that's the very assumption we are debating, and questioning...
You are starting from the premise of assumption. That there where no horses...
ARRGGGHHH!
My assumption is that since virtually all reputable scholars accept that there were no New World horses post Pleistocene extinction, prior Conquest, when they refer to "modern horse" they mean a post conquest horse.
To refute this "assumption", you're going to have to demonstrate that reputable scholars do NOT accept that there were no New World horses during the specified time period, so when they use the phrase "modern horse" they might actually mean a horse anywhere between 10,000 BP and conquest.
This is up to you to prove, so do it. Otherwise, you will have to accept my painfully obvious "assumption".
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.
How do they know they where "Post-Conquest" until they C14 date them?
We have a C14 Date of 1800BC for level 5 so we know they where deposited After 1800BC. But the question remains. Where they "Pre-Conquest"...? or Post Conquest 1842 AD... 4000 years is an awful long time in 5 layers of dirt strewn with horse remians.
We are discussing one isolated point: do the Mercer bones support the assertion that horses existed during the Book of Mormon times in the New World?
We are NOT, in this post, discussing whether or not it's possible they existed. We are discussing whether the Mercer bones support that assertion.
You replied that it depended upon what "modern horse" meant.
I explained that since virtually all reputable scholars accept there were no horses in the New World, post Pleistocene extinction, pre-Conquest, "modern horse" always means a post-Conquest horse.
You are now claiming this is a baseless assumption on my part.
You must prove that scholars use the term "modern horse" to denote a post Pleistocene extinction, preConquest, horse. If you cannot prove this, and you can't, then you must accept that when these scholars used the term "modern horse", they meant a post-conquest horse.
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.
On the contrary... that is precisly my gripe... that the archeologists are assuming as well. So they don't have to pay for all that expensive Carbon Dating. That Farms went all over the US offering to do, because it hadn't been done. that's exaclty what Sorensen and DCP where arguing with Larsen about in the 2004 Farms paper. That the scientists just assume. Because sooo many C14 Dates fit the bill, that they just started assuming. that's a really sloppy way to fill in the wholes of the last 10,000 years.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
How can they declare it a post-conquest horse until they have C14 dated it?
Please doen't make an Ass out of U and me.
If they mean the same type of horse as found in Europe and other parts of the world... (ie horses) that have developed in the world since the plestocene horses went exstinct, then the question... did the spanish bring them or did other parties who made earlier voyages to the americas? Like is recorded in the Book of Mormon.
Your problem Beastie... is you are trying to prove a Negative. We all know that's a logical fallacy that can never be solved.
You also can't prove anything with assumptions.
What are the facts... we know these horse where deposited after 1800BC. (C14 Carbon date) We need to establish an upper end for that to rule in or out the Spanish conquest. that's why John Sorenson mentions the pottery that dates to ~400BC. His argument is that these horse remains were deposited between 1800BC - 400BC. Which you will admit... is precisely in Book of Mormon times.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
I will try one more time. I am not asking you if the scholars are CORRECT in their assumptions, just asking you what scholars mean when they use the term "modern horse".
Whether or not they are correct, do they mean a post-conquest horse when they use the term "modern horse"?
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.
Im not sure what they mean... I would guess that it means a horse that has developed since 10,000 BP. But in respect to the Americas... they are probably assuming the term means post-conquest horse.
But see in the old world...I would say "Modern Horse" would mean anything since 10,000 BP
So see the question remains... how did these "modern Horses" get in the Americas... the Spanish... or earlier sea voyages?
that's why Schmidt called them Pre-Columbian Horses in the Yucatan in his original article. Because the Data said they where Pre-Columbian.
Now wether that proves the Book of Mormon... is debatable... but it should put to rest... once we find the C14 dates for these bones that "no horses exsited in the Americas until the Spanish brought them" argument. And it also opens the door WIDE for the Book of Mormon. Because the existing Carbon dates we have places them smack dab in the middle of Book of Mormon times.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not sure what they mean... I would guess that it means a horse that has developed since 10,000 BP. But in respect to the Americas... they are probably assuming the term means post-conquest horse.
Thank you for (finally!) answering the question. I'll continue later, after more deep breaths.
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.