Horse Refereences

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Copperhead

unread,
Dec 5, 2000, 9:28:51 PM12/5/00
to
>> >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

Kevin Larson

unread,
Dec 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/6/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/6/00
to
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.

Kevin Larson

unread,
Dec 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/7/00
to

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

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM12/8/00
to
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.

Copperhead

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 7:55:11 AM12/8/00
to
"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.
>>>
>>> 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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 8:25:47 AM12/8/00
to
Duwayne Anderson <duwa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 9:44:58 AM12/8/00
to
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?

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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 10:46:37 AM12/8/00
to
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 11:21:01 AM12/8/00
to
In article <90qs58$hgk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 12:11:59 PM12/8/00
to
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.

>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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 12:40:18 PM12/8/00
to
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.
> >>
> >> Kevin
> >>
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
>
>

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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 1:49:48 PM12/8/00
to
In article <3a3100a2...@news.mindspring.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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 5:35:00 PM12/8/00
to
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:

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

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 8:26:39 PM12/8/00
to
The inimitable Charlie D. wrote:

>>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

unread,
Dec 9, 2000, 8:02:15 AM12/9/00
to
In article <3a31613...@news.mindspring.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

unread,
Dec 9, 2000, 10:10:08 AM12/9/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 9, 2000, 10:33:42 AM12/9/00
to
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.


>
>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

unread,
Dec 9, 2000, 11:59:32 AM12/9/00
to
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.

snip

Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."

cdo...@my-deja.com

unread,
Dec 9, 2000, 1:24:01 PM12/9/00
to
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.


>
> >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

unread,
Dec 9, 2000, 2:46:13 PM12/9/00
to
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> 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

unread,
Dec 10, 2000, 6:14:12 AM12/10/00
to
cdo...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 9:19:16 AM12/11/00
to
In article <3a33652e...@news.mindspring.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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 10:16:12 AM12/11/00
to
In article <20001208202639...@ng-cg1.aol.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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 10:23:05 AM12/11/00
to
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?

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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 11:14:49 AM12/11/00
to
In article <912r3l$c5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 11:31:48 AM12/11/00
to
In article <912r3l$c5g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
lpau...@my-deja.com wrote:

<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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 12:21:22 PM12/11/00
to
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
>> >
>> > 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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 1:41:06 PM12/11/00
to
In article <912vhl$g1h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

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

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 2:59:56 PM12/11/00
to
In article <913741$mt5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 11:31:31 AM12/12/00
to
In article <9132ei$hf$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 11:59:43 AM12/12/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 12:34:23 PM12/12/00
to
Charles wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 1:23:09 PM12/12/00
to
In article <915lhv$cis$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,

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
> >>
> >> And why is he so spineless that he cannot respond to my counter
> > 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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 1:46:12 PM12/12/00
to
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
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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 2:04:32 PM12/12/00
to
>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.
>
>--
>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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 2:19:04 PM12/12/00
to
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.


--
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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 4:14:13 PM12/12/00
to

<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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 4:09:06 PM12/12/00
to
In article <915tmv$tci$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 4:48:13 PM12/12/00
to

Such cowardice...

Clovis Lark

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 4:49:32 PM12/12/00
to
Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:

> <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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 5:11:46 PM12/12/00
to
>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.

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 5:18:33 PM12/12/00
to
>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

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 6:51:17 PM12/12/00
to
In article <20001212123423...@ng-fs1.aol.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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 9:15:37 PM12/12/00
to
In article <916dlj$bnp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 10:51:31 PM12/12/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 10:48:53 PM12/12/00
to

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.
>> >>
>> >> Kevin

>> >>
>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
>>
>>
>
>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

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 11:46:32 PM12/12/00
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 10:42:24 AM12/13/00
to
In article <916qla$np8$1...@dipsy.missouri.edu>,
snip

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

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 10:55:40 AM12/13/00
to
In article <20001212171146...@ng-ft1.aol.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.
> snip

> 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

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 11:06:47 AM12/13/00
to
In article <FywZ5.104$M45....@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,

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

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 2:44:00 PM12/13/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 3:28:39 PM12/13/00
to
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>

Agkistrodon

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 3:35:26 PM12/13/00