New radiocarbon dates on Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) and Mexican horse (Equus conversidens) specimens from southern Alberta are 10,930±100 BP and 10,870±45 years BP, respectively—older than originally thought. These specimens are reviewed in the light of 10 other sites in southern Alberta that have yielded large mammal remains radiocarbon dated to about 11,000 BP. Thus, the regional fauna includes at least 11 mammalian species. This fauna was not restricted to the foothills, but extended well onto the plains and may prove useful in correlating foothills terraces with those of the plains.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
TD is correct, it was more than two years ago. ZLMB has a horrible search engine so it would take a while to find it, but I easily found YOU, Zak, referring to this issue way back in 2005.
In the Milwaukee Public Museum there is the skull of a horse excavated in 1936 by W.C. McKern from a mound on Spencer Lake in NW Wisconsin , McKern , said "there remains no reasonable question as to the legitimacy of the horse skull that was found at a burial association placed in the mound by its builders." C-14 dates on stuff from the mound are all pre-Columbian: AD 890 +/- 65 AD. At North Salem, Massachusetts there is an instantly recognizable stone carving of a horse, that has been dated pre-Columbus .
And then in the article he quotes some verses from the Book of Mormon.
Anyone knows who is Gerald O. Thompson? Is he LDS?
Regards!
Zak's reply:
This is the one that got me in trouble last year on ZLMB. Theres a big contraversy about it.
Apparently it was placed in the mound later by those who dug it up.
Also... there are 4 bone fragments that have been dated to pre-columbian and post ice age times. One is from the Colorcado High Patrol If I recall correctly.
More data is forth coming.
You posted this in May, 2005. You got in trouble last year - 2004. That's almost four years ago.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
But the question is is when did California Kid get the information about the new carbon dates on the wisconsin skull. It wasn't until early last year. The Museum still hasnt sent him the articles. He said they would put it in the mail next week.
No, the point is that way back in 2004 YOU knew this "evidence" was very controversial. It hardly qualified as evidence that was serious enough to cite as overturning what the established scientific community overwhelmingly accepts to be true regarding the dating of the horse in mesoamerica. Yet the FARMS apologists present it as such convincing evidence that they sneer at the archaeologists who are so haplessly biased and incompetent they ignore it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
No blood thirst and no snarling, zak. Just an interest in holding you, and other believers who insist there really IS evidence for a horse in the Book of Mormon time period, accountable for your assertions.
So now you're stating that the only reason it was controversial in 2004 was due to the fact that it challenged the status quo? Is that the "trouble" you got in on Z over it? I may have to do some searching in Z's archives after all.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Also the question still remains... what are these horse bones doing with artifacts that do date to Book of Mormon times?
Until they are Radio Carbon Dated... the question will still remain. Are these Book of Mormon horses that existed with People and they road them rather than carrying their bones around painting on them?
When they are dated... which if im not mistaken are in the process of being... largly funded by farms... at least according to the article. Then this question will be answered.
PS. The particular skull is contraversial because of "Mr. P" its been contraversial from the day it was dug up.
PSS. Odds are... it was farms who obtained the carbon dates you listed earlier. Im going to ask on MADB.