Calling Daniel Peterson

[_Scottie]

Tarski, could you explain why you say this evidence is bad?

[_Mister Scratch]

So, I guess this means I need to craft a dossier for Tvedtnes, in addition to Matt Roper, eh Prof. P.? Just kidding. ; )

And anyways, Tarski---didn't CKSalmon say that that response came as a result of an email which he sent to Tvedtnes directly, rather than from some reply the Institute itself?

[_Daniel Peterson]

The questions coming from critics such as myself, Beastie, Tarski, and CKSalmon were essentially the same in spirit. So, you can pass along the responses. Right?

First, I've never seen any such response.

Second, I have no idea whether the response mentioned was to one of the people you named.

Third, those people seem to have said that they received no response, so I have reason to believe that the response mentioned was not sent to one of them.

Fourth, if it was, those people are entirely free to post whatever they received.

Fifth, why are you trying to make an issue of this? I promised to pass on whatever response I received. I didn't promise that I would demand all responses given by anybody at the Institute to anybody else and then pass any or all of them on to you.

I just want you to live up to your word!

When and if you have reason to believe that I haven't, feel free to say so.

If, however, you're just intending to make this another occasion, whatever the evidence, to attack my character yet again, I won't bother with you. It wouldn't do any good, anyway.

You said that if an effort was made to get a legit answer from the Institute, and that if no legit answer was received, that you'd "look into it."

I said that, if you received no answer, I would personally seek one. You claim you received no answer. I have sent a note personally seeking one.

Now you are adding all these qualifications, waffling, flopping back and forth, saying that things have to happen in a very specific way before you'll fork over an answer, and there's really no need (so far as I can tell) for you to do that.

Why don't you just bring up my alleged smear campaign against Mike Quinn again, while you're waiting? You love that one, and so does Scratch Junior. It'll help to pass the time.

[_Tarski]

Tarski, could you explain why you say this evidence is bad?

It's discussed by me and Beastie in the other thread started by Scratch.

If I weigh myself and the scale says I weigh 40 pounds, then I don't simply walk away thinking I must weigh 40 pounds. I do it again more carefully with better equipment. The Hester thing was 1960 and has been discussed extensively since then. It is old news and it was long ago decided that the dating was incorrect. Since that time much more has been learned and the standing opinion is still that horses went extinct around 10,000 BC.

The other stuff mentioned in the response did not come with specific references so that we may check on them. In particular, we muct check on authentication (if there was such then opinions would have changed!).

Then also, about the other one given; they can't even tell if it is a horse or a cow! Come on!

Just check with a few experts and you can see that the website attempts to paint a picture contrary to essentially unanimous expert opinion. Deceptive!
The horse thing is as big a problem for the Book of Mormon as ever.


by the way, if opinion on the horse thing were overturned some unlikely senario, it does little to help the Book of Mormon which has many problems. There is nothing miraculous afoot if horses went extincts later than thought but the Book of Mormon is a miraculous claim that needs much more than some horse bones to make its case.

[_Tarski]

The questions coming from critics such as myself, Beastie, Tarski, and CKSalmon were essentially the same in spirit. So, you can pass along the responses. Right?

First, I've never seen any such response.
.

??
It was posted twice on this message board. See above.

I never recieved one but CKS did. I ask via the contact us function several months ago- no response.

[_Mister Scratch]

You said that if an effort was made to get a legit answer from the Institute, and that if no legit answer was received, that you'd "look into it."

I said that, if you received no answer, I would personally seek one. You claim you received no answer. I have sent a note personally seeking one.

Well, that's all I want. Thanks again for looking into it. I'll be waiting to see what the response is.

[_Mister Scratch]

The questions coming from critics such as myself, Beastie, Tarski, and CKSalmon were essentially the same in spirit. So, you can pass along the responses. Right?

First, I've never seen any such response.
.

??
It was posted twice on this message board. See above.

I never recieved one but CKS did. I ask via the contact us function several months ago- no response.

The Good Professor stated on that earlier thread that the Maxwell Institute maintains a kind of "blacklist" of folks to whom they will not issue a reply---ever. This "blacklist" apparently contains the name of Kevin Graham/Dartagnan. Perhaps you are on it too?

[_cksalmon]

I received a prompt and informative reply soon after my inquiry (three days, or perhaps more like two factoring in the time of day at which I sent the email (early evening) and the time I received a reply (on the morning of the 31st).

Based on my personal experience, the contact features seems to work as it should.

I don't suppose the correspondence counts as private (there was no personal information shared, only information related to a webpage), and as I've posted it before, even if it were private, I've already sinned the sin. What follows is the brief correspondence I had with Dr. Tvedtnes:

Greetings:

On your website, one find the following Q&A (here):

Why has no evidence of horses been found in the Americas in Book of Mormon times?

The Book of Mormon never claims that the horse was universally known or used in the New World. For example, Book of Mormon references to horses suggest that they may have been relatively uncommon, being limited only to certain regions during specific periods of Book of Mormon history. One horse specimen, discovered in Florida, was carbon-dated to about 100 B.C. Other horse remains have been found in precolumbian archaeological contexts in Mesoamerica (at Loltun and Mayapan), but these have not as yet been carbon dated.


As there is no supporting documentation cited on that page, I was hoping that you could provide me with the source of this information. I have been unable to corroborate it.

In a recent post on an LDS-themed message board I sometimes view, Dr. Daniel Peterson suggested that one should contact FARMS (via the "contact us" feature) if one had questions about the source of this particular citation. I would very much appreciate your help in tracking down the source of this statement, specifically that a horse specimen in Florida has been carbon-dated to about 100 BC. Where can one locate supporting documentation of this claim?

Very sincerely,
C. K. Salmon

In response to your question:

One horse specimen, discovered near Saint Petersburg, Florida, was radiocarbon-dated to the first century BC (i.e., 2040 BP +/- 90 years), providing evidence that not all American horses postdate the arrival of the Spaniards. James J. Hester, who reported the find, dismissed the radiocarbon date on the grounds that the horse was unknown in recent times until the arrival of the Spanish. It is typical to ignore the radiocarbon dates if they do not fit with the theory that there were no horses prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. See James J. Hester, “Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating,” American Antiquity 26/1 (July 1960), 65, 70.

Meanwhile, other precolumbian horse remains have been subjected to radiocarbon dating and other methods. Horse bones from a Wyoming cave were subjected to thermoluminescence testing some years back and dated thereby to about 1000 BC. Plans are under way to narrow down the date using AMS (accelerator mass spectrometer) method of radiocarbon dating. A specimen from Colorado was radiocarbon dated to AD 1260-1400, thus after Book of Mormon times but prior to the arrival of Columbus.

Bones found in a cenote on Cozumel Island, Mexico, by archaeologist Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales have been radiocarbon dated to AD 1230-1300. The bones were identified as either equine (horse) or bovid (cattle), a question that could not be settled by DNA sequencing because there was insufficient collagen in them. The question will be settled after the bones undergo a protein radio-immuno assay. In either case, it would bode well for the Book of Mormon, which mentions horses, asses, cows, and oxen.

Horse bones have also been found in conjunction with precolumbian Mayan pottery at the Mexican sites of Mayapan and Loltun, but have not yet been submitted to radiocarbon testing.

All of this will be discussed in detail, along with other issues concerning Book of Mormon animals, in a forthcoming book.

John Tvedtnes

Dr. Tvedtnes--

Thanks so much for your quick and informative reply.

My best to you,

C. K. Salmon

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Good Professor

You've publicly (and falsely) accused me of various kinds of viciousness and blatantly unethical behavior, but you never tire of that sort of mockery.

The Good Professor stated on that earlier thread that the Maxwell Institute maintains a kind of "blacklist" of folks to whom they will not issue a reply---ever. This "blacklist" apparently contains the name of Kevin Graham/Dartagnan. Perhaps you are on it too?

I doubt that I "stated" anything of the kind.

I have no reason to believe such a thing to be true, have never entertained the thought, and would be enormously surprised if it were so.

Please stop the hyperbolic misrepresentations.

If I recall correctly, I simply noted that "Kevin Graham" is known to one or two of the people at the Institute -- he's been a persistent and quite harsh critic of them -- and speculated that, if someone failed to respond to something that "Kevin Graham" wrote to him, that might maybe perhaps possibly be because that individual simply didn't feel like getting involved with "Kevin Graham" again.

[_mocnarf]

I cancelled my subscription because of the naked African women.

Unchaste heathens.

Gee, and that was why I got a subcription back in 1962.... I guess to each his own...