroglyphic
Dictionary_, we find that *met* (page 336a) means to strike, and *at*
means corn or grist. One can easily visulaize the ancient Egyptian
construction of *met-at*, and an almost exact meaning appears in
relation to the nahuatl word *metlatl* (a grinding stone for corn)."
There is really nothing to this connection. By doing a random search
of words using one of the internet based multinational dictionaries
asking for words for "food", a search of 15 languages revealed several
words in other unrelated languages that had words that were similar
between themselves although not similar to the English. The point is
that you can do this for any language and any group of languages if you
pick and choose what you want to look similar. In no way do these
words indicate a connection between those languages. It is a
statistical folly to say that they do.
The paper also found a few other stretchers that remind one of the old
letter replacement puzzles that go:
Head -> Heat -> Feat-> Flat -> Flit
Therefore, heads are the same as flit? Nah???? Flit was a bugspray.
The paper said absolutely nothing about preserved grammatical
constructions or about writing styles. It was ancient astronaut junk.
I also found, accidentally, some references to the newer work on
Mexican metallurgy by a lady at MIT. From what I got so far, the
metallurgy was far more oriented toward the religious aspects of the
society of Mexico and seemed to indicate a focus on the use of
metallurgy to make bells and perhaps some other symbolic instruments
out of gold and silver. The periods of activity were also the 6th to
the 17th Centuries and not the time of Nephi or any time during their
great battles. The lady did not mention steel. I'm not going to play
around with this theme too much because it has been very well
demonstrated that the BoM required metallurgical skill and knowledge
just wasn't there in either Mexico or South America. Duwayne is quite
right. The BoM evidence cannot be trivial (such as meteoritic iron
beaten to a trinket). It has to be clear and not explainable in any
other way.
Agkistrodon
>>
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
lpau...@my-deja.com
Oh yes. That reminds me.
Snake ====> skin =====> boots.
If you'll buy them for me for Christmas darling, I promise I won't bug
you for any more gifts for the rest of the year. And I also promise I
won't wear them around you.
-
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Sometimes when I am alone in the dark, and the universe reveals yet
another secret, I say the names of my long lost sisters, forgotten in
the books that record our science. Caroline Herschel**
Agkistrodon
lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <91bap8$cma$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <91b7sm$a5j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,>
>
> Snake ====> skin =====> boots.
>
> If you'll buy them for me for Christmas darling, I promise I won't bug
> you for any more gifts for the rest of the year. And I also promise I
> won't wear them around you.
>
> -
> Regards,
> Lee Paulson
>
Yeah, well,
Human -> skull -> museum
Agkistrodon
--
By the clever and continued use of propaganda, a
people can even be made to mistake heaven for hell
and vice versa, the most miserable life for
Paradise. - Adolf Hitler
Duwayne Anderson
Lee said:
> > Snake ====> skin =====> boots.
Agkistrodon said:
> Human -> skull -> museum
Duwayne says:
>Apologist -> apology -> wrong
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
hope others on ARM read it.
In article <91bap8$cma$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Agkistrodon <eosin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--
American quarter horse - the ultimate
all-terrain vehicle.
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91avi1$2fj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
And my problem with you saying this is that it suddenly invalidates the
BoM as scripture whatsoever
Kevin
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91avbu$2c1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Ahh yes, when I agree with my leaders, the thinking has been done, when
I disagree with them, I am forced to hold to their interpretation. Gotcha.
>For a look at what Mormon leaders have said on the subject (loads and
>loads of quotations) go to
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9830/religion/lamaniteindianref.h
>tml
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>The point is, Mormon apologists deny not only what the Book of Mormon
>says, but how Mormon leaders have interpreted it. This is not a matter
>of Mormon critics misreading the Book of Mormon. It is a matter of
>Mormon apologists denying what it says, and denying what Mormon leaders
>have said.
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz again. There are other verses that indicate Lehi and
his family were not alone.
>> Don't bother posting those verses again, I've read them enough
>> from you and your "analysis" of it to make my own conclusions
>
>Well, you see, this is the difference between you and I. I *do* post
>references. I back up my claims with something besides my repeated
>assumptions and assertions. That's the difference between you and I.
I posted the references on transoceanic travel. You know it, and I know it.
Use
Deja (I don't use it) and find the references again, shouldn't be too hard.
If you
remember, last time I posted them you dismissed them offhand. Go figure.
>>
>> But the article you cited
>> >offers only indirect evidence for limited contact with the Old World,
>> >mostly inconsistent with Book of Mormon dates, and fully inconsistent
>> >with the Book of Mormon's theme that the great civilizations of the
>new
>> >world are all transplanted from the old.
>>
>> Actually, the transoceanic reference was, first of all, not indirect,
>
>Call *again* for the references you refuse to give.
Already given them, and you know it.
>> and
>> secondly, the BoM theme is ***not*** that great civilizations of the
>> new world are ALL transplanted from the old.
>
>The above is a good example of how Mormon apologists lie and
>misrepresent the Book of Mormon.
>
>The Book of Mormon is very specific. It describes three migrations from
>the old world to the new world and makes no mention or even hint of any
>other people not associated with those migrations.
The BoM is far from specific on this point.
>It says the people that came from the old world established
>civilizations that covered the whole face of the land. And it says,
>point blank, that the land had been reserved for the people god would
>lead out from the land of Jerusalem, and that those people would be kept
>from *ALL* other nations. It's right up there in the verses I quoted
>from 2 Nephi.
Does Nephi include the nation his family assimilated himself into? Not
necessarily.
<long snip>
>The question about these references will not be settled until you can
>post them. So far, we've seen nothing but a long string of assertions
>and nothing more out of you.
Again, I've already posted them. You know it, and I know it.
>>
>> >In other words, the references you cited did not support the Book of
>> >Mormon's non-trivial claims. Which is the issue here. The issue is
>> >not one of making Sorenson into some sort of authority so you can
>> >accept on faith his baseless arguments that try to add validity to
>the
>> >Book of Mormon.
>>
>> I am not making Sorenson into some sort of authority. Once
>> again, our omniscient Duwayne can read my mind
>
>I'm not reading your mind, Kevin. Now stop trying to change the subject
>and do you job. You claim that you post references and we don't accept
>them. Well, this recent exchange is a perfect example of what you
>really do. You assert, assert, assert. But refuse to actually post
>anything from the scientific literature that supports any of the Book of
>Mormon's non-trivial claims.
I posted the references, you just dismissed them out of hand. You seem to
assume that science did not exist before peer-reviewed journals.
And this was from the same Duwayne that posted that he did not accept
arguments from authority when asked about his credentials in mathematics.
Applying a bit of a double-standard, aren't we?
<snip to end>
Kevin
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91bdjo$esk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Excellent. Thanks for doing the leg work. Some very good points. I
>hope others on ARM read it.
I made a mistake in posting the website... Now, post the references I
made in actual journals; my usenet software deleted the thread already.
Kevin
Copperhead
>
>Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91bdjo$esk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Excellent. Thanks for doing the leg work. Some very good points. I
>>hope others on ARM read it.
>
>I made a mistake in posting the website... Now, post the references I
>made in actual journals; my usenet software deleted the thread already.
>
>Kevin
>
Dump the Usenet software and use DejaNews. It has a power search
feature that is really quite good. When you find it, get back.
Agkistrodon
Duwayne Anderson
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91bdjo$esk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Excellent. Thanks for doing the leg work. Some very good points. I
> >hope others on ARM read it.
>
> I made a mistake in posting the website... Now, post the references I
> made in actual journals; my usenet software deleted the thread
already.
Look, Kevin. You don't seem to understand. You made an assertion that
post references, but they are not treated with due respect. I've been
asking you for about a week to post your references, to explain their
significance, what they mean, and how they support the Book of Mormon's
non-trivial claims.
You haven't done it. Now you are asking *others* on ARM to search for
them and post them for you?
C'mon. Give it up. Your accusation that started this thread was
false, and there is no better example of it than the week of excuses
you've treated us to on ARM.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
--
Duwayne Anderson
You just put your scriptures in the same category as pink unicorns and
monsters under the bed.
Duwayne Anderson
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Ahh yes, when I agree with my leaders,
> the thinking has been done,
> when I disagree with them, I am forced to hold to their
> interpretation. Gotcha.
When you disagree with Mormon leaders you speak for yourself, and not
the LDS Church.
<snip>
> ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz again. There are other verses
> that indicate Lehi and his family were not alone
> [not counting the Jaredites, who were mentioned by Duwayne].
The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. The best evidence that
it is false is the fact that Kevin asserts his claim, as he almost
always does, without offering a single scripture reference.
<snip>
> I posted the references on transoceanic travel.
> You know it, and I know it.
And I've pointed out that the article supports no non-trivial claims of
the Book of Mormon. It does not argue or present evidence for any
major exodus from the old world to the new -- certainly nothing in line
with the Book of Mormon's claim that the new world was reserved
exclusively for people that god would lead out from "the land of
Jerusalem."
> Use
> Deja (I don't use it) and find the references again, shouldn't be too
hard.
> If you
> remember, last time I posted them you dismissed them offhand. Go
figure.
Well, this thread got started with you complaining that you post
references and they don't get the proper respect. All you have shown
for the last week is that you post mostly excuses, and getting a
reference out of you -- one that supports the Book of Mormon's non-
trivial claims, and is found in the scientific literature -- is as
impossible as it is with Charles Dowis.
> Already given them [references supporting the Book of
> Mormon's non-trivial claims], and you know it.
The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. He has posted no
references from the scientific literature that support any of the Book
of Mormon's non-trivial claims. He has posted articles that weakly
address some claims in an obtuse manner. Nothing more.
<snip>
> The BoM is far from specific on this point [other migrations
> to the new world].
The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. The Book of Mormon
clearly describes three different migrations to the new world from the
old world. It describes the people and their customes. It also says,
very specifically, that the new world is reserved as an inheritance for
the people that god would lead out of the "land of Jerusalem," and that
those people would be kept from "ALL other nations." [2 Nephi 1]
There is no mention or even hint of any people in the new world that
did not originate from the old world in the Book of Mormon. Which
explains why Kevin and Charles assert their case, but never follow up
with any references from the Book of Mormon.
<snip>
> I posted the references, you just dismissed them out of hand.
> You seem to assume that science did not exist before
> peer-reviewed journals.
Haven't you been asserting that you posted references from science
journals. Now you seem to be arguing that I rejected your references
because they were not from science journals.
Which is it, Kevin? Why not stop playing games and just post these
references that you seem so determined to keep secret.
<snip to end>
Copperhead
>
>
>ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz again. There are other verses that indicate Lehi and
>his family were not alone.
Does that mean the book contains its own contradictions? That makes
it internally inconsistent, doesn't it? Is inconsistency a mark of
"revelation"? Must be because the LDS leadership has never been
consistent.
>>> Don't bother posting those verses again, I've read them enough
>>> from you and your "analysis" of it to make my own conclusions
>>
>>Well, you see, this is the difference between you and I. I *do* post
>>references. I back up my claims with something besides my repeated
>>assumptions and assertions. That's the difference between you and I.
>
>I posted the references on transoceanic travel. You know it, and I know it.
>Use
>Deja (I don't use it) and find the references again, shouldn't be too hard.
>If you
>remember, last time I posted them you dismissed them offhand. Go figure.
>
The book by Sorenson does not lend much support to the story of Lehi.
It is a difusionist tome in that it gathers a lot of information that
says there MAY have been some Old->New World exchanges that took place
over many many years and happened on many many occassions. What the
book fails to consider (and what the diffusionists fail to consider)
is that if it is true that there was contact, why was it so minimal
once it happened? Why is it so damned unclear that it ever happened
at all? Look what happened in 16th Century America. A flood! Had
the Greeks, Womans, Egyptians, whoever, really established trade (as
some allege), why was it of so minor importance that it went dead?
You can't really blame technology because the technology of boat
building would have erupted to take advantage of the first fortuitous
discovery... exactly as it did in the 16th Century. There are too
many questions and so very few answers by the diffusionists that we
must hold off on their theory pending those answers.
>>>
>>> But the article you cited
>>> >offers only indirect evidence for limited contact with the Old World,
>>> >mostly inconsistent with Book of Mormon dates, and fully inconsistent
>>> >with the Book of Mormon's theme that the great civilizations of the
>>new
>>> >world are all transplanted from the old.
>>>
>>> Actually, the transoceanic reference was, first of all, not indirect,
>>
>>Call *again* for the references you refuse to give.
>
>Already given them, and you know it.
Like that one on languages?
>
>>> and
>>> secondly, the BoM theme is ***not*** that great civilizations of the
>>> new world are ALL transplanted from the old.
>>
>>The above is a good example of how Mormon apologists lie and
>>misrepresent the Book of Mormon.
>>
>>The Book of Mormon is very specific. It describes three migrations from
>>the old world to the new world and makes no mention or even hint of any
>>other people not associated with those migrations.
>
>The BoM is far from specific on this point.
Give us the cites.
Agkistrodon
Kevin Larson
Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91bud6$soq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <91bk9p$spv$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Ahh yes, when I agree with my leaders,
>> the thinking has been done,
>> when I disagree with them, I am forced to hold to their
>> interpretation. Gotcha.
>
>When you disagree with Mormon leaders you speak for yourself, and not
>the LDS Church.
And when LDS leaders say something wrong, they speak for themselves
as well.
><snip>
>> ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz again. There are other verses
>> that indicate Lehi and his family were not alone
>> [not counting the Jaredites, who were mentioned by Duwayne].
>
>The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. The best evidence that
>it is false is the fact that Kevin asserts his claim, as he almost
>always does, without offering a single scripture reference.
"O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren"
(Alma 31:35). In other verses, Lamanite, Mulekites, and even Jaredites,
are referred to as brethren. Who, then, are the non-brethren???
><snip>
>> I posted the references on transoceanic travel.
>> You know it, and I know it.
>
>And I've pointed out that the article supports no non-trivial claims of
>the Book of Mormon. It does not argue or present evidence for any
>major exodus from the old world to the new -- certainly nothing in line
>with the Book of Mormon's claim that the new world was reserved
>exclusively for people that god would lead out from "the land of
>Jerusalem."
It has been a non-trivial claim for years that transoceanic travel and
contact ever happen. Since, of course, you get to decide what is
non-trivial you can automatically filter out any data that does not
fit your paradigm.
>> Use
>> Deja (I don't use it) and find the references again, shouldn't be too
>hard.
>> If you
>> remember, last time I posted them you dismissed them offhand. Go
>figure.
>
>Well, this thread got started with you complaining that you post
>references and they don't get the proper respect. All you have shown
>for the last week is that you post mostly excuses, and getting a
>reference out of you -- one that supports the Book of Mormon's non-
>trivial claims, and is found in the scientific literature -- is as
>impossible as it is with Charles Dowis.
Once again, you are wrong. I already posted the reference, and you
know it. The reference, in your opinion, is just a non-trivial claim.
I wouldn't expect anything less.
>> Already given them [references supporting the Book of
>> Mormon's non-trivial claims], and you know it.
>
>The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. He has posted no
>references from the scientific literature that support any of the Book
>of Mormon's non-trivial claims. He has posted articles that weakly
>address some claims in an obtuse manner. Nothing more.
And, of course, our arbiter of truth gets to decide non-trivial. How
cute.
><snip>
>> The BoM is far from specific on this point [other migrations
>> to the new world].
>
>The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. The Book of Mormon
>clearly describes three different migrations to the new world from the
>old world. It describes the people and their customes. It also says,
>very specifically, that the new world is reserved as an inheritance for
>the people that god would lead out of the "land of Jerusalem," and that
>those people would be kept from "ALL other nations." [2 Nephi 1]
See above, I am in no hurry to accept your biased intepretation of the
passage, just as you are in no hurry to accept my biased interpretation
as well.
Does "other nations" include the ones the Nephites assimilated
themselves into? I am waiting for your response, but I doubt I will get
anything other than how much I lie, and how much I evade answers.
<snip to end>
Kevin
Duwayne Anderson
"Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> Duwayne Anderson wrote in message <91bud6$soq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <91bk9p$spv$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
> > "Kevin Larson" <sdf...@asdf.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Ahh yes, when I agree with my leaders,
> >> the thinking has been done,
> >> when I disagree with them, I am forced to hold to their
> >> interpretation. Gotcha.
> >
> >When you disagree with Mormon leaders you speak for yourself, and not
> >the LDS Church.
>
> And when LDS leaders say something wrong, they speak for themselves
> as well.
Look what we have:
1) We have clear and unambiguous statements in the Book of Mormon to
the effect that the promised land was reserved for people that god
would lead out from the land of Jerusalem and that those people would
be kept from all other nations.
2) We have clear and unambiguous statements in the Book of Mormon
describing three migrations from the old world to the new world, and
*EVERY* group in the Book of Mormon can be traced through the story
line directly to those groups and no others.
3) We have *NO* statements about any other groups. No hints, no
suggestions. Absolutely nothing.
4) We have Mormon scriptures that specifically name North American
Indians as "Lamanites."
5) We have Moroni's statement that the Book of Mormon is an "account"
of the people that lived anciently in America. Not just some. But THE
ancient inhabitants of America.
6) And to top it off, we have Mormon leaders clearly and consistently
naming the Indians as "Lamanites."
And you tell us that YOU are the one with the correct interpretation,
and that the Mormon leaders are interpreting the Book of Mormon
incorrectly?
I think not. The Book of Mormon should be judged and evaluated on the
basis of the claims it makes -- not the watered-down, ad-hoc
interpretations offered by no-account apologists who are too
intellectually dishonest to let go Mormonism, and feel compelled,
instead to misrepresent it to themselves and others instead.
>
> ><snip>
> >> ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz again. There are other verses
> >> that indicate Lehi and his family were not alone
> >> [not counting the Jaredites, who were mentioned by Duwayne].
> >
> >The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. The best evidence that
> >it is false is the fact that Kevin asserts his claim, as he almost
> >always does, without offering a single scripture reference.
>
> "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren"
> (Alma 31:35). In other verses, Lamanite, Mulekites, and even
Jaredites,
> are referred to as brethren. Who, then, are the non-brethren???
Kevin, this argument is semantics at its worst. "The word "bretheren"
has many meanings in dozens of different contexts. In one context it
can mean someone in your immediate family. In another context it can
mean someone from your country. In yet another it can mean someone who
is a member of the human race. You are ignoring all the clear evidence
to the contrary and mixing words used in different context. And all
this in a vain attempt to maintain your belief in a book of mythology.
>
> ><snip>
> >> I posted the references on transoceanic travel.
> >> You know it, and I know it.
> >
> >And I've pointed out that the article supports no non-trivial claims
of
> >the Book of Mormon. It does not argue or present evidence for any
> >major exodus from the old world to the new -- certainly nothing in
line
> >with the Book of Mormon's claim that the new world was reserved
> >exclusively for people that god would lead out from "the land of
> >Jerusalem."
>
> It has been a non-trivial claim for years that transoceanic travel and
> contact ever happen.
Not true. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon the idea that the
Indians were from the lost tribes of Israel was commonly accepted and
believed. The Book of Mormon is perfectly contemporary in its origin.
> Since, of course, you get to decide what is
> non-trivial you can automatically filter out any data that does not
> fit your paradigm.
Kevin, none of the stuff you've posted supports the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon claims significant, long-term, continent-wide
colinization from the old world in ancient America. None of your stuff
even pretends to support that thesis.
What you have is about as significant as Charles Dowis and his iron
meteorites.
>
> >> Use
> >> Deja (I don't use it) and find the references again, shouldn't be
too
> >hard.
> >> If you
> >> remember, last time I posted them you dismissed them offhand. Go
> >figure.
> >
> >Well, this thread got started with you complaining that you post
> >references and they don't get the proper respect. All you have shown
> >for the last week is that you post mostly excuses, and getting a
> >reference out of you -- one that supports the Book of Mormon's non-
> >trivial claims, and is found in the scientific literature -- is as
> >impossible as it is with Charles Dowis.
>
> Once again, you are wrong. I already posted the reference, and you
> know it.
No, Kevin. You haven't posted references to the scientific literature
supporting any of the Book of Mormon's non-trivial claims. Others have
searched, and they cannot find them. All you have are assertions --
the hallmark of Mormon apologists.
> The reference, in your opinion, is just a non-trivial claim.
I've explained to you why the idea of limited contact with the Book of
Mormon is not part of the claims that the book makes. Anyone who has
actually read the Book of Mormon knows that.
>
> I wouldn't expect anything less.
What you expect is not the issue here. You started this present thread
by complaining that you post references, but that they are not taken
seriously. We've had plenty of time to see the hot air in that claim.
>
> >> Already given them [references supporting the Book of
> >> Mormon's non-trivial claims], and you know it.
> >
> >The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. He has posted no
> >references from the scientific literature that support any of the
Book
> >of Mormon's non-trivial claims. He has posted articles that weakly
> >address some claims in an obtuse manner. Nothing more.
>
> And, of course, our arbiter of truth gets to decide non-trivial. How
> cute.
If you think it is non-trivial, then make a point. So far you just
keep stomping your feet and making assertions. You seem to understand
that you have no logical argument to stand on, so you just keep
asserting that you have posted the references, and that they support
the Book of Mormon, but you offer no logical argument why what you say
is true.
I've told you why the claims you say your references make are trivial.
I've told you about the climate when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of
Mormon -- how it was commonly believed that the Indians were some of
the lost tribes. You can find it all documented quite nicely in
Brodie's book, "No Man Knows My History."
I've shown with actual verses from the Book of Mormon the fact that the
Book claims the promised land was reserved for the people god would
bring out from the "land of Jerusalem," and that they were promised
that they would be kept from all other nations. I've shown you where
to find abundant quotations from Mormon leaders to the effect that the
Indians are Lamanites. All these things show the Book of Mormon's
principal thesis of mass migrations to the new world.
How does the idea of a small and limited contact between ancient
American and the old world support these claims of the Book of Mormon?
It does not. It's just an excuse to keep believing in a book of
mythology.
>
> ><snip>
> >> The BoM is far from specific on this point [other migrations
> >> to the new world].
> >
> >The above statement by Kevin Larson is false. The Book of Mormon
> >clearly describes three different migrations to the new world from
the
> >old world. It describes the people and their customes. It also
says,
> >very specifically, that the new world is reserved as an inheritance
for
> >the people that god would lead out of the "land of Jerusalem," and
that
> >those people would be kept from "ALL other nations." [2 Nephi 1]
>
> See above, I am in no hurry to accept your biased intepretation of the
> passage, just as you are in no hurry to accept my biased
interpretation
> as well.
>
> Does "other nations" include the ones the Nephites assimilated
> themselves into?
This is a nonsense question. When Lehi arrived he said the land had
been kept from other nations. He said the land was an inheritance for
his family. He said that if there were other nations there they would
overrun the land so there would be no room for an inheritance.
How could any of those statements have made any sense if they were
being "assimilated" into other groups? Why would they mention the
groups from the old world -- in great detail -- but never mention or
even hint at local groups that were "assimilating" them?
I think it's time to stop making the Book of Mormon your idle god and
start showing a little more respect for the truth. The first thing to
do is to evaluate the Book of Mormon on the merits of what it says.
And if it fails to match up to the truth, you need to have the courage
to admit it, and leave. That's what I did. It wasn't easy, but it's
the only intellectually honest thing to do.
> I am waiting for your response, but I doubt I will get
> anything other than how much I lie, and how much I evade answers.
I've answered every one of your questions, Kevin. And unlike you I
have been honest about what the Book of Mormon says, and how Mormon
leaders have interpreted it. I've also provided references.
cont...@my-deja.com
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >Not to mention that horses are notably prolific animals--they
take "go
> >forth and multiply" seriously. You'd think with all those horses,
we'd
> >find SOME evidence of their existence.
> >
> >--
> >Regards,
> >Lee Paulson
>
> A couple of years ago, Mormon Red Davis challenged someone to come up
with a
> "mathematical model" for theoretical horse population growth. Red
contended
> that the wild mustang herds on the plains couldn't have multiplied to
their
> degree as found in the late 1800's, if they had only escaped from
Spaniards in
> the 1500's. His point being, that the wild herds must ahve
descended from
> "Nephite" horses some 2000 years earlier. Below is my reply to Red.
I never
> heard from him again about it, so I guess he had no argument with it.
Sloppy agape at its finest. I did not respond to your post simply
because it is not a mathematical model, and its premise was simply
silly.
You see - the Spaniards only traveled with male horses on their
exploration ships. Only after they had colonized an area would they
transport female horses. (Horses giving birth at sea, or in the heat
of battle tended to be a bad thing).
So, the question is - how do we go from a few horses in Spanish
colonies getting loose and propagating some several million offspring
within some 200 years?
You do know that the gestation period for a horse is 11 months, right?
You also know that they only give birth to one baby at a time, right?
So, again -- let's go from a handful of horses to several million in
200 years given the parameters of the problem. Plus, these horses have
to travel the breadth and width of North America from the Pacific Ocean
to the Mississippi River, from Calgary down to Mexico City in less than
100 years.
Do the math.
-Red Davis
>
> I had a little time today to look up a few facts about this horse-
poop. As to
> Red's contention that Spanish horses couldn't have multiplied fast
enough to
> have provided the thousands found on the western American plains in
the 1700s,
> Bernal Diaz Del Castillo, Cortes' historian, recorded that they had
sixteen
> horses when they invaded Mexico. They didn't have to transport them
all the
> way from Spain, as Spanish outposts had already been established on
islands
> such as Hispaniola, Cuba, and San Salvador. Cortez mustered his
force from
> Cuba in 1519. Del Castillo reported that the Indians were terrified
of the
> horses, as they had never seen them, and initially thought that horse
and rider
> were a single animal. The horses' whinnying and neighing also
frightened them,
> and this was a major factor in Cortez' ability to conquer them.
> My World Book Encyclopedia, under "horse" states that "The colonists
found no
> horses in North America. The American Indians did not know about
horses until
> Spanish conquerors under Hernando Cortes brought them to Mexico in
1519. Some
> of the horses of these and later explorers may have been left
behind. They
> probably became the ancestors of the wild horses of the western
plains. At
> first the American Indians feared horses. This helped the Spaniards
conquer
> the Indians. The Indians, especially the tribes of the western
plains, began
> to use horses about 1600."
>
> World Book, under "Marquette" tells us that in 1673, "Marquette and
Joliet led
> their party down the Mississippi to the mouth of the Arkansas River.
Strange
> Indians with guns suddenly surrounded them there.....Some of them
became
> friendly enough to tell Marquette that the guns came from other white
men who
> were some ten days' journey farther south. These could have only been
> Spaniards."
>
> Hernando De Soto landed at Tampa Bay in 1539 (20 years after Cortes
invaded
> Mexico.) He explored the entire
> southeastern US, and crossed the Mississippi near present-day
Memphis----which
> would have been roughly where Marquette's party came close to
Spaniards 132
> years later-----the point being, that the Spaniards had that length
of time to
> introduce their horses from at least Florida to the Mississippi River
and
> across into Arkansas----which would explain Red's contention that
the "English
> and French encountered herds of horses." We simply have to realize
that the
> Spanish had wide access to the New World for more than 100 years
before most
> other European explorers did.
>
> As to Red's contention that Lewis and Clark found wild horses in the
Northwest,
> that is just as easily explained when one realizes that the Spanish
colonized
> the entire west coast of America during the 1500s as well. Cortes
himself
> settled Lower California in 1536, and made his way as far inland as
Kansas.
> Wild horses did not need to find any "water
> routes to North America", horses were brought there by the Spanish
200 years
> before Lewis and Clark. Obviously, horses can travel great distances
in a
> short time, and is quite reasonable to assume that they could migrate
from
> California to the Great Plains in a matter of months, seeking out the
best
> grazing land as buffalo do. As I quoted from World Book above,
western plains
> Indians began using the horse about 1600 (the discussion on the
origin of wild
> mustangs on the plains could really end here).
>
> As to Red's contention as to numbers, as I mentioned earlier, Cortes
had 16
> horses when he invaded Mexico. He did NOT take his horses back from
America,
> in fact he scuttled all his ships but one. Del Castillo reported
that within a
> few months, hundreds of Indians were mingling with and fighting for
the
> Spaniards--in fact, it was Indians who killed Montezuma, not
Spaniards. It is
> reasonable to assume that over
> the years of the invasion, the conquistadors would have begun sharing
the use
> of their horses, and resulting progeny, with their Indian allies.
>
> I did a short, unscientific math model on horse population growth,
using only
> Cortes' original 16 as a starting base. World Book states that mares
begin
> foaling at age three, and have anywhere from five to nineteen foals.
Stallions
> begin siring at age two. Horses live 25-30 years, although some have
lived to
> age 40. Gestation period is 10-14 months.
> I use very low estimates for my model, assuming that 8 of Cortes'
horses were
> mares, and that only four of them were fertile. I assumed that those
four
> mares each had one foal every two years, and each had only three
foals total.
> I use low rates to take in natural deaths, diseases, sterility,
stillbirths,
> etc.
> I'm sure that someone with more time could do a more exact and
scientific model
> than I, but with my 20 minutes or so, using the above figures, I come
up with
> those original 16 horses turning into 64 in 12 years (from 1519 to
1531), which
> is basically a quadrupling of the population every twelve years.
(Heck, some
> Mormons do that well--my mother alone has 12 children, 55
grandchildren, and
> about 30 great-grandchildren in sixty years).
> By 1615, about 100 years, following the same rates, the horses would
number
> 1,046,576. Obviously, by the time of Lewis and Clark, 200 years
later, the
> population could have been innumerable, and in fact, that was the
case---the
> vast wild
> mustang herds only began decreasing, as did the buffalo, with the
settling of
> the west and the
> fencing in of grazing lands.
>
> To repeat, this is factoring in ONLY Cortes' horses, not even
considering other
> Spaniards who may have contributed to the growth, such as Balboa,
Pizarro,
> Ponce de Leon, etc. But the rapid and continuous influx of Spanish
> conquistadors after Columbus makes Red's contention that "one or two"
horses
> escaped insensible, and wishful thinking on his part.
>
> One more note on Red's harping on the "water route" contention----
horses are
> grass-eaters, as are other animals such as buffalo. If Red contends
that there
> wasn't enough water to sustain horses, then he should be able to
inform us as
> to how buffalo survived for eons in the same conditions. Buffalo,
like horses,
> have no natural enemies (that they couldn't out-populate), so
therefore there
> is no reason why both animals would not thrive on the American
plains.
> Buffalo, of course, were killed off by Americans in order to reduce
Indian
> population.
>
> I also feel that Red has inadvertenly inserted a fatal flaw into his
argument
> which destroys his premise from the outset---if modern horse WAS in
the
> Americas, by the millions according to Red, then why were Indians
ignorant and
> frightened of them in 1519? And where is the EVIDENCE of horse use
by NAs, not
> just from BOM times, but from 421 AD to 1519 as well? Defenders of
the horse
> issue in the BOM must come up with a credible explanation as to what
happened
> to the horse in the short 1100 years from "BOM times" to 1519.
Evidence for
> horse use by NAs up to and including the Spanish invasion should be
widespread
> and conclusive, as the BOM claims it was. The horse is the most
valuable
> animal in the history of mankind, and was every man's most valuable
possession
> until the automobile age. If domesticated horses existed in pre-
Columbian
> America, artwork, buildings, toys, fossils, implements, etc., would be
> scattered from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego indicating such.
> A few "possibilities" here and there, and skewing of dates and
species, just
> don't cut the mustard.
> In my opinion, the horse issue in the BOM totals only about one
percent of its
> authenticity problems, but it is one of the most blatant
inconsistencies. When
> combined with the other 99% of the evidence, the entire case against
the
> authenticity of the BOM is devastating.
>
> Randy J.
ForWhatItsWorth
<cont...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> You see - the Spaniards only traveled with male horses on their
> exploration ships. Only after they had colonized an area would they
> transport female horses. (Horses giving birth at sea, or in the heat
> of battle tended to be a bad thing).
>
Call for reference on the exclusion of any female horses amongst the
Spaniards.
Call for reference on approx. date first female horse would be shipped.
<remainder snipped>
FWIW...
ForWhatItsWorth
<cont...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
<snippage>
>
> Sloppy agape at its finest. I did not respond to your post simply
> because it is not a mathematical model, and its premise was simply
> silly.
perhaps, but read on...
>
> You see - the Spaniards only traveled with male horses on their
> exploration ships. Only after they had colonized an area would they
> transport female horses. (Horses giving birth at sea, or in the heat
> of battle tended to be a bad thing).
>
Ahem...
Reference: The International Museum of the Horse, at
http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2b.html#xtocid1656030
<quote>
"When the first Spanish conquistadors came to the Americas in the early
1500s, they considered themselves the explorers and colonists of a vast new
world. For the many horses which the Spanish brought with them, the voyage
to the Americas was really a homecoming. Although the horse is believed to
have originated in America, none survived prehistoric times except those
that emigrated to Asia over an ancient land bridge near modern day Alaska.
Although we do not know what caused the annihilation of the horse in
prehistoric times, we do know that the horse became a central factor in the
settlement of the Western Hemisphere. The horse was completely unknown to
the native Indians. They looked at the creature with awe and made the horse
a god. Spanish horses eventually found the way back to their prehistoric
home in the wilds of the Americas.
Rough seas could send the contents of a ship flying about, creating great
hazards for both life and property. To protect the horses being carried in
the ships, slings were constructed to allow the horses to swing with the
roll of the ship, and to take the weight off their feet. Confinement in
damp, dark holds and lack of exercise took its toll on equine emigrants.
Sometimes half of the horses died enroute to America. That section of the
Atlantic Ocean known as the "Horse Latitudes" gained its name from the sad
fact that innumerable dead horses were thrown overboard into the ocean
during these early voyages of colonization. Horse transport between the Old
and New Worlds remained a great hazard until only recently. Records from the
1800s tell of the frequent death of valuable horses, lost to the stormy
Atlantic. "
"In addition to simply carrying the conquistadors, the horses were feared
and held in awe by the Indians. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who accompanied
Cortes in his 1519 incursion into Mexico, wrote "The natives had never seen
horses up to this time and though the horse and rider were all one animal. "
Cortes' contingent had only sixteen horses, yet the Indians' astonishment at
these"horse-men" contributed to their submission to the conquistadors."
" In 1519 Coronado set out for North America with 150 horsemen, followed by
DeSoto's expedition with 237 horses in 1539. By 1547, Antoni de Mendoza, the
first governor of New Spain (Mexico), had eleven haciendos and over 1,500
horses."
</quote>
Point: Horses were extremely valuable. Losses and hardships meant for high
attrition within the herds. Therefore, female horses would be at a premium.
Point: The initial shipment of 16 horses did not represent the 'fathers' of
the new American herds. More ships, with more horses, continued to arrive.
Within the same year of 1519, Coronado set out with 150 horses. DeSoto in
1539 had 237, and Mendoza in 1547 had over 1500. This alone represents a
100-fold increase in Spanish-origin horses within 30 years.
> So, the question is - how do we go from a few horses in Spanish
> colonies getting loose and propagating some several million offspring
> within some 200 years?
>
They didn't get loose to propagate, they were deliberately bred. Horses
were more valuable than money -- they literally grew wealth.
> You do know that the gestation period for a horse is 11 months, right?
> You also know that they only give birth to one baby at a time, right?
>
Granted -- and taken into account.
> So, again -- let's go from a handful of horses to several million in
> 200 years given the parameters of the problem. Plus, these horses have
> to travel the breadth and width of North America from the Pacific Ocean
> to the Mississippi River, from Calgary down to Mexico City in less than
> 100 years.
>
> Do the math.
Taking my above reported figures, which showed 100 times increase in 30
years, would give a doubling of the herd every three years. Let's slow than
down a bit, and make it five years.
From 1550 to 1750 is 200 years. That is 40 five-year periods.
Let's set some other parameters. Let's say the population of breeding mares
in any given year is only 25% of the total. So, each year, the size of the
herd would grow by 25%. In a five-year period, that is 125% of the original
herd size, so let's knock 25% of that back off, owing to death, predation,
accident, etc. We're back to doubling each five years.
You can see, I'm being conservative here.
Let's begin with an initial herd of 100 horses, double it every 5 years.
Here's the herd sizes, by year, at this rate.
Year Size
1550 100
1555 200
1560 400
1565 800
1570 1600
1575 3200
1580 6400
1585 12800
1590 25600
1595 51200
1600 102400
1605 204800
1610 409600
1615 819200
1620 1638400
1625 3276800
1630 6553600
1635 13107200
1640 26214400
1645 52428800
1650 104857600
1655 209715200
1660 419430400
1665 838860800
1670 1677721600
1675 3355443200
1680 6710886400
1685 13421772800
1690 26843545600
1695 53687091200
1700 107374182400
1705 214748364800
1710 429496729600
1715 858993459200
1720 1717986918400
1725 3435973836800
1730 6871947673600
1735 13743895347200
1740 27487790694400
1745 54975581388800
1750 109,951,162,777,600
I will now be generous and reduce the final number by 75%, owing to more
deaths, dismemberments, accidents, hungry wolves and bears, etc. This still
leaves 27,487,790,694,400 potential horses. That's 27-some-odd trillion
critters.
But, let's be safe and conservative, and half that number two more times:
6,871,947,673,600 grass clippers left over. That's six trillion horses.
More? Okay, let's divide that number by 6, then round to the nearest
trillion. That's one trillion horses.
How many square miles in South America? 6,900,000 sq. miles. How about
North America? 9,500,000 square miles. Totaled, that's 16,400,000 square
miles. Divvy that up amongst our humungeous herd, and you see that that's a
bunch of critters per square mile. More than enough population density, in
fact, to support the idea that horses envisioned their own kind of Manifest
Destiny, sea to shining sea.
Now let's go back and apply some sanity to the above meaningless numbers. I
admit the above exercise was performed with a good bit of tongue-in-cheek,
but the point remains: Horses are easily prolific enough to have populated
the entire western hemispere within 100 years.
And that's what they did.
FWIW...
TheJordan6
Date: 12/22/2000 11:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <91vv2r$dub$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001212171146...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>>A couple of years ago, Mormon Red Davis challenged someone to come up with a
"mathematical model" for theoretical horse population growth. Red contended
that the wild mustang herds on the plains couldn't have multiplied to their
degree as found in the late 1800's, if they had only escaped from Spaniards in
"Nephite" horses some 2000 years earlier. Below is my reply to Red. I never
heard from him again about it, so I guess he had no argument with it.
>Sloppy agape at its finest. I did not respond to your post simply because it
is not a mathematical model,
I used info from World Book Encyclopedia on horse reproduction to compile a
very reasonable math model of potential growth. Your refusal to accept my
model does not make it incorrect. You have not posted any scholarly,
documentable information in rebuttal. Your response consists of nothing more
than your opinion, and unsupported by nothing or no one.
>and its premise was simply silly.
Note, ARMekites, how a Mormon apologist dismisses scholarly, logical,
documented information as "silly," simply because it refutes his position.
>You see - the Spaniards only traveled with male horses on their exploration
ships.
Cites, please. I've given you quotes; give me yours.
>Only after they had colonized an area would they transport female horses.
Even if you could document that, it doesn't refute my info in the least. After
Columbus' three voyages, Spanish settlement was rapid and massive. As I
posted two years ago:
On Columbus' second voyage in 1493, he took 17 ships and over 1000 men. 100
years after Columbus' first voyage, 15,000 Spaniards occupied the Americas.
Also, John Cabot from England sailed to the Northeastern US in 1497, Italian
Verrazano sailed in 1524, and Frenchman Cartier sailed in 1534. Another
Spaniard, Coronado, journeyed as far inland and northward as present-day
Kansas, in 1540 (smack-dab in the middle of the Great Plains). All of these
voyages and their resulting settlers added to North American horse populations.
"To their American colonies the Portuguese and Spanish brought domestic
animals, plants, and seeds never before seen in the New World. In pens and
crates on the decks of their ships, they transported horses, donkeys, cattle,
pigs, sheep, goats, and poultry." (Rise of the American Nation, p. 17).
"The beautiful native American civilizations were no match for the marauding
Europeans with their modern military hardware. Cortez with a band of some six
hundred soldiers and eighteen horses overcame the Aztecs by a combination of
treachery and superior weapons.......By 1607, when the first permanent English
colony was founded in North America, a quarter of a million Spaniards had
settled in the vast Spanish Empire stretching from what is now Arizona to Cape
Horn." (A Short History of Western Civilization, p. 335).
Obviously, a quarter of a million Spaniards in the colonies by 1607, stretching
from California in the west, to Georgia in the east, would have produced tens
of thousands of horses. Surely you're not opining that it was impossible for a
number of horses from those ranks to have wandered off and begun reproducing in
the wild, and increased their numbers as other grass-eaters naturally do.
>(Horses giving birth at sea, or in the heat of battle tended to be a bad
thing).
What a ridiculous thing to write. Female horses didn't have to be on the first
ships, nor in battle. The fact is, that once large numbers of Spaniards began
settling at dozens of locations on the mainland---within a couple of decades of
Columbus---their imported horses could have numbered in the thousands in a few
short years. In case you weren't aware, until the 20th century, with the
advent of the automobile, the horse was the most valuable commodity that most
men could own. The Spaniards had a vested interest in breeding them as rapidly
as possible, just as they did for cattle, sheep, swine, etc.
>So, the question is - how do we go from a few horses in Spanish colonies
getting loose and propagating some several million offspring within some 200
years?
Birds do it, bees do it; even educated fleas do it. Surely the eminent scholar
Red Davis can figure it out.
>You do know that the gestation period for a horse is 11 months, right? You
also know that they only give birth to one baby at a time, right?
Well, yeah, I knew that, seeing as how I wrote it in my post to which you
responded:
"World Book states that mares begin foaling at age three, and have anywhere
from five to nineteen foals. Stallions begin siring at age two. Horses live
25-30 years, although some have lived to age 40. Gestation period is 10-14
months."
>So, again -- let's go from a handful of horses to several million in 200 years
given the parameters of the problem.
I did that in my original post, Red. You simply refuse to consider it, and you
haven't offered any information to rebut it. I used my mother as an example of
human reproduction, for comparison. In the 63 years since she bore her first
child, she has become the female progenitor of nearly 100 humans (and my
47-year-old Mormon brother's 40-year-old wife is currently pregnant with their
7th child.) That's only ONE woman. But as opposed to humans, female horses
begin birthing as early as age three, and it's not unusual for them to bear 20
foals. That means that several living generations of a one mare's female
offspring can be reproducing concurrently with the original mare. That
naturally leads to extremely rapid herd growth.
The hardiness and adapability of horses, combined with a lack of natural
predators that could significantly reduce their numbers, means that a few
fertile horses could have reproduced into vast numbers in mere decades.
In my original posts, I gave you examples of rapid population growth of other
animals introduced into habitable environments, such as cane toads which were
imported into Australia to eat grasshoppers, but have multiplied to the degree
of pestilence; and European wild boars imported into the Great Smoky Mountains
in the early 1900's as game for hunt clubs, but their voluminous breeding has
made them the scourge of Appalachia, and impossible to exterminate. An
introduced animal like the horse would be no different.
>Plus, these horses have to travel the breadth and width of North America from
the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River, from Calgary down to Mexico City in
less than
100 years.
<chortle> Horses, being typical grass-eaters, will migrate to the best grazing
lands, and they can traverse great distances in no time. As an interesting
example, nuisance black bears which have been transported from the Great Smoky
Mountains on the TN/NC border to the Big South Fork National Recreation Area on
the TN/KY border, some 80 miles away, have been found to make their way back to
their territory in the Smokies in less than ONE WEEK. We've all heard tales of
how family dogs or cats, separated from their owners on a trip or move, have
instinctively made their way back home, hundreds of miles if necessary, in mere
weeks.
Grass-eaters MIGRATE, Red. The very reason the Plains Indians lived in tipis,
rather than permanent lodges, was so that they could follow the migrating
buffalo as they made their endless search for greener prairies. Wild horses
would be no different.
As to your '100 years' business---to repeat: Coronado, coming from California,
explored as far inland as Kansas, and De Soto, starting from Tampa Bay, got to
present-day Memphis, all by 1540. The horses which were the ancestors of the
wild mustang herds didn't have to "travel the width and breadth of North
America," as you assert, although they easily could. The conquistadors were
given huge land grants to settle on, and they began massive ranches from
California to Florida. Padres built missions to convert the Indians.
NUMEROUS horses could have either escaped, wandered off, or been traded with,
or stolen by Indians, from the 1540's of Coronado and deSoto to become the vast
herds that inhabited the plains by the 1800's. Why you cannot understand this
is beyond me.
>Do the math.
>Red Davis
I've done the math. Now, you do the logic.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>" In 1519 Coronado set out for North America with 150 horsemen, followed by
>DeSoto's expedition with 237 horses in 1539. By 1547, Antoni de Mendoza, the
>first governor of New Spain (Mexico), had eleven haciendos and over 1,500
>horses."
I hope those numbers put Red Davis' silly assertions to rest for time and all
eternity.
But I doubt they will.
Randy J.
ForWhatItsWorth
up the horse problem with the BoM. With a massive dose of blind faith, I
overcame everything I learned in school.
It took a wake-up call, and some damn good friends, to allow me to allow
myself to open my eyes.
Horses aren't the problem, they're a symptom. The Corporate structure of the
Church is the problem.
Thanks, Randy.
FWIW....
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001222194806...@ng-ft1.aol.com...
cont...@my-deja.com
"ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote:
>
> <cont...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> <snippage>
> >
> > Sloppy agape at its finest. I did not respond to your post simply
> > because it is not a mathematical model, and its premise was simply
> > silly.
>
> perhaps, but read on...
Absolutely, read on...
>
> >
> > You see - the Spaniards only traveled with male horses on their
> > exploration ships. Only after they had colonized an area would they
> > transport female horses. (Horses giving birth at sea, or in the
heat
> > of battle tended to be a bad thing).
> >
>
> Ahem...
>
> Reference: The International Museum of the Horse, at
> http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2b.html#xtocid1656030
>
> <quote>
> "When the first Spanish conquistadors came to the Americas in the
early
> 1500s, they considered themselves the explorers and colonists of a
vast new
> world. For the many horses which the Spanish brought with them, the
voyage
How many horses is "the many horses"? Got a number? Nope, sheer
conjecture. However, we do know that Spanish explorer vessels only
shipped male horses -- no female. Hence your inability to find
references for any female horses on board their ships.
The reason this is important (I must state the obvious when working
with anti-Mormons who always refuse to acknowledge such) is that a
female horse is required to propagate the species. No female horse --
no miracle "16 horses to two million horses in two hundred years" drama.
> to the Americas was really a homecoming. Although the horse is
believed to
> have originated in America, none survived prehistoric times except
those
You know -- until the 1970's they (archeaologists and anti-Mormons)
used to say that the horse "never" existed in North America -- now they
must admit that the horse was ever present in America per several
finds -- beginning with the Lubbock Lake Site (Lubbock, Texas) find.
Yet we do have findings dating the horse back to 11,000 BP, and of
course -- all the wild herds that greeted the explorers after they
crossed the Mississippi.
Of course, archaeologists also claimed that no elephant or mammoth
survived past 11,000 BP, until the Wrangle Island find circa 1990,
where such were found to date to 4,000 BP.
> that emigrated to Asia over an ancient land bridge near modern day
Alaska.
> Although we do not know what caused the annihilation of the horse in
> prehistoric times, we do know that the horse became a central factor
in the
> settlement of the Western Hemisphere. The horse was completely
unknown to
> the native Indians. They looked at the creature with awe and made the
horse
Except, of course, to all those indians who drew pictures of horses on
their cave walls, dating back pre-Spanish.
> a god. Spanish horses eventually found the way back to their
prehistoric
Actually, I think you guys are getting it wrong. The horse did not awe
the Indian. What did was the "man-horse" creature. You see, the
Spanish were armor - as did their horses. They also were colorful
uniforms - as did their horses their blankets and saddles. To the
ignorant -- the matching armor and clothing would make it appear as if
the horse and man were one beast -- hence the Indians being scared.
Of course, my writing is pure conjecture -- just as is the Spanish
explanation of what scared the Indians -- as niether one of us could
read their mind.
> home in the wilds of the Americas.
> Rough seas could send the contents of a ship flying about, creating
great
> hazards for both life and property. To protect the horses being
carried in
> the ships, slings were constructed to allow the horses to swing with
the
> roll of the ship, and to take the weight off their feet. Confinement
in
This would also kill or gravely wound an unborn horsey within its
mother. Just another reason why the Spanish didn't take female horses
on their explorer ships.
Also, female horses that are pregnant eat more (they are eating for
two) - food and storage space was too scarce on explorere ships, and
again, not to mention the fact that a pregant horse is a terrible mount
for war, and is at risk of not being good-to-go at the most incovenient
time whilst she gives birth.
> damp, dark holds and lack of exercise took its toll on equine
emigrants.
> Sometimes half of the horses died enroute to America. That section of
the
> Atlantic Ocean known as the "Horse Latitudes" gained its name from
the sad
> fact that innumerable dead horses were thrown overboard into the ocean
> during these early voyages of colonization. Horse transport between
the Old
> and New Worlds remained a great hazard until only recently. Records
from the
> 1800s tell of the frequent death of valuable horses, lost to the
stormy
> Atlantic. "
Ah, yes, and even less horses to escape and breed into millions in less
than 200 years.
>
> "In addition to simply carrying the conquistadors, the horses were
feared
> and held in awe by the Indians. Bernal Diaz del Castillo, who
accompanied
> Cortes in his 1519 incursion into Mexico, wrote "The natives had
never seen
> horses up to this time and though the horse and rider were all one
animal. "
Been there, done that (read above response).
But, let me add - it probably never occurred to the Indian to tame the
horse and ride it. Thus, a man riding such a free, noble and swift
spirit as a horse would have really given 'em an inferiority complex to
the Spanish.
> Cortes' contingent had only sixteen horses, yet the Indians'
astonishment at
> these"horse-men" contributed to their submission to the
conquistadors."
>
> " In 1519 Coronado set out for North America with 150 horsemen,
followed by
> DeSoto's expedition with 237 horses in 1539. By 1547, Antoni de
Mendoza, the
> first governor of New Spain (Mexico), had eleven haciendos and over
1,500
> horses."
>
> </quote>
>
> Point: Horses were extremely valuable. Losses and hardships meant
for high
> attrition within the herds. Therefore, female horses would be at a
premium.
Not on explorer ships. On coloniation ships -- yes. And do you really
think they would let their horses just escape at will -- such a high
value? Nope.
>
> Point: The initial shipment of 16 horses did not represent
the 'fathers' of
> the new American herds. More ships, with more horses, continued to
arrive.
> Within the same year of 1519, Coronado set out with 150 horses.
DeSoto in
> 1539 had 237, and Mendoza in 1547 had over 1500. This alone
represents a
> 100-fold increase in Spanish-origin horses within 30 years.
Lets, see, you just said that half would be lost at sea. That would
mean that of these horses, only 1,000 would make it to America in 30
years. That leaves us some 170 years to make up some 1,999,000 more
horses.
See the math problem?
Again, a horse's gestation perios is 11 months. They only have one
baby horsey. No twins, no tripplets, no way.
>
> > So, the question is - how do we go from a few horses in Spanish
> > colonies getting loose and propagating some several million
offspring
> > within some 200 years?
> >
>
> They didn't get loose to propagate, they were deliberately bred.
Horses
> were more valuable than money -- they literally grew wealth.
Boy, howdy, I'd better get into the horse breedin' business, if you can
go from 750 to 2,000,000 in 170 years -- that's better than Hillary's
cattle futures!!!!
>
> > You do know that the gestation period for a horse is 11 months,
right?
> > You also know that they only give birth to one baby at a time,
right?
> >
>
> Granted -- and taken into account.
>
> > So, again -- let's go from a handful of horses to several million in
> > 200 years given the parameters of the problem. Plus, these horses
have
> > to travel the breadth and width of North America from the Pacific
Ocean
> > to the Mississippi River, from Calgary down to Mexico City in less
than
> > 100 years.
> >
> > Do the math.
>
> Taking my above reported figures, which showed 100 times increase in
30
> years, would give a doubling of the herd every three years. Let's
slow than
> down a bit, and make it five years.
>
> From 1550 to 1750 is 200 years. That is 40 five-year periods.
>
> Let's set some other parameters. Let's say the population of
breeding mares
> in any given year is only 25% of the total. So, each year, the size
of the
That would mean that the mares were 50% of the population, with 50% of
those breeding each year -- including their fist year. Highly unlikely.
In fact, a horse raiser told me the number he uses for his ranch is
about 25-30% of the female horses breed each year. And that is with an
exprienced rancher, with excellent food supplies, and the marvels of
modern Vet-Medicine, along with cozy stables, etc. Thus, your numbers
are overstated by a factor approaching 5.
> herd would grow by 25%. In a five-year period, that is 125% of the
original
> herd size, so let's knock 25% of that back off, owing to death,
predation,
> accident, etc. We're back to doubling each five years.
Boy, if only any rancher's herd could double every five years. Heck,
if only their cattle could double every five years.
Have you ever lived on a farm or ranch? Do you know how silly stating
that a herd of horses (or cattle for that matter) will double every
five years looks?
>
> You can see, I'm being conservative here.
>
> Let's begin with an initial herd of 100 horses, double it every 5
years.
> Here's the herd sizes, by year, at this rate.
How do you begin with an initial herd of 100 horses? Are you saying
that 100 horses escaped, hung out together, and lived in the wild long
enough to breed that first year?
What, was there a horse undergound system where they all ran to?
>
> Year Size
> 1550 100
> 1555 200
> 1560 400
> 1565 800
Let's do some real math.
Year Size
1550 10
1555 12
1560 14
1565 16
You see the problem with your math? Your baby horses are immediately
having babies fresh out of the womb.
Now, let me do it with the mythical 100 staring point:
Year Size
1550 100
1555 115
1560 135
1565 155
Now, according to Rancher Richard -- that's more like the population
curve of horses.
Again, see the problem with the math, with *your* math? (BTW, I even
rounded up in your favor).
ForWhatItsWorth
<cont...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92461p$dlo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snppped>
You are really into conjecture and speculation, aren't you? For example,
where do you get the idea that no female horses were allowed? You keep
repeating it as a mantra, yet offer nothing to back it up.
So, when, in your view, did the Spanish finally allow mares onto the
continent? 1978?
As to exponential reproduction rates, if you read it, I stated clearly that
that was an exaggerated example. It was offered, as I stated, in
tongue-in-cheek. However, I will check to the dealer at this point. You
have proffered expertise on the subject. Therefore, given an initial
population of 50 horses, how fast could they reproduce? Please draw the
curve.
But, as you beleive that thousands of horses of Spanish extract were always
present, having been transported both in Jared's barges and Nephi's ships,
you won't entertain the argument, will you?
<remainder snipped for bandwidth>
ForWhatItsWorth
accept this reference as authorative?
<quote>
Link to http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mustang.html
The word "Mustang" comes from the Spanish word, mesteno, meaning "stray or
ownerless" horse. This term aptly describes all wild horses in the United
States.
The modern horse evolved over three million years ago and then disappeared
from this hemisphere 10,000 years ago. The horse returned to North America
when explorers Cortes and DeSoto came mounted on magnificent Barbs from
Morocco, Sorraia from Portugal and Andalusians from Spain.
The Pueblo Indians learned to ride and passed this skill on to other
Indians. In 1680, the Indians revolted against the Spanish rule and the
Spaniards left thousands of horses behind in their hasty retreat. The
Indians could have rounded up these horses, but chose to let them run wild.
It was much easier to raid the Spanish settlements and steal horses. In an
effort to stop the Indian raids, the Spanish government shipped a steady
flow of mounts to the New World. It was hoped that the Indians would catch
the "wild" horses and leave the Spaniards alone.
Tens of thousands of the Spanish-bred horses were herded to the Rio Grande
and turned loose in a 200-year period. These horses soon met up with draft
horses and cowboy ponies that escaped from the ranchers and farmers arriving
from the East. Their numbers exceeded two million by the year 1900.
And link to http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/spmust.html
The true Spanish Mustang is a direct descendant of the horses brought to the
New World by the early Spaniards. Confused by many with the feral horses
currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (B.L.M.), there is a vast
difference in both appearance and ancestry. Columbus, on order from the
Spanish throne, commenced bringing the first Spanish horses to the New World
on his second voyage. Thereafter, each ship headed for the New World, by
order of the Crown, carried breeding animals of choice Spanish stock.
Breeding farms were set up in the Caribbean and subsequently in Mexico.
Breeding farms such as the one operated in Sonora, Mexico by Padre Eusebio
Kino, a Jesuit priest, produced stock, including horses, which were placed
with each group of Christianized Indians as Kino expanded his efforts
further and further north. The Apaches, never falling under the spell of the
Church, ravaged and pillaged these little "visitas" taking stock at will.
They also plundered deep into Mexico allegedly as far as Mexico City. Their
goal - well-bred and trained Spanish horses from the Mexican estancias.
Through trade of these valuable horses northward to other tribes the Apaches
became one of the primary methods of spreading the Spanish horses over the
west. Over the years horses escaped, were lost or stolen and many became
feral, roaming all over the west. Eventually they numbered in the hundreds
of thousands, closely related to the horses maintained by some of the Indian
tribes, indeed, they were basically the same horses.
</quote>
Point: Columbus , on order from Spain, deliberately brought horses, of both
genders, to the New World.
Point: Breeding colonies were established at several places in the New
World.
Point: Horses of Spanish extract were deliberately released into the wild,
in order to give the Indians some horses, in lieu of stealing domesic
Spanish horses. They were stolen, just the same.
I have made my points. Horses in America are all of Spanish extract. All
"mustang" or feral horses in America were of Spanish descent. There
were/are no other horse sources.
If you dispute this, as I'm sure you will, then answer this: what do you
think the ancestors of your "nephite" horses were? Arabian? It should
follow, that whatever you suggest, there should be genetic identification
markers carried in America feral horses, shouldn't there?
FWIW...
Nathan Packer
Why would you breed only 25-30 of the mares per year. If that is his
conception rate he needs to read up on horse breeding or get a
different vet. But then we had this same discussion a year or so ago
>
>> herd would grow by 25%. In a five-year period, that is 125% of the
>original
>> herd size, so let's knock 25% of that back off, owing to death,
>predation,
>> accident, etc. We're back to doubling each five years.
>
>Boy, if only any rancher's herd could double every five years. Heck,
>if only their cattle could double every five years.
If I kept the offspring, my cattle herd would easily double in 5
years. My children are chomping at the bit to get out of the house, so
you will have do the math; that is, if you understand how a cattle
herd would grow with the retention of all offspring.
>
>Have you ever lived on a farm or ranch? Do you know how silly stating
>that a herd of horses (or cattle for that matter) will double every
>five years looks?
Do you know how silly that statement is. I grew up on a ranch. If we
didn't sell stock, the herd would easily outgrow the available
pasture.
>
>>
>> You can see, I'm being conservative here.
>>
>> Let's begin with an initial herd of 100 horses, double it every 5
>years.
>> Here's the herd sizes, by year, at this rate.
>
>How do you begin with an initial herd of 100 horses? Are you saying
>that 100 horses escaped, hung out together, and lived in the wild long
>enough to breed that first year?
Horse are a herd animal. One female in heat would attract stallions
for miles.
>
>What, was there a horse undergound system where they all ran to?
>
>>
>> Year Size
>> 1550 100
>> 1555 200
>> 1560 400
>> 1565 800
>
>Let's do some real math.
>
>Year Size
>1550 10
>1555 12
>1560 14
>1565 16
I may be incorrect here, but I think the poster is an engineer. Knows
nothing about horse breeding either in captivity or in the wild.
[snip]
Nathan (I think, therefore, I must be around here someplace) Packer
ForWhatItsWorth
"Nathan Packer" <nat...@tctc.com> wrote in message
news:3a464920...@news.tctc.com...
>
> I may be incorrect here, but I think the poster is an engineer. Knows
> nothing about horse breeding either in captivity or in the wild.
Nathan: Whom do you mean by "the poster"? If me, then I plead guilty -- I
am an engineer, computer type. I know little about horses. However, my
grandfather had goats, sheep, and catle, with the occasional pig and chicken
running around. I'm not a breeder, not do I play one on TV.
I'm just attempting to shed some common sense in this issue, as I suspect
are you.
FWIW...
Doug Weller
[SNIP]
> I may be incorrect here, but I think the poster is an engineer. Knows
> nothing about horse breeding either in captivity or in the wild.
>
experts on everything because they are engineers?
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/24/2000 10:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <E3p16.139$nw1....@pm02news.wcom.com>
>
>
><cont...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92461p$dlo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
><snppped>
>
>You are really into conjecture and speculation, aren't you?
Such is the basis of Mormon apologetics.
> For example,
>where do you get the idea that no female horses were allowed? You keep
>repeating it as a mantra, yet offer nothing to back it up.
>
>So, when, in your view, did the Spanish finally allow mares onto the
>continent? 1978?
Yes, but only the worthy male black ones.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/24/2000 3:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <wet16.127$rm4....@pm01news.wcom.com>
>
>
>"Nathan Packer" <nat...@tctc.com> wrote in message
>news:3a464920...@news.tctc.com...
>
>>
>> I may be incorrect here, but I think the poster is an engineer. Knows
>> nothing about horse breeding either in captivity or in the wild.
>
>Nathan: Whom do you mean by "the poster"? If me, then I plead guilty -- I
>am an engineer, computer type.
The engineer Nathan referred to is Red Davis.
> I know little about horses. However, my
>grandfather had goats, sheep, and catle, with the occasional pig and chicken
>running around. I'm not a breeder, nor do I play one on TV.
Neither am I, but I have enough life experience to know that the typical
process of raising a herd of any stock animal is to start with only one or two
females, and pay an owner of a stud to breed with them. It hasn't been very
long ago that a farmer's wedding present to a child would be a bossy cow or a
sow pig that his newlywed children could breed and turn into a money-making
herd in just a couple of years. You keep some of the offspring for breeding or
fattening, and you sell some of the young'uns for cash flow.
>I'm just attempting to shed some common sense in this issue, as I suspect
>are you.
>
>
>FWIW...
As Will Rogers said, the problem with common sense is that it ain't very
common. With certain posters on ARM, it's a downright rarity.
Randy J.
ForWhatItsWorth
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.14b07e555...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> In article <3a464920...@news.tctc.com>, nat...@tctc.com says...
> [SNIP]
> > I may be incorrect here, but I think the poster is an engineer. Knows
> > nothing about horse breeding either in captivity or in the wild.
> >
> Quite likely. Have you ever noticed how some engineers seem to think
they're
> experts on everything because they are engineers?
>
engineers are the least at fault (of course, because I are one <g>), with
the Chems being the worst. Maybe the Mechs, it's a tossup.
Comes from emulating the anal-retentive professors in school, you know. And
beleiving, while we're not God, we can write policy for Him.
FWIW...
Nathan Packer
<2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote:
>
>"Nathan Packer" <nat...@tctc.com> wrote in message
>news:3a464920...@news.tctc.com...
>
>>
>> I may be incorrect here, but I think the poster is an engineer. Knows
>> nothing about horse breeding either in captivity or in the wild.
>
>Nathan: Whom do you mean by "the poster"? If me, then I plead guilty -- I
>am an engineer, computer type. I know little about horses. However, my
>grandfather had goats, sheep, and catle, with the occasional pig and chicken
>running around. I'm not a breeder, not do I play one on TV.
>
>I'm just attempting to shed some common sense in this issue, as I suspect
>are you.
Sorry. I was being a bit cryptic. There are engineers and then there
is Red Davis.
I think your population increase senario can easily justify the
numbers over the time span involved.
I live just a skip from Purdue which is known as a bit of an
engineering school. Actually some of my best friends, well you
know.......there are some things we just don't mention in polite
company :-)
ForWhatItsWorth
Ah, how well I know it. It's good of you to help the misfortunate and
misfit, intigrate into society. As your reward, may the herds of drunken
Hoosiers pass you by when they seek sacrifices to offer to the God of Burnt
Cars.
Had a Hoosier-ite work with me a few years ago. Nice guy, almost
housebroken.
Happy New Year!
cdo...@my-deja.com
"ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote:
> More facts and figures, from the Internation Museum of the Horse.
> The modern horse evolved over three million years ago and then
disappeared
> from this hemisphere 10,000 years ago.
And your proof of that specific date? The BOM does not claim horses
survived past 2KYA.
In terms of the BOM, this is the only point that "counts".
snip
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
ForWhatItsWorth
<cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92b2hq$vsd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ZVq16.140$nw1....@pm02news.wcom.com>,
> "ForWhatItsWorth" <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote:
> > More facts and figures, from the Internation Museum of the Horse.
> snip
>
> > The modern horse evolved over three million years ago and then
> disappeared
> > from this hemisphere 10,000 years ago.
>
>
> And your proof of that specific date? The BOM does not claim horses
> survived past 2KYA.
>
My source for that statement was included in the post, although it is
anything but a single-source statement. Go to any peer-reveiwed scientific
entity, school, museum, etc, and you will find a remarkable similar
statement. The above statement, which was NOT mine but was part of a quote
(which you chose to present as a quote of mine, which is intellectually
dishonest on your part) comes from The International Museum of the Horse.
Go back and read the post, click on the links, answer your own question.
As for your 2KYA statement, you are correct. The BoM does not mention
anything about any giant horse-extinction at all, it just mentions the fact
that there were horses, whole gobs of them. all over the place. It does not
account for them being bred, or any growth-rate, or any extinction. It
assumes the horses of the 19th century were leftover horses from the
Nephites.
> In terms of the BOM, this is the only point that "counts".
>
This explains many things about you, Charles. So, therefore, if the BoM is
silent on a subject, any knowledge about that subject is not worthy of
investigation or debate?
Horses are not a point of doctrine, I didn't think. Are you suggesting that
the BoM is any form of authority on equine studies?
ForWhatItsWorth
Rather than having to argue back and forth about where the American Mustang
came from, and what kind of horse the nephites (and Jaredites) may have
brought over, wouldn't it be nice if there was a control group of horses,
released/escaped into the wilds? Then we could see what happens!
Sadly, we can't do that in America today.
But, we don't have to. It has been done for us.
The Australian Brumby, their own Mustang, is today a recognized pest.
Horses escaped, into the boones, and were fruitful and multiplied. The
Australians are understandably unhappy about it, as they are tough
competition for any kangaroo.
Point being, there is your model, in real life. Horses *can* escape, and
they *can* breed in the wilds, and they *can* rapidly grow in number.
For reference, I offer the following links.
http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/brumbies/
and
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/magazine/article/0,5744,316668,00.html?query=
brumby
ForWhatItsWorth
<snip>
> You see - the Spaniards only traveled with male horses on their
> exploration ships. Only after they had colonized an area would they
> transport female horses. (Horses giving birth at sea, or in the heat
> of battle tended to be a bad thing).
>
Call *again* for reference on the exclusion of any female horses amongst the
Spaniards.
Call *again* for reference on approx. date first female horse would be
shipped.
<remainder snipped>
FWIW...