truth dancer wrote:Just wondering out loud here...
Do you think if the bones were carbon dated and found NOT to be supportive of Book of Mormon horses, and indeed predated Book of Mormon times by thousands of years, FARMS would publish this information?
~dancer~
I don't know TD. It seems they are letting the sciencentific community take care of it. Since the critics won't listen to FARMS hacks. Case in point, my earlier post to beastie. Where earlier scientific findings where found to be in error. In which I questioned wether it was farms who facilitated the over turned information since it was one of the references to which Dr. Petersen was making reference to.
I have put in ILL requests for all four of these sources. When they arrive I will digitize the relevant pages and make them available to anyone who's interested. Hopefully they should provide some much-needed clarity on the horse issue.
Best,
-Chris
I would Chris, You need to teach me how to do an ILL request. (Is that Inter Library Lending)
Pottery and other cultural materials were found in levels VII and above. But in some of those artifact-bearing strata there were horse bones, even in level II.
(from FARMS article)
Am I mistaken or is the only place this claim is made (levels VII and above) is in the FARMS article?
And, by the way, Level VII was specifically stated to be PLEISTOCENE era.
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.
I beleive it comes from Sorensons interpretation of Schmidt...
Incidentally, horse bones were also found in association with cultural remains at Loltun Cave in northern Yucatan. There, archaeologists identified a sequence of sixteen layers numbered from the surface downward and obtained a radiocarbon date of about 1800 BC from charcoal fragments found between layers VIII and VII.66 Significantly, forty-four fragments of horse remains were found in the layers VII, VI, V, and II—above all in association with pottery. But the earliest Maya ceramics in the region date no earlier than 900–400 BC.67 Archaeologist Peter Schmidt notes,
66 Peter J. Schmidt, "La entrada del hombre a la Península de Yucatán," in Orígenes del Hombre Americano (Seminario), comp. Alba González Jácome (México: Secretaría de Educación Pública, 1988), 253. We would like to thank John L. Sorenson for providing us with a copy of this reference. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid., 255, translation by John L. Sorenson.
1) How well does Sorenson speak/read/translate spanish?
2) Charcoal in layer 5 was carbon dated to 1800BC.
Why would we consider them dinosaur bones? Mercer and Hatt didn't. Only the 3 teeth originally found on the surface, were said to be mineralized.
The bones were recognized to belong to a species that was known to be extinct around 11,000 BC.
If you find dinosaur bones in your backyard, archaeologist's first thought isn't "Oh my gosh, dinosaurs must have lived millions of years past the time we originally thought they lived!!" So when archaeologist find bones that are specific to a species they know went extinct at a certain time period, it isn't necessary to radio-carbon date them just to eliminate the possibility that they managed to live thousands of years past the accepted extinction point.
I'm not arguing AGAINST radiocarbon dating them, just stating why it's hardly necessary.
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.
Why would we consider them dinosaur bones? Mercer and Hatt didn't. Only the 3 teeth originally found on the surface, were said to be mineralized.
The bones were recognized to belong to a species that was known to be extinct around 11,000 BC.
If you find dinosaur bones in your backyard, archaeologist's first thought isn't "Oh my gosh, dinosaurs must have lived millions of years past the time we originally thought they lived!!" So when archaeologist find bones that are specific to a species they know went extinct at a certain time period, it isn't necessary to radio-carbon date them just to eliminate the possibility that they managed to live thousands of years past the accepted extinction point.
I'm not arguing AGAINST radiocarbon dating them, just stating why it's hardly necessary.
And that's where you are making your mistake... and jumping to conclusions...
The horse bones were not mineralized like the first 3 teeth that where found where so it lead the archeologist to their conclusions that these where "pre-columbian" or rather plestocene horses that survived extinction. And thus... the need for the Carbon dating to put the question to rest. that's also why the theory of rodent diggng to explain it came into play. We can sit hear and speculate all day long, but until the bones themselve are carbon dated. It doesn't mean a thing.
So tell me... if you found a half eaten brontasaurus phemer in your back yard... would you think it came from an extinct animal? Since the bones werent petrafied according to the archeologists... your question of finding a dino bone in the back yard makes little sense. Its comparing apples and oranges.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
And that's where you are making your mistake... and jumping to conclusions...
The horse bones were not mineralized like the first 3 teeth that where found where so it lead the archeologist to their conclusions that these where "pre-columbian" or rather plestocene horses that survived extinction. And thus... the need for the Carbon dating to put the question to rest. that's also why the theory of rodent diggng to explain it came into play.
The problem is we're discussing different finds. If I recall correctly, the lack of mineralization was noted by Cope in regards to Mercer's find, and I believe those were the ones that were found to be modern horse bones anyway. I'll have to read back over my links to be sure.
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.
why me wrote:Go FAIR go! I say we need to give those men and women at FAIR a big hand for a job well done!!!
If this is your true opinion, how much more naïve willing you to get?
This is not intended to be a criticism of your belief but whatever these guys claim (DCP, Twedtness &),
they have not a shred of evidence to support any of their claims. I would get a clue from the outside sources
that not single credible archeologist, anthropologist would lend them credibility by studying this crap.
What I don't understand is; why they are constantly embarrassing themselves by bringing up this nonsense.