For Clovis on Huns and horses
Glenn Thigpen
Just a short note. I did some checking on the apparent site from
which you got your information, as well as some others. At first glance,
it would seem that my information is a bit dated. Some of the other
websites I visited, all non-LDS also seemed to have dated information.
From what I could learn, this information was first presented in 1997,
so I should have learned about it by now.
I do not think that the finds invalidate the stance on horses in the
Book of Mormon, for what should be obvious reasons.
I do not have time to engage in a discussion on this right now. My
wife underwent surgery to have her gall bladder removed and a few other
internal repairs this past Monday and most of my time is spent caring
for her, so I will probably be incommunicado for another week or so.
Glenn
Clovis Lark
> Clovis,
> Just a short note. I did some checking on the apparent site from
> which you got your information, as well as some others. At first glance,
> it would seem that my information is a bit dated. Some of the other
> websites I visited, all non-LDS also seemed to have dated information.
> From what I could learn, this information was first presented in 1997,
> so I should have learned about it by now.
> I do not think that the finds invalidate the stance on horses in the
> Book of Mormon, for what should be obvious reasons.
It renders bogus an argument used to bolster lack of equine finds in the
americas by apologists. It adds physical remains to a record replete with
literary, pictoral, etc. documentation for hunnic horses. Apology needs
to apply the same standard to the americas. There one sees no remains, no
descriptions, no art depicting horses.
> I do not have time to engage in a discussion on this right now. My
> wife underwent surgery to have her gall bladder removed and a few other
> internal repairs this past Monday and most of my time is spent caring
> for her, so I will probably be incommunicado for another week or so.
Best regards to her and a speedy recovery.
> Glenn
Fool Speck
Steve Lowther
Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message news:<3BFEFF06...@tcnet-nc.com>...
cdowis
> Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
> > Clovis,
> > Just a short note. I did some checking on the apparent site from
> > which you got your information, as well as some others. At first glance,
> > it would seem that my information is a bit dated. Some of the other
> > websites I visited, all non-LDS also seemed to have dated information.
> > From what I could learn, this information was first presented in 1997,
> > so I should have learned about it by now.
> > I do not think that the finds invalidate the stance on horses in the
> > Book of Mormon, for what should be obvious reasons.
>
> It renders bogus an argument used to bolster lack of equine finds in the
> americas by apologists. It adds physical remains to a record replete with
> literary, pictoral, etc. documentation for hunnic horses. Apology needs
> to apply the same standard to the americas. There one sees no remains, no
> descriptions, no art depicting horses.
I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
No one disputes that huns had horses.
You demand physical evidence of horse bones. You (or another anti)
claim elsewhere there should be "tons" of bones, right?
Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
And let's see if you can stay on the issue.
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<9toded$8em$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
>> > Clovis,
>> > Just a short note. I did some checking on the apparent site from
>> > which you got your information, as well as some others. At first glance,
>> > it would seem that my information is a bit dated. Some of the other
>> > websites I visited, all non-LDS also seemed to have dated information.
>> > From what I could learn, this information was first presented in 1997,
>> > so I should have learned about it by now.
>> > I do not think that the finds invalidate the stance on horses in the
>> > Book of Mormon, for what should be obvious reasons.
>>
>> It renders bogus an argument used to bolster lack of equine finds in the
>> americas by apologists. It adds physical remains to a record replete with
>> literary, pictoral, etc. documentation for hunnic horses. Apology needs
>> to apply the same standard to the americas. There one sees no remains, no
>> descriptions, no art depicting horses.
> I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> No one disputes that huns had horses.
> You demand physical evidence of horse bones. You (or another anti)
Sweetheart (ain't that the way Fawn begins a scorched earth response?),
HAD YOU been reading the interchange, YOU would know that we produced
evidence for hunnic equine remains. THAT is what rendered this old
apologetic chestnut moot. And please learn to spell Aunty correctly. The
holiday season is fast upon us and I'd really not want to hear your X-mas
was cratered when you addressed that card to Anti-Beth.
> claim elsewhere there should be
"tons" of bones, right?
> Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
You didn't read the thread and have thus made a foolish blunder.
> And let's see if you can stay on the issue.
Ex-squeeze me? Who's writing what now? Have the "netiquette" to follow a
thread and know its contents before busting in.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> No one disputes that huns had horses.
Charles,
think a bit about what you just said. "No one disputes that the huns
had horses." That's because we have evidence of the hun horses.
Now, why do people dispute that the ancient Americans had horses?
Chariot-pulling horses like those described in the Book of Mormon?
Because there is no evidence for those horses. We know the Romans had
horses. We see horses in their art. The evidence is all over. We
know the Greeks had horses. There are TONS of evidence of that. We
know the Egyptians had horses. Again, we have TONS of evidence.
And we know the huns had horses. You even admit that the evidence is
so strong that "no one disputes" the fact.
But scientists tell us that the ancient Americans did NOT have horses.
And they certainly did not domesticate them and use them to pull
chariots.
How do we know? For the simple reason that when ancient civilizations
domesticated the horse, they left abundant evidence of the fact. Even
the huns left enough evidence of the fact that, as you admit, "no one
disputes it."
But on this issue about horses in ancient America, you are sitting out
on a limb, naked as a jay bird, asserting over and over and over and
over that the lack of evidence does not prove that the ancient
Americans did not have horses.
It's not just a matter of missing bones, either. The Book of Mormon
says the ancient Americans had "many" horses. It says they used them
to pull chariots. If this assertion is true, we should not only find
horse bones, we should see images of the horse in ancient-American
art, along with other animals that ARE included in that art.
Were are the TONS of evidence that we should see, Charles? The sort
of evidence we find in other civilizations? Why is it that evidence
of the horse is so easy to find in other parts of the world, and so
impossible to find in ancient America circa BOM times?
> You demand physical evidence of horse bones.
And you think this is bad? You think this is unfair? You think this
is evil?
> You (or another anti)
> claim elsewhere there should be "tons" of bones, right?
The claim is for tons of evidence. The evidence comes in different
forms. Sometimes its a statue. Other times its horse bones. But the
evidence is there for other civilizaitons. Why not for the ancient
Americans?
> Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
You just admitted that no one doubts that the huns had horses. The
issue is evidence, Charles. Specifically, the evidence for horses in
other civilizations, but not for the ancient Americans. The Book of
Mormon says the ancient Americans had lots of horses. Where is this
evidence? You don't even have an ounce.
> And let's see if you can stay on the issue.
The issue is the manner in which the Book of Mormon makes claims about
ancinet America that are at total odds with what scientists tell us
about ancient America. One of the Book of Mormon claims is that the
ancient Americans had many horses, and used them to pull chariots.
If the Book of Mormon were true, we'd find evidence of those horses
(and the chariots). Along with lots of other things the Book of
Mormon talks about, including steel smelting.
But we don't, and the reason we don't is because the Book of Mormon is
a clumsy fake.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> I do not have time to engage in a discussion on this right now. My
> wife underwent surgery to have her gall bladder removed and a few other
> internal repairs this past Monday and most of my time is spent caring
> for her, so I will probably be incommunicado for another week or so.
>
> Glenn
My daughter spent two weeks in the hospital last spring, after her
appendix ruptured. I know what a trying and difficult thing it can be
to have a loved one there. The hardest part was watching them wheel
her away to the operating room, and not knowing for sure if we'd see
her again.
You have my deepest sympathies and best wishes for your wife.
I don't believe in god, so I won't pray for you. But I will pass on
some advice that might help.
Never, ever, take anything you are told in the hospital for granted.
Question the doctors, question their advice, ask for second opinions,
and never assume that they have the same concerns for your loved one
as you do.
For the two weeks my daughter was hospitalized my wife and I took
turns being by her side. She was never alone. I shudder to think of
some of the things that they might have done to her if she'd been by
herself. Every needle, every procedure, every test was accompanied by
our questions and oversight.
Again, my best regards to your wife, and full hope and sympathy for a
quick and full recovery.
cdowis
> cdowis <cdo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<9toded$8em$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> >> Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
> >> > Clovis,
> >> > Just a short note. I did some checking on the apparent site from
> >> > which you got your information, as well as some others. At first glance,
> >> > it would seem that my information is a bit dated. Some of the other
> >> > websites I visited, all non-LDS also seemed to have dated information.
> >> > From what I could learn, this information was first presented in 1997,
> >> > so I should have learned about it by now.
> >> > I do not think that the finds invalidate the stance on horses in the
> >> > Book of Mormon, for what should be obvious reasons.
> >>
> >> It renders bogus an argument used to bolster lack of equine finds in the
> >> americas by apologists. It adds physical remains to a record replete with
> >> literary, pictoral, etc. documentation for hunnic horses. Apology needs
> >> to apply the same standard to the americas. There one sees no remains, no
> >> descriptions, no art depicting horses.
>
> > I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> > No one disputes that huns had horses.
>
> > You demand physical evidence of horse bones. You (or another anti)
>
> Sweetheart (ain't that the way Fawn begins a scorched earth response?),
> HAD YOU been reading the interchange, YOU would know that we produced
> evidence for hunnic equine remains. THAT is what rendered this old
> apologetic chestnut moot.
Actually it proves my "50 year rule". In the next 50 years the whole
horsey issue in mesoamerica will be moot.
And please learn to spell Aunty correctly. The
> holiday season is fast upon us and I'd really not want to hear your X-mas
> was cratered when you addressed that card to Anti-Beth.
>
> > claim elsewhere there should be
> "tons" of bones, right?
>
> > Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
>
> You didn't read the thread and have thus made a foolish blunder.
The thread I am reading does not include the reference, but the point
has been made. This is another example where "ain't found, not exist"
has been proven to be a fallacy.
snip
Clovis Lark
Hardly, there were multiple, numerous accounts, depictions, relics in hand
documenting horses. Your 50 year rule is not based upon anything other
than an anachronistic account.
> And please learn to spell Aunty correctly. The
>> holiday season is fast upon us and I'd really not want to hear your X-mas
>> was cratered when you addressed that card to Anti-Beth.
>>
>> > claim elsewhere there should be
>> "tons" of bones, right?
>>
>> > Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
>>
>> You didn't read the thread and have thus made a foolish blunder.
> The thread I am reading does not include the reference, but the point
> has been made. This is another example where "ain't found, not exist"
> has been proven to be a fallacy.
It sure did and you either didn't do the legwork on deja or snipped it out
of your mind.
> snip
cdowis
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message news:<93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> > No one disputes that huns had horses.
>
> Charles,
> think a bit about what you just said. "No one disputes that the huns
> had horses." That's because we have evidence of the hun horses.
>
> Now, why do people dispute that the ancient Americans had horses?
> Chariot-pulling horses like those described in the Book of Mormon?
>
> Because there is no evidence for those horses.
Actually there is such evidence, as discussed previously, but the
dating and the nature of the evidence is in dispute.
We know the Romans had
> horses. We see horses in their art. The evidence is all over. We
> know the Greeks had horses. There are TONS of evidence of that. We
> know the Egyptians had horses. Again, we have TONS of evidence.
>
> And we know the huns had horses. You even admit that the evidence is
> so strong that "no one disputes" the fact.
OK.
>
> But scientists tell us that the ancient Americans did NOT have horses.
Yawn. Scientists say many things which have to be corrected later on.
Don't you get it? Scientists make mistakes. New evidence, new
discoveries are made and scientists have to correct their previous
opinions.
Do you or do you not agree with that concept?
> And they certainly did not domesticate them and use them to pull
> chariots.
So, maybe we will find horses, but we "certainly" will not find
chariots.
>
> How do we know?
Note that "opinion" is not used, but *know*.
For the simple reason that when ancient civilizations
> domesticated the horse, they left abundant evidence of the fact. Even
> the huns left enough evidence of the fact that, as you admit, "no one
> disputes it."
Most of the evidence consists of written records, of which we have
little or none from this time period in mesoamerica.
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we have virtually no
records from that time period?
>
> But on this issue about horses in ancient America, you are sitting out
> on a limb, naked as a jay bird, asserting over and over and over and
> over that the lack of evidence does not prove that the ancient
> Americans did not have horses.
Despite your colorful language, it is a reasonable assertion.
>
> It's not just a matter of missing bones, either. The Book of Mormon
> says the ancient Americans had "many" horses. It says they used them
> to pull chariots. If this assertion is true, we should not only find
> horse bones,
I think we have already explored the fallacy of that argument in this
very thread.
Do we need to review? Thousands of hunnic horses..... and when did we
get the evidence? And how many of those bones were found?
Again, since this thread is broken in google, could you please give me
the reference.
we should see images of the horse in ancient-American
> art, along with other animals that ARE included in that art.
How much art has survived prior to 200BCE? No mention of horses is
made after that time.
Exactly how many art objects are we talking abt from that time period?
Again, I have asked that question before when we discussed this very
argument, and got no reply.
>
> Were are the TONS of evidence that we should see, Charles? The sort
> of evidence we find in other civilizations?
How many records from bom time period? How many art objects?
You are making an assertion that there are hundreds of tons of
artifacts from that time period, and, of that, we should at least find
one or two tons with that evidence.
So, tell us what we are looking at. What is the total sum of the raw
materials through which we must sift to find our evidence.
I think your assertion is silly, if not stupid, but let's see what you
got.
Why is it that evidence
> of the horse is so easy to find in other parts of the world, and so
> impossible to find in ancient America circa BOM times?
How many art objects, how many records are found in mesoamerica from
this time period?
Answer my question and you will find the answer to your question.
>
> > You demand physical evidence of horse bones.
>
> And you think this is bad? You think this is unfair? You think this
> is evil?
Nope. You simply continue to assert a logical fallacy.
>
> > You (or another anti)
> > claim elsewhere there should be "tons" of bones, right?
>
> The claim is for tons of evidence. The evidence comes in different
> forms. Sometimes its a statue. Other times its horse bones. But the
> evidence is there for other civilizaitons. Why not for the ancient
> Americans?
Answer my question, please.
>
> > Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
>
> You just admitted that no one doubts that the huns had horses. The
> issue is evidence, Charles. Specifically, the evidence for horses in
> other civilizations, but not for the ancient Americans. The Book of
> Mormon says the ancient Americans had lots of horses. Where is this
> evidence? You don't even have an ounce.
Answer my question, please.
>
> > And let's see if you can stay on the issue.
>
> The issue is the manner in which the Book of Mormon makes claims about
> ancinet America that are at total odds with what scientists tell us
> about ancient America.
Answer my question, please.
One of the Book of Mormon claims is that the
> ancient Americans had many horses, and used them to pull chariots.
>
> If the Book of Mormon were true, we'd find evidence of those horses
> (and the chariots). Along with lots of other things the Book of
> Mormon talks about, including steel smelting.
Answer my question, please.
Clovis Lark
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.0111...@posting.google.com>...
>> cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message news:<93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> <snip>
>> > I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
>> > No one disputes that huns had horses.
>>
>> Charles,
>> think a bit about what you just said. "No one disputes that the huns
>> had horses." That's because we have evidence of the hun horses.
>>
>> Now, why do people dispute that the ancient Americans had horses?
>> Chariot-pulling horses like those described in the Book of Mormon?
>>
>> Because there is no evidence for those horses.
> Actually there is such evidence, as discussed previously, but the
> dating and the nature of the evidence is in dispute.
The evidence you have presented relates to a different species: Western
Horse. That animal's closest relation is the Zebra. These animals have
backs unsuited to carrying men and their dispositions are in no way
conducive to domestication. The dates are NOT in dispute. The issue you
are disputing is a cache of supposedly unfound remains.
> We know the Romans had
>> horses. We see horses in their art. The evidence is all over. We
>> know the Greeks had horses. There are TONS of evidence of that. We
>> know the Egyptians had horses. Again, we have TONS of evidence.
>>
>> And we know the huns had horses. You even admit that the evidence is
>> so strong that "no one disputes" the fact.
> OK.
>>
>> But scientists tell us that the ancient Americans did NOT have horses.
> Yawn. Scientists say many things which have to be corrected later on.
In the 1930's, penicillin was isolated as an antibacterial drug. Tell us,
is this work in dispute today?
> Don't you get it? Scientists make mistakes. New evidence, new
> discoveries are made and scientists have to correct their previous
> opinions.
Mistakes hardly last untested as long as you imagine.
> Do you or do you not agree with that concept?
Not your version.
>> And they certainly did not domesticate them and use them to pull
>> chariots.
> So, maybe we will find horses, but we "certainly" will not find
> chariots.
>>
>> How do we know?
> Note that "opinion" is not used, but *know*.
> For the simple reason that when ancient civilizations
>> domesticated the horse, they left abundant evidence of the fact. Even
>> the huns left enough evidence of the fact that, as you admit, "no one
>> disputes it."
> Most of the evidence consists of written records, of which we have
> little or none from this time period in mesoamerica.
> Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we have virtually no
> records from that time period?
A bald faced inaccurate comment based upon ignorance. Weller, myself and
several others have provided documentation to show the amount of records
available and Charles simply ignores them an repeats this myth.
>>
>> But on this issue about horses in ancient America, you are sitting out
>> on a limb, naked as a jay bird, asserting over and over and over and
>> over that the lack of evidence does not prove that the ancient
>> Americans did not have horses.
> Despite your colorful language, it is a reasonable assertion.
>>
>> It's not just a matter of missing bones, either. The Book of Mormon
>> says the ancient Americans had "many" horses. It says they used them
>> to pull chariots. If this assertion is true, we should not only find
>> horse bones,
> I think we have already explored the fallacy of that argument in this
> very thread.
> Do we need to review? Thousands of hunnic horses..... and when did we
> get the evidence? And how many of those bones were found?
> Again, since this thread is broken in google, could you please give me
> the reference.
> we should see images of the horse in ancient-American
>> art, along with other animals that ARE included in that art.
> How much art has survived prior to 200BCE? No mention of horses is
> made after that time.
Since you do not know the answer, you should stop persisting in your
arguments.
Agkistrodon
From a Thread of December, 2000:
From: Copperhead (Agkis...@mindspring.com)
Subject: Horse Refereences
Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon
Date: 2000/12/06
>> >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.
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
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.0111...@posting.google.com>...
> > cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message news:<93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> > > No one disputes that huns had horses.
> >
> > Charles,
> > think a bit about what you just said. "No one disputes that the huns
> > had horses." That's because we have evidence of the hun horses.
> >
> > Now, why do people dispute that the ancient Americans had horses?
> > Chariot-pulling horses like those described in the Book of Mormon?
> >
> > Because there is no evidence for those horses.
>
> Actually there is such evidence, as discussed previously, but the
> dating and the nature of the evidence is in dispute.
Charles, if you think there is evidence for "Chariot-pulling horses
like those described in the Book of Mormon" why not just post it? Why
this continual practice of asserting, without ever posting any
verifiable objective evidence.
In fact, you have never posted evidence for Chariot-pulling horses
during Book of Mormon times. You have been confused by evidence for
horses prior to their extinction in the Western Hemisphere.
>
>
> We know the Romans had
> > horses. We see horses in their art. The evidence is all over. We
> > know the Greeks had horses. There are TONS of evidence of that. We
> > know the Egyptians had horses. Again, we have TONS of evidence.
> >
> > And we know the huns had horses. You even admit that the evidence is
> > so strong that "no one disputes" the fact.
>
> OK.
Okay, so that same type of evidence should be evident for horses in
ancient America. But it isn't, because the Book of Mormon is a fake.
>
> >
> > But scientists tell us that the ancient Americans did NOT have horses.
>
> Yawn.
You are going to have to do more than "Yawn," Charles.
> Scientists say many things which have to be corrected later on.
> Don't you get it? Scientists make mistakes. New evidence, new
> discoveries are made and scientists have to correct their previous
> opinions.
>
> Do you or do you not agree with that concept?
Let's see if I understand you correctly. You "Yawn" at what
scientists say because science is progressive and corrects its
mistakes. According to you, their statements are suspect because they
say "many things which have to be corrected later on."
Do you realize that this argument can be used to dismiss everything
that science says? That's right, Charles. You can dismiss quantum
mechanics with this argument. You can dismiss the theory of
gravitation, and the theory of relativity.
Where do you draw the line with this argument, Charles? Do you use it
to support your belief in monsters under the bed? It can do that as
well as support your belief in Nephite horses.
>
> > And they certainly did not domesticate them and use them to pull
> > chariots.
>
> So, maybe we will find horses, but we "certainly" will not find
> chariots.
Do you hope to find evidence of monsters under the bed, Charles? What
is the difference between holding out hope for Nephite horses, and
holding out hope form monsters under the bed.
You refuse to answer this question because you cannot. In attempting
to answer the question, it will become abundantly clear that you are
applying a different standard to the Nephite horses that you apply to
such things as monsters under the be.
>
>
> >
> > How do we know?
>
> Note that "opinion" is not used, but *know*.
We "know" that certain ancient civilizations had horses, Charles,
because we find that they carved statues of them. Are you trying to
argue that they carved statues of the horses by accident? That they
really didn't have any?
But we don't find this sort of evidence for the Nephite horses. We
should, if there ever were any Nephites, but we don't. The only
logical conclusion is that the Book of Mormon is a fake -- that there
never were any Nephites, or their horses.
>
>
> For the simple reason that when ancient civilizations
> > domesticated the horse, they left abundant evidence of the fact. Even
> > the huns left enough evidence of the fact that, as you admit, "no one
> > disputes it."
>
> Most of the evidence consists of written records, of which we have
> little or none from this time period in mesoamerica.
Actually, most of the evidence is in the form of hundreds and even
thousands of pieces of art that show horses. But the objection you
raise actually drives yet another nail in the Book of Mormon's coffin.
The Book of Mormon claims the ancient Americans used Hebrew and
Egyptian, and that they left MANY records in these languages, written
on such things as metal plates. So here is yet ANOTHER example of how
the Book of Mormon incorrectly describes ancient American life.
Because there are no metal plates with Hebrew/Egyptian writings from
ancient America.
>
> Why do you continue to ignore the fact that we have virtually no
> records from that time period?
Well, Charles, as you can see, I don't ignore that fact. I rub your
nose in it every chance I get. The fact that we don't have records
like those described in the Book of Mormon stands hand in hand with
the fact that we don't have expected evidence for the horses,
chariots, and steel smelting that the Book of Mormon also describes.
> >
> > But on this issue about horses in ancient America, you are sitting out
> > on a limb, naked as a jay bird, asserting over and over and over and
> > over that the lack of evidence does not prove that the ancient
> > Americans did not have horses.
>
> Despite your colorful language, it is a reasonable assertion.
Hardly.
>
>
> >
> > It's not just a matter of missing bones, either. The Book of Mormon
> > says the ancient Americans had "many" horses. It says they used them
> > to pull chariots. If this assertion is true, we should not only find
> > horse bones,
>
> I think we have already explored the fallacy of that argument in this
> very thread.
You have failed totally to explain why this evidence of horses among
other civilizations is so prevalent, yet so totally lacking in ancient
America. You confuse assertion and repetition with "exploration."
>
> Do we need to review? Thousands of hunnic horses..... and when did we
> get the evidence? And how many of those bones were found?
You continue to miss the point, Charles. They were found. They are
known. But not in ancient America.
>
> Again, since this thread is broken in google, could you please give me
> the reference.
Reference for what?
>
>
> we should see images of the horse in ancient-American
> > art, along with other animals that ARE included in that art.
>
> How much art has survived prior to 200BCE? No mention of horses is
> made after that time.
Lots. Are you saying that no buildings, decorative art work exists
from that period? Are you making the further absurd assertion that
the horse went extinct with the Nephites?
>
> Exactly how many art objects are we talking abt from that time period?
What has that got to do with the price of beans in China. Let's
review Charles' argument:
1) There is abundant evidence of horses prior to the time when
scientists say they went extinct.
2) After the point where scientist say that the horse went extinct,
Charles says that for some unstated reason the horse was still around,
but they no longer left any evidence of their remains in the ground.
3) The Nephites domesticated the horse and used it to pull chariots,
but there isn't a single trace of any Nephite art showing these
horses, or any documents (of which the Book of Mormon says there were
many) that talk about them. And all the horse bones are still missing
for some inexplicable reason.
4) Finally, Charles tells us that the horse must have gone extinct
with the Nephites, else why this constant assertion that the only
place we should find evidence of horses in ancient-American art is
prior to 200 AD?
What a string of coincidences. Horse remains that suddenly stop
showing up where they had been abundant. Some unexplained reason why
these bones no longer appear. Ad hoc explanations about why there is
no evidence in the art of ancient Americans, and now, finally, an ad
hoc explanation that the horses must have gone extinct with the
Nephites.
> Again, I have asked that question before when we discussed this very
> argument, and got no reply.
I've replied many times, Charles. Just as I did above.
>
>
> >
> > Were are the TONS of evidence that we should see, Charles? The sort
> > of evidence we find in other civilizations?
>
> How many records from bom time period? How many art objects?
Are you saying that the horse went extinct with the Nephites?
>
> You are making an assertion that there are hundreds of tons of
> artifacts from that time period, and, of that, we should at least find
> one or two tons with that evidence.
I'm making the assumption that the ancient-Americans, if they had
horses, should have left the same sort of evidence that lots of other
civilizations left.
You need to explain why you think the ancient Americans were somehow
different than all those other civilizations.
> So, tell us what we are looking at. What is the total sum of the raw
> materials through which we must sift to find our evidence.
All the material that's been excavated from ancient America.
>
> I think your assertion is silly, if not stupid, but let's see what you
> got.
You think it's silly and stupid because you believe in a book of
mythology, and the "idea" indicates that your book is a fake.
You've offered no evidence. No references. No logic. No reason.
Just a long string of excuses to explain away why there is no evidence
of domesticated, chariot-pulling horses in ancient America.
> Why is it that evidence
> > of the horse is so easy to find in other parts of the world, and so
> > impossible to find in ancient America circa BOM times?
>
> How many art objects, how many records are found in mesoamerica from
> this time period?
Plenty -- and none to do with horses.
>
> Answer my question and you will find the answer to your question.
Nope.
>
>
> >
> > > You demand physical evidence of horse bones.
> >
> > And you think this is bad? You think this is unfair? You think this
> > is evil?
>
> Nope. You simply continue to assert a logical fallacy.
Wrong. It's fully consistent with the way science works. Your long
string of excuses, however, are not.
>
>
> >
> > > You (or another anti)
> > > claim elsewhere there should be "tons" of bones, right?
> >
> > The claim is for tons of evidence. The evidence comes in different
> > forms. Sometimes its a statue. Other times its horse bones. But the
> > evidence is there for other civilizaitons. Why not for the ancient
> > Americans?
>
> Answer my question, please.
All your points have been addressed, Charles. Now, you answer my
question and post references to material from the scientific
literature that supports the Book of Mormon's claim that the ancient
Americans had chariot-pulling horses.
No more excuses. Just the references.
>
> >
> > > Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
> >
> > You just admitted that no one doubts that the huns had horses. The
> > issue is evidence, Charles. Specifically, the evidence for horses in
> > other civilizations, but not for the ancient Americans. The Book of
> > Mormon says the ancient Americans had lots of horses. Where is this
> > evidence? You don't even have an ounce.
>
> Answer my question, please.
Done. But I see you still have no references. No logical
explanations. Just excuses.
>
>
> >
> > > And let's see if you can stay on the issue.
> >
> > The issue is the manner in which the Book of Mormon makes claims about
> > ancinet America that are at total odds with what scientists tell us
> > about ancient America.
>
> Answer my question, please.
Charles, you are repeating yourself. That's no logical substitute for
a logical and reasonable response. You need to do more than simply
offer ad hoc excuses for the Book of Mormon's failure.
>
>
> One of the Book of Mormon claims is that the
> > ancient Americans had many horses, and used them to pull chariots.
> >
> > If the Book of Mormon were true, we'd find evidence of those horses
> > (and the chariots). Along with lots of other things the Book of
> > Mormon talks about, including steel smelting.
>
> Answer my question, please.
Did your cerebellum fuse, Charles? Deal with the issues here.
Repeating yourself won't do the job.
cdowis
> cdowis <cdo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.0111...@posting.google.com>...
> >> cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message news:<93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> > I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> >> > No one disputes that huns had horses.
> >>
> >> Charles,
> >> think a bit about what you just said. "No one disputes that the huns
> >> had horses." That's because we have evidence of the hun horses.
> >>
> >> Now, why do people dispute that the ancient Americans had horses?
> >> Chariot-pulling horses like those described in the Book of Mormon?
> >>
> >> Because there is no evidence for those horses.
>
> > Actually there is such evidence, as discussed previously, but the
> > dating and the nature of the evidence is in dispute.
>
> The evidence you have presented relates to a different species: Western
> Horse. That animal's closest relation is the Zebra. These animals have
> backs unsuited to carrying men and their dispositions are in no way
> conducive to domestication. The dates are NOT in dispute. The issue you
> are disputing is a cache of supposedly unfound remains.
Here is a post from Doug Weller.
=====================================
>
> Carl Chapman, "Horse bones in an Indian Mound," Missouri Archaeologist 7,
> #1:3-8
>
> Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalology
> 38 (1957):278
From http://www.athenet.com/~jlindsay/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb2.shtml:
"In 1957, Mayapan, a Post-Classic Mayan site, yielded the remains of
horses at
a depth of two meters under ground. They were "considered to be
pre-Columbian
on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization"[Clayton
E. Ray,
"Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 (May
1957):
278]."
And from Frank Zindler's page, How do You Lose a Steel Mill?
athttp://www.nowscape.com/mormon/zindler1.htm
"John L. Sorenson, the chairman of the Department of Anthropology at
Brigham
Young University, in his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book
of
Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1985), cites alleged
findings
of pre-Columbian horse remains, but none of the cases cited appear to
be
clear-cut enough to establish the thesis that the Amerindians had
everyday use
of horses and chariots. The case Sorenson considers to be the most
solid
evidence that the Maya had horses is in a brief note published on page
278 of
the Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 38 (1957). Written by Clayton E. Ray of
the
Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, the note tells of "horse
remains of
probable preColumbian age from a new locality in Yucatan. This
material
consists of one complete upper molar and three fragmentary lower
molars ...
obtained by archaeologists ... during excavation at the Mayan ruins of
Mayapan
... The teeth were collected in the cenote Ch'en Mul ... from the
bottom
stratum in a sequence of unconsolidated earth almost two meters in
thickness
... The horse teeth are not specifically identifiable. They are
considered to
be preColumbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of
mineralization
...
"It is by no means implied that preColumbian horses were known to the
Mayans,
but it seems likely that horses were present on the Yucatan Peninsula
in
preMayan times. The tooth fragments reported here could have been
transported
in fossil condition as curios by the Mayans . . ." "
> Harry E. d. Pollock and Clayton E. Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains
> from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (aug 1957): 638 (carnegie Institutionn,
> Wahs, DC, Dept of Arch)
>
> Henry Chapman Mercer _The Hill Caves of Yucatan_ (Philadelphia: Lippincott,
> 1896), 172
>
> Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, #11 (Nov
> 1978):2
From the same web site quoted above:
"In the Yucatan area, horse remains were found during archaeological
investigations in three caves (see Henry Chapman Mercer, The
Hill-Caves of
Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of
Central
America, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1896, p. 172, as cited in
Reexploring the
Book of Mormon, p. 99). These remains were associated with signs of
human
activity (potsherds), and bore with no sign of fossilization. More
recently,
1978 excavations at the Loltun Cave in the Maya lowlands also yielded
the
remains of horses (see Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of
Science,
Newsletter 7, no. 11, Nov. 1978, p. 2, as cited in Reexploring the
Book of
Mormon, p. 99)."
Nothing here that clearly establishes pre-Columbian horses. Lee, did
you ever
get these articles?
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, 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
=========================
Note the phrase "(not) clearly establishes". The evidence is there
but is in dispute.
Clovis Lark
In dispute by whom?
Xan Du
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.0111...@posting.google.com...
> Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote in message
news:<3BFEFF06...@tcnet-nc.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > I do not have time to engage in a discussion on this right now. My
> > wife underwent surgery to have her gall bladder removed and a few other
> > internal repairs this past Monday and most of my time is spent caring
> > for her, so I will probably be incommunicado for another week or so.
> >
> > Glenn
>
> My daughter spent two weeks in the hospital last spring, after her
> appendix ruptured. I know what a trying and difficult thing it can be
> to have a loved one there. The hardest part was watching them wheel
> her away to the operating room, and not knowing for sure if we'd see
> her again.
>
> You have my deepest sympathies and best wishes for your wife.
>
> I don't believe in god, so I won't pray for you. But I will pass on
> some advice that might help.
>
> Never, ever, take anything you are told in the hospital for granted.
> Question the doctors, question their advice, ask for second opinions,
> and never assume that they have the same concerns for your loved one
> as you do.
Having just had my perfectly normal appendix removed, and then subsequently
spending two weeks suffering from inexplicable abdominal pain and swelling,
I will attest to the quality of your advice.
> For the two weeks my daughter was hospitalized my wife and I took
> turns being by her side. She was never alone. I shudder to think of
> some of the things that they might have done to her if she'd been by
> herself.
I practically had to scream at the nursing staff to turn off my IV fluids
after my right arm, lower back, right leg, and abdomen filled up with fluid.
Finally, it occurred to the MDs to administer a diuretic, and bring my IV
fluids down from 400 ml/hr to 75 ml/hr.
> Every needle, every procedure, every test was accompanied by
> our questions and oversight.
Welcome to the world of HMOs.
-Xan
cdowis
snip
> A bald faced inaccurate comment based upon ignorance. Weller, myself and
> several others have provided documentation to show the amount of records
> available and Charles simply ignores them an repeats this myth.
Really?
Please give us those citations again to prove your point and make me
look stupid.
How many records are extant from the bom time period (excluding
inscriptions -- actual records). 100.... 50... 25 ..... 5 ..... 1
.... less than one?
I await your response. I believe your memory on this matter is
flawed, but let's see.......
cdowis
snip
> A bald faced inaccurate comment based upon ignorance. Weller, myself and
> several others have provided documentation to show the amount of records
> available and Charles simply ignores them an repeats this myth.
You might want to refer to the book "A Forest of Kings", Linda
Shele, David Freidel (William Morrow: New York, 1990) for the answer
to my question. They discuss the Mayan records from this time period
-- the lack thereof.
Xan Du
> cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message
news:<93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > cdo...@my-dejanews.com (cdowis) wrote in message
news:<93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
> > > > No one disputes that huns had horses.
> > >
> > > Charles,
> > > think a bit about what you just said. "No one disputes that the huns
> > > had horses." That's because we have evidence of the hun horses.
> > >
> > > Now, why do people dispute that the ancient Americans had horses?
> > > Chariot-pulling horses like those described in the Book of Mormon?
> > >
> > > Because there is no evidence for those horses.
> >
> > Actually there is such evidence, as discussed previously, but the
> > dating and the nature of the evidence is in dispute.
>
> Charles, if you think there is evidence for "Chariot-pulling horses
> like those described in the Book of Mormon" why not just post it? Why
> this continual practice of asserting, without ever posting any
> verifiable objective evidence.
Back to beating an imaginary dead horse, I see.
Charles' logic is unassailable, "The BoM says the Nephites used horses, the
BoM is true, therefore horses existed in pre-Columbian America. No amount
of evidence would convince him otherwise. Certanly the lack of evidence
will not succeed either.
I recently asked a devout LDS good friend how he could persist in his faith
despite his many and numerous gripes about the Church. "I'm a great
compartmentalizer," he said, without apology or further elaboration.
Some people simply want to believe what they've always been taught. Charles
is the standard-bearer for that mindset. I can only hope that you and
Clovis have some positive effect upon readers who are more prepared to
question their basic assumptions.
-Xan
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<9u06s1$5af$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
> snip
>> A bald faced inaccurate comment based upon ignorance. Weller, myself and
>> several others have provided documentation to show the amount of records
>> available and Charles simply ignores them an repeats this myth.
> Really?
> Please give us those citations again to prove your point and make me
> look stupid.
Easy, go to any museum and look in the relevant collection. You will find
100's of graphic artifacts depicting cultural life. I've posted several
times on such exhibits, including the terra cotta figurines from the
Guadalajaran region. These artifacts all dated from "nephite" times,
included complete depictions of religious, political and celebratory
events, buildings included. NOT A HORSE. Mayan ones are similar. You
keep stumbling on the same issue, assumption that a record most be a
western style codex, or something similar.
> How many records are extant from the bom time period (excluding
> inscriptions -- actual records). 100.... 50... 25 ..... 5 ..... 1
> .... less than one?
> I await your response. I believe your memory on this matter is
> flawed, but let's see.......
My memory is pretty good. I work in a discipline where it is absolutely
necessary.
Clovis Lark
I just addressed this.
Lee Paulson
But Charles willfully does not understand.
Duwayne Anderson
> snip
>
> > A bald faced inaccurate comment based upon ignorance. Weller, myself and
> > several others have provided documentation to show the amount of records
> > available and Charles simply ignores them an repeats this myth.
>
> Really?
>
> Please give us those citations again to prove your point and make me
> look stupid.
Charles, I trust you saw Lark's reply, showing that there is a
considerable body of artwork from ancient America that depicts ancient
American life.
> How many records are extant from the bom time period (excluding
> inscriptions -- actual records). 100.... 50... 25 ..... 5 ..... 1
> .... less than one?
This is actually a question for the apologists. You see, the Book of
Mormon says that the ancient Americans wrote hundreds of *books*.
See, for example, Heleman 3:14:
"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 [the Book of Mormon.
A book that is nearly 600 pages long, and was supposedly written on
metal plates of gold.]
Furthermore, the Nephites supposedly wrote on metal plates of gold,
and their language was supposedly a modified form of Egyptian and
Hebrew. For example, see Mormon 9:32-33 which says:
"And now, behold, we have written this record according to our
knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed
Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner
of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should
have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also;
and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no
imperfection in our record."
So the question to LDS apologists is obviously, "where are the
ancient-American books, written on plates of metal, with characters
derived from Egyptian and Hebrew?"
I've asked you that many, many times, Charles. You've never responded
with references because, in fact, there are no such books.
So the Book of Mormon fails yet another test.
In your attempt to defend the Book of Mormon you have argued that
there is no evidence from ancient America. But Lark's has shown you
are wrong. On the other hand, you have forgotten the other claims of
the Book of Mormon, for in your head-long rush to argue that there are
no records, you forgot that the Book of Mormon says there were *MANY*
records, on metal plates, in Hebrew/Egyptian. It's the Book of
Mormon's claims, once again, that come up short.
> I await your response. I believe your memory on this matter is
> flawed, but let's see.......
Charles, it's a bit of a joke on ARM,the number of times that I've
asked you if you believe in monsters under the bed. I don't remember
you ever answering that question. The reason you don't answer,
obviously, is that you probably don't believe in monsters under the
bed for the same reason that I don't believe in the Book of Mormon:
because the evidence that should be there isn't.
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/26/2001 8:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>
>
>Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:<9toded$8em$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> Glenn Thigpen <glennt...@tcnet-nc.com> wrote:
>> > Clovis,
>> > Just a short note. I did some checking on the apparent site from
>> > which you got your information, as well as some others. At first glance,
>> > it would seem that my information is a bit dated. Some of the other
>> > websites I visited, all non-LDS also seemed to have dated information.
>> > From what I could learn, this information was first presented in 1997,
>> > so I should have learned about it by now.
>> > I do not think that the finds invalidate the stance on horses in the
>> > Book of Mormon, for what should be obvious reasons.
>>
>> It renders bogus an argument used to bolster lack of equine finds in the
>> americas by apologists. It adds physical remains to a record replete with
>> literary, pictoral, etc. documentation for hunnic horses. Apology needs
>> to apply the same standard to the americas. There one sees no remains, no
>> descriptions, no art depicting horses.
>I am certain that you already know that you are avoiding the issue.
>No one disputes that huns had horses.
>
>You demand physical evidence of horse bones. You (or another anti)
>claim elsewhere there should be "tons" of bones, right?
>
>Well, let's see the tons of hunnic horse bones.
For those new to ARM:
Charles Dowis brings up this "Hun Horse" business every year or so, as if there
is supposed to be some relevance between it and the issue of lack of evidence
for pre-Columbian American domesticated horses. I believe that most readers of
average intelligence can discern that Charles' comparison is a flawed analogy,
for two main reasons: first, there is no dispute as to whether the Huns
existed in real time and space, as opposed to the "BOM people", for which
exists no direct evidence whatsoever; and second, since the domesticated horse
was in widespread use in every corner of Europe and Asia for centures before
and during the entire Hun period, there are horse remains scattered throughout
the continent, and obviously, it is ridiculous to attempt to identify which
horse bones belonged to a Hun, or to any number of other groups over the
centuries, including the Romans. It's as though Charles expects horse remains
stamped with "Property of Attila T. Hun, Esq." to be unearthed.
The one quote from the European writer who Charles and other Mormons
repeatedly cite is simply silly on its face. It's similar to an American
"researcher" opining that because no buffalo remains have been identified as
having been killed by an ancient Dakota Indian, then we can assume that ancient
Dakota Indians did not kill buffalo---when the fact is, that every Indian tribe
on the Great Plains hunted the buffalo for many centuries, just as many
different Europeans domesticated and used horses widely for many centuries.
Charles concedes above that "no one disputes that the Huns had horses," and
that is because both the Huns and their horse use is documented from
contemporary sources. In contrast, the reason that the existence of
pre-Columbian American domesticated horses IS in dispute is because there is no
evidence for them either in physical remains, in historical records, or in
artwork from ANY period in pre-Columbian history. That lack of evidence is why
such Mormon apologists as John Sorenson has speculated (wildly) that the
"horses" mentioned throughout the BOM might have been "deer" or "tapir." The
only work claiming pre-Columbian domesticated horses is the "Book of Mormon,"
written and published in 1830. Seeing as how the BOM makes many other
outlandish, unsubstantiated claims about ancient American flora, fauna, people,
and cultures, there's no reason to take seriously its claims of domesticated
horses, either.
Incidentally, I read one article on the Huns that does indeed explain a lack of
horse remains for them specifically, at
http://www.realm-of-shade.com/zarathustra/attila.html
Quote:
From the year 433 Attila shared the throne with his brother Bleda, but killed
him in 445. At the outset of his
reign, Attila demanded more money, and the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II,
obligingly doubled the annual
subsidy. For various reasons, however, the new king began in the late 440's to
look to the West as the main
area of opportunity for the Huns. For the next decade and a half after his
accession Attila was the most powerful
foreign potentate in the affairs of the Western Roman Empire. His Huns had
become a sedentary nation and
were no longer the horse nomads of the earlier days. The Great Hungarian Plain
did not offer as much room as
the steppes of Asia for grazing horses, and the Huns were forced to develop an
infantry to supplement their now
much smaller cavalry. As one leading authority has recently said, "When the
Huns first appeared on the steppe
north of the Black Sea, they were nomads and most of them may have been mounted
warriors. In Europe, however,
they could graze only a fraction of their former horse power, and their chiefs
soon fielded armies which resembled
the sedentary forces of Rome."
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 11/26/2001 4:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <93c36e92.01112...@posting.google.com>
>
Attention readers: Note Charles' method of debate here. The argument isn't
what might be discovered about ancient domesticated horses 50 years from now;
the issue is what the evidence shows NOW. We can speculate about what might
happen 50 years from now on any number of issues; but all we can intelligently
discuss now is what is known now. Charles constantly repeats his mantra of
"Just because it hasn't been found, doesn't mean it didn't exist." Charles
refuses to acknowledge the reverse of his saying, which is "The fact that it
hasn't been found, means that it likely did NOT exist"---especially considering
the amount of archaelogical and anthropological work that has been done
throughout the New World for the last 150 years.
When people like DuWayne and I ask people like Charles for "BOM evidence,"
Charles invariably trots out his "not found, not exist." As I've written many
times before, that answer is not evidence, but is instead an excuse for LACK of
evidence. Imagine if Charles were a lawyer in court, and he was asked to
provide evidence for his position, and his response was "Well, I don't have it
now, but just because I don't have any evidence now, doesn't mean I won't have
some 50 years in the future."
Randy J.
camnchar
snip
> > Never, ever, take anything you are told in the hospital for granted.
> > Question the doctors, question their advice, ask for second opinions,
> > and never assume that they have the same concerns for your loved one
> > as you do.
Good advice, Duwayne. Here's some more: make sure you are not antagonistic
in your questioning. It could do more harm than good.
> Having just had my perfectly normal appendix removed, and then
subsequently
> spending two weeks suffering from inexplicable abdominal pain and
swelling,
> I will attest to the quality of your advice.
If 20% of appendices removed are not "entirely normal," the operating
surgeon is missing too many real cases of appendicitis.
snip
> Welcome to the world of HMOs.
That about says it all.
Chuck
Xan Du
camnchar <camn...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:t_hN7.9874$Wd.34...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
Oh, I have no problem with that. But when they let me languish for two
weeks in pain in a hospital bed, and don't come up with a diagnosis, I tend
to get a little upset.
-Xan
cdowis
snip
> Attention readers: Note Charles' method of debate here. The argument isn't
> what might be discovered about ancient domesticated horses 50 years from now;
> the issue is what the evidence shows NOW. We can speculate about what might
> happen 50 years from now on any number of issues; but all we can intelligently
> discuss now is what is known now. Charles constantly repeats his mantra of
> "Just because it hasn't been found, doesn't mean it didn't exist." Charles
> refuses to acknowledge the reverse of his saying, which is "The fact that it
> hasn't been found, means that it likely did NOT exist"---especially considering
> the amount of archaelogical and anthropological work that has been done
> throughout the New World for the last 150 years.
Attention readers:
I have asked this question many many times, so I will ask it again.
Of the known archeological sites, how many have been excavated to the
bom time period -- 2200 BCE to 400AD.
Will this question, once again, be ignored?
>
> When people like DuWayne and I ask people like Charles for "BOM evidence,"
> Charles invariably trots out his "not found, not exist." As I've written many
> times before, that answer is not evidence, but is instead an excuse for LACK of
> evidence.
I have posted evidence for the bom many times. Also look at FARMS.
Imagine if Charles were a lawyer in court, and he was asked to
> provide evidence for his position, and his response was "Well, I don't have it
> now, but just because I don't have any evidence now, doesn't mean I won't have
> some 50 years in the future."
>
> Randy J.
Thank you for putting words into my mouth.
As I have said many many times, my interest is not to prove anything
--that is between you and the Lord, but to showed the flawed arguments
of the enemies of my church. Agani, proof is something between you
and the Lord.
Clovis Lark
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20011128221742...@mb-cg.aol.com>...
> snip
>> Attention readers: Note Charles' method of debate here. The argument isn't
>> what might be discovered about ancient domesticated horses 50 years from now;
>> the issue is what the evidence shows NOW. We can speculate about what might
>> happen 50 years from now on any number of issues; but all we can intelligently
>> discuss now is what is known now. Charles constantly repeats his mantra of
>> "Just because it hasn't been found, doesn't mean it didn't exist." Charles
>> refuses to acknowledge the reverse of his saying, which is "The fact that it
>> hasn't been found, means that it likely did NOT exist"---especially considering
>> the amount of archaelogical and anthropological work that has been done
>> throughout the New World for the last 150 years.
> Attention readers:
> I have asked this question many many times, so I will ask it again.
> Of the known archeological sites, how many have been excavated to the
> bom time period -- 2200 BCE to 400AD.
> Will this question, once again, be ignored?
Once again, Charles, you post a disingenuous question. I have answered
this question several times and you have refused to acknowedge it. Do a
Google search and get back to us.
>>
>> When people like DuWayne and I ask people like Charles for "BOM evidence,"
>> Charles invariably trots out his "not found, not exist." As I've written many
>> times before, that answer is not evidence, but is instead an excuse for LACK of
>> evidence.
> I have posted evidence for the bom many times. Also look at FARMS.
Sorry Charley, you haven't. You've posted rumor, innuendo, what if's,
distortion of research, contradictions, but no evidence. Shall we go back
to your lamanite=indian and lamanite vs. hebrew derivative remarks?
> Imagine if Charles were a lawyer in court, and he was asked to
>> provide evidence for his position, and his response was "Well, I don't have it
>> now, but just because I don't have any evidence now, doesn't mean I won't have
>> some 50 years in the future."
>>
>> Randy J.
> Thank you for putting words into my mouth.
> As I have said many many times, my interest is not to prove anything
> --that is between you and the Lord, but to showed the flawed arguments
> of the enemies of my church. Agani, proof is something between you
> and the Lord.
Who are the enemies?
camnchar
news:9u4mke$61t54$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
Sometimes there is no diagnosis.
Chuck
Xan Du
Well, the surgeon thinks he now needs to take my gall bladder out, but he
can't explain how the gall bladder problem caused my other symptoms. I'm
wondering if he'll go after my spleen next, and after that, how about a
bowel resection?
-Xan
>
> Chuck
>
>
Cheap Suit
You could save a lot of money by doing it yourself.
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Xan Du
Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
news:3C06EF67...@dangerous1.com...
Hey, my insurance will pay for it, not me.
-Xan
camnchar
> Well, the surgeon thinks he now needs to take my gall bladder out, but he
> can't explain how the gall bladder problem caused my other symptoms. I'm
> wondering if he'll go after my spleen next, and after that, how about a
> bowel resection?
The gallbladder is a reasonable alternative culprit for abdominal
complaints. But before I'd get a second surgery for mysterious reasons, I'd
get a second opinion from a surgeon I trust.
Chuck
Xan Du
Working on it.
-Xan
>
> Chuck
>
>
TheJordan6
>> Attention readers: Note Charles Dowis' method of debate here. The argument
isn't what might be discovered about ancient domesticated horses 50 years from
now; the issue is what the evidence shows NOW. We can speculate about what
might happen 50 years from now on any number of issues; but all we can
intelligently discuss now is what is known now. Charles constantly repeats his
mantra of "Just because it hasn't been found, doesn't mean it didn't exist."
Charles refuses to acknowledge the reverse of his saying, which is "The fact
that it hasn't been found, means that it likely did NOT exist"---especially
considering the amount of archaelogical and anthropological work that has been
done throughout the New World for the last 150 years.
Charles Dowis replied:
>Attention readers:
> I have asked this question many many times, so I will ask it again.
Your question has been answered many times. Your repetition of it only shows
that you are in intellectual denial of the answers, and you only repeat it over
and over again because you aren't very bright, you are dishonest, and you need
to use your supposedly "unanswered question" as a strawman to deflect attention
from the issue of lack of BOM evidence.
> Of the known archeological sites, how many have been excavated to the
bom time period -- 2200 BCE to 400AD. Will this question, once again, be
ignored?
Your question has never been ignored. In fact, no one on ARM even need to
answer it for you, because you can learn the answer on your own, from the
pro-LDS sources that you yourself regularly refer to, and from many other
sources written by LDS scholars as well as secular researchers.
The brief answer to your question of how many ancient Mesoamerican sites have
been excavated is "dozens of major city-states and religious centers, and
hundreds of minor population centers, scattered throughout MesoAmerica,
encompassing the entire alleged time period of the Book of Mormon."
You have referred us more than once to Joseph Allen's 437-page "Exploring the
Lands of the Book of Mormon" (published by BYU Print Services, 1989.) Allen's
book, albeit entirely speculative concerning "BOM parallels" to actual
discoveries, discusses numerous sites. There are too many to list, but Allen
provides overviews of dozens of sites in pp. 26-30 and 47-50. On page 246,
Allen provides a map showing "Settlements and archaelogical sites that date to
the time period of the Book of Mormon." His map includes 27 major sites, from
Teotihuacan in the northwest, to Monte Alto in the south, to Chichen Itza on
the Yucatan. Of course, these are only the MAJOR population and religious
centers. LDS anthropologist John Sorenson provides a similar map of ancient
sites on the inside back cover of his "An Ancient American Setting for the Book
of Mormon." Other scholarly works which provide maps of discovered
Mesoamerican sites, and details within them, include J. Eric Thompson's "The
Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization" and C. Bruce Hunter's "A Guide to Ancient
Maya Ruins."
Once again, the number of major sites is well-documented, but the number of
minor sites is too great for scholars to even attempt to number, just as it
would be futile for anyone to attempt to arrive at the number of every ancient
hamlet in the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, ENOUGH Mesoamerican sites have been
unearthed, dated, and their cultures documented, for us to know that none of
them, in any location, resemble the cultures claimed in the BOM to such an
extent that would show the BOM to have some connection with ancient
Mesoamerica.
The main reason for that, as I've written many times, is that the population
figures claimed at particular times in the BOM make it impossible for such a
large culture to have existed as late as 400 AD, without having been unearthed
to date. The BOM claims that about 230,000 "Nephites" were killed at the final
battle of "Cumorah" circa 400 AD. The level of culture and technology asserted
for the "BOM people", including the horse, chariot, smelted steel tools and
weaponry, Hebrew-or-Egyptian-like writing, and Christology, would have
naturally been the dominant culture in the region (or in any region on earth at
the time, for that matter.) Your problem is that there simply isn't any place
in MesoAmerica that such a culture of hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
as late as 400 AD could have existed, without being able to discover artifacts
today that would give even a hint of their existence.
Mormon writers like Joseph Allen, Sorenson, etc., provide maps which purport to
draw geographical parallels between actual ancient sites and BOM places and
events. By furnishing such maps, those apologists are unwittingly revealing
the falsity of the BOM, because obviously, if archaelogy has found numerous
sites scattered throughout MesoAmerica that give us great detail about ancient
Olmecs, Mayans, Aztecs, etc., then WHY, if the BOM took place in that same
region and timeframe, can we NOT find a SINGLE artifact that would provide any
direct evidence of the BOM's authenticity? Contrary to your silly "NFNE"
mantra, the LACK of "BOM evidence" in the assumed locations, in light of the
PLETHORA of evidence for Olmecs, Mayans, Aztecs, is proof positive that no "BOM
peoples" existed in those areas asserted to be "BOM locations."
The issue is NOT how many sites have been unearthed, but rather, do the
hundreds of sites which HAVE been excavated since 1840 aid the BOM's case for
authenticity? The answer is obviously no, and that mekas your continual silly
demand for the number of sites unearthed is nothing but a strawman.
>> When people like DuWayne and I ask people like Charles for "BOM evidence,"
Charles invariably trots out his "not found, not exist." As I've written many
times before, that answer is not evidence, but is instead an excuse for LACK of
evidence.
> I have posted evidence for the bom many times.
No, Charles, you HAVE NOT. You have suggested "vague parallels" and
"intersting possibilities." When your assertions are refuted from scholarly
sources, you then retreat into your "not found, not exist." The mere fact that
you have to retreat into NFNE is your concession that no such evidence has been
found to date.
>Also look at FARMS.
We refute FARMS assertions here on ARM all the time. If you want to peruse a
single volume that destroys most of FARMS' work, I recommend Stan Larson's
"Quest for the Gold Plates."
>> Imagine if Charles were a lawyer in court, and he was asked to provide
evidence for his position, and his response was "Well, I don't have it now, but
just because I don't have any evidence now, doesn't mean I won't have some 50
years in the future."
>>Randy J.
>Thank you for putting words into my mouth.
That's EXACTLY what your arguments amount to, Charles.
>As I have said many many times, my interest is not to prove anything
--that is between you and the Lord,
Readers, did you get that? Above, Charles asserts that he "has posted evidence
for the BOM many times," but here, he reverses himself by saying "my interest
is not to prove anything." DUH, Charles, if you aren't out to "prove
anything," then you wouldn't be posting your alleged "BOM evidence" to BEGIN
with. And note also, readers, that Charles' injection of "that is between you
and the Lord," is merely another version of "NFNE." According to Charles, if
no "BOM evidence" exists, it's not the BOM's fault, but rather the reader's.
This dialogue shows why Mr. Dowis has been given the nickname "slippery
Charlie"----if you try to pin him down on anything, he will slip and slide and
squirm his way out of it, deftly (in his mind) using the prospect of "yet
undiscovered evidence" to try to make his case.
>but to showed the flawed arguments
of the enemies of my church.
You have yet to point out any such flawed arguments.
> Again, proof is something between you and the Lord.
Insanity is between you and a psychiatrist.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>we should see images of the horse in ancient-American
art, along with other animals that ARE included in that art.
>How much art has survived prior to 200BCE? No mention of horses is
made after that time. >
Attention ARMekites!!! For those new to ARM, this remark of Charles'
exemplifies his deceitufl tactics which old-timers here are all too familiar
with. I'll explain: Just a couple of weeks ago, Charles criticized
"anti-Mormons" for "not reading the BOM." I responded to Charles that he
himself was not as well-educated on the BOM as he purports, and reminded him of
a couple of years ago, when I had to correct him three times on his incorrect
assertion of the final date for the mention of horses in the BOM. Below is
part of that post, from July of 1998:
Charles Dowis wrote:
>Look in the BOM and tell us when horses were last mentioned. Around 200 BC if
I remember correctly.
Randy replied:
Charles.
Charles, Charles, Charles.
It took me all of one minute in my BOM index to find that the Nephite hordes
still herded hordes of horses and their other fictional animals that didn't
exist in America, in AD 17 (3 Ne. 3:22), AD 19 (3 Ne. 4:4), and AD 26 (3 Ne.
6:1).
Don't you owe it to yourself to actually READ the book which you so fervently
defend?
The BOM doesn't say much else about ANY of their animals, flocks, etc., after
that point, because the rest of the book is taken up with the "visit of
Christ", the Book of Ether, and Moroni's exhortations borrowed from the apostle
Paul and Alexander Campbell.
And please, answer this for me---- I am under the distinct impression that
you, Kerry, Red, Keith, and perhaps others have been trying to tell us that
horses still existed in the Americas when the Spaniards arrived----but that the
Indians whom Cortes encountered just didn't know about them.
But in your statement above, you seem to be trying to pitch the idea that
since horses aren't mentioned after a certain date in the BOM, that maybe
something happened to cause their extinction at some point before Columbus.
Now, please tell us---which position do you want to go with? Were horses in
America when Columbus arrived, or not? If so, can you point to some historical
or archaelogical evidence of horses in Amerca in between say, AD 26 and AD
1519?
If the domesticated horses which the Nephite hordes herded died out for some
reason after AD 26, can you point us to some historical or archaelogical
evidence of that occurrence?
Surely an event so relatively recent in the fossil record, and so devastating
to the Nephite horses, would be well documented in the archaelogical record;
surely such a catastrophe large enough to wipe out hordes of horses would also
affect other native American animals such as buffalo, deer, elk, caribou, bear,
jaguar, monkeys, etc. Any clues as to what could have happened?
>Who said that the BOM claims that the horses survived past 200BC??
The BOM. And if you have some evidence that these horses mysteriously died
out, I'd like to see it.
End quote from July of 1998.
Dear ARMekites: This is the most frustrating aspect of dealing with Totally
Brainwashed Mormon apologists like Charles Dowis: When he is thoroughly
refuted on a point (or an entire thread), he simply waits a few months or
years, and then dishonestly repeates the same fallacious material which he has
already been refuted on many times. This habit of Charles' tells us one of two
things: either he is mentally deficient, or he is a pathological liar.
He thinks he can get by with repeating such falsehoods to newbies or neophytes
to Mormonism; but unfortunately, he cannot run his deceit (or more likely, his
mental insufficiency) past us old-timers who are wise to his ways.
For those new to ARM who aren't informed on the controversy---The 'Book of
Mormon' claims that its people had and used horses as late as 26 AD (3 Nephi
6:1.) Of course, archaelogical and anthropological research shows us that the
Western horse went extinct thousands of years before the time of the alleged
"BOM people," and there is no scientific evidence ofdomesticated horse
existence or use in any period of Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican history.
Therefore, the reason that Charles deceitfully tries to push back the last
mention of horses in the BOM to "200 BC" is because he thinks that the longer
they have been extinct, in his mind, the less chance there should be to find
physical evidence of their existence. It's Charles' twisted way of trying to
explain away lack of horse evidence. But the fact that the BOM mentions
domesticated horse use as late as 26 AD, into the Christian era, means that the
odds should be that much greater for finding evidence of them.
The main reason Charles even mentions a final date for horse use in the BOM is
because he needs to push a theory that the domesticated horse became extinct
sometime between "BOM times" and the Spanish invasion. In his mind, such an
extinction would also help to explain away lack of evidence. Unfortunately for
Charles' argument, the final mention of BOM horses at 26 AD does NOT equate to
them going extinct at some later date. Charles likes to parrot his "NFNE"
constantly, so I'll mock him by stating that "Just because the BOM doesn't
mention horses beyond 26 AD doesn't mean they didn't continue to exist." In
fact, the last mentions of horses indicates that they were plentiful:
"The Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having
reserved for themselves provisions, and HORSES and cattle, and flocks of every
kind, that they might subsist for the space of SEVEN YEARS....." (3 Nephi 4:5,
allegedly about 19 AD.)
"the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and
sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his HORSES
and his cattle....." (3 Nephi 6:1, allegedly about 26 AD.)
Both of these citations indicate that the "Nephites" not only had horses, but
had them in great numbers, and took great care of them. After the war against
the "Gadianton robbers," the "Nephites" returned to their own land, with their
animals (including horses), and prospered. This is the last mention of horses
in the BOM, and it gives no hint of their impending extinction. So, when
Charles tries to assert that they somehow became extinct after that point, he
is reading things into the BOM that are not there. He simply INVENTS the
scenario that horses became extinct, when in fact there is nothing in the BOM
to even hint at such an occurrence. To repeat: if there had been some
catastrophic event that caused the extinction of every horse in the Western
Hemisphere, then
a) such a catastrophe should have also killed off a number of other indigenous
animals (such as elk, deer, or bison), and
b) the catastrophe had to be so mysterious and overwhelming as to disintegrate
and wash away the skeleton of every dead horse in the hemisphere.
Of course, the prospect of such a catastophe that could "cherrypick" horses
(and other exclusively-"BOM animals") and mark them for death, while leaving
intact hundreds of species of other indigenous MesoAmerican animals (not to
mention humans), is ridiculous.
Also, Charles' silly arguments on the horse issue don't even begin to explain
the extinction of other exclusively-"BOM animals" such as cows, sheep, asses,
and pigs. Archaelogy shows that none of those animals existed in Pre-Columbian
America, but in fact were Old World animals imported by the Spaniards in the
1500's. The horse issue is but one small part of Charles' overall BOM
problems---none of which are solved by his repeating false assertions about
them.
Randy J.
camnchar
<snip excellent response>
Ouch. I'd like to see Charles's response to that ... assuming he doesn't
flee for a few months only to resurface with the same claims.
Chuck
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/4/2001 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bxfP7.30243$Wd.10...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>
Oh, he's sure to repeat it again. Charles' psychological makeup does not allow
him to recognize when he is wrong, or admit to it. That's why I keep some of
his old responses in my files, so that new readers can see how he
disingenuously repeats the same fallacies over and over and over. I've never
known a person in real life who had the ability to lie repeatedly, with no
qualms, as Charles does. Maybe he's just possessed by demons, and can't help
himself.
Randy J.