FAIR releases online videos

[_beastie]

Sorry... its this medium... I couldn't hear the iquisitivness in your voice. Instead of the rhetorical question I was hearing.

That’s ok, this is some progress.

So let’s return to the statements made about the Mercer horse bones. You accept that scholars assert that these are remains of the “modern horse”, which means that scholars believe they are post-conquest horses. So, without your next assertion, this would not constitute supporting evidence of the existence of the horse during the Book of Mormon time period - correct?

Now you seem to be trying to assert that the Jaredites or Lehites brought the horse with them across the oceans. So, therefore, any horse remains that have been identified as “modern” could actually be the European horse, transported earlier by the Israelites, pre-conquest? Am I correct in summarizing your current assertion?

[_Zakuska]

Yes I beleive so.However... all of this is with a disclaimier. I don't limit it to just the Jaredites bringin them over. Perhaps earlier expeditions that we have no record of brought them over.

Now remember Schmidt thought so too and thus the title of his paper. "pre-columbian Yucatan horse" Now... I belelive the only way to disprove this is to show that these bones don't c14 date to earlier than columbian times... however I beleive the evidence that scmidt provided show that. Because there is a date range of ~1800BC to 400-AD. Which you will admit is Book of Mormon times?

My over all thesis is to put to rest the idea that the "spanish brought the horses".

[_beastie]

Now remember Schmidt thought so too and thus the title of his paper. "pre-columbian Yucatan horse" Now... I belelive the only way to disprove this is to show that these bones don't c14 date to earlier than columbian times... however I beleive the evidence that scmidt provided show that. Because there is a date range of ~1800BC to 400-AD. Which you will admit is Book of Mormon times?

I adamantly do not agree that Schmidt thought the “pre-Columbian” horse dated from 1800 BC- 400 AD. The pre-Columbian horse was in the BOTTOM LAYER of level VII, which I’ve repeatedly shown that scholars – apparently including Schmidt who was cited in the text – thought that the bottom layer of level VII was either pleistocene or the boundary of Pleistocene. It’s misleading to pretend that this date would be 1800 BC.

Your only hope is that the MODERN horse was really the Book of Mormon horse. In other words, the horse that scholars say is the “Modern horse” – not the pre-Columbian horse - is the real deal.

So your only hope now is that the European horse found its way to the New World prior to the conquest due to the Jaredites and Lehites transporting the horse to the New World, and the descendants of that horse – without carbon dating – could be thought to be “modern” in that they were clearly related to the European species. Of course, under this paradigm, literally ANY horse remains could be potentially evidence of the Book of Mormon, unless carbon dating is performed. What a perfect solution! Except, of course, for the fact that this contradicts what the Book of Mormon asserts, and, once again, is contradicted by the abundance of evidence that supports the fact that there were no horses when the Spaniards arrived.

[_beastie]

My over all thesis is to put to rest the idea that the "spanish brought the horses".

You're kidding. Do you realize how extensive the support for this fact is?

I suggest you try to obtain the following book and read it:

Horses Through Time - edited by Sandra Olsen

[_beastie]

I also suggest you think about something. The apologists who know the most about this issue (which would be Brant Gardner, John Clark) - don't imagine that they can overturn the idea that Spaniards introduced the horse to the New World, nor do they believe that they can demonstrate that what the scholars call the "modern horse" is really a European horse transplanted by the Jaredites or Lehites. What they aim for is much more modest - they mainly focus on trying to show that a "type" of horse could have survived the Pleistocene extinction in certain areas. It wouldn't necessarily be a horse like we know, and was only used as food partly for that reason. Or they try to create convincing arguments that could make the "tapir=horse" connection believable.

But they aren't trying to overturn the idea that the Spaniards introduced the horse into the New World. They know there is just no way for anyone to do that.

[Guest]

Now remember Schmidt thought so too and thus the title of his paper. "pre-columbian Yucatan horse" Now... I belelive the only way to disprove this is to show that these bones don't c14 date to earlier than columbian times... however I beleive the evidence that scmidt provided show that. Because there is a date range of ~1800BC to 400-AD. Which you will admit is Book of Mormon times?

I adamantly do not agree that Schmidt thought the “pre-Columbian” horse dated from 1800 BC- 400 AD. The pre-Columbian horse was in the BOTTOM LAYER of level VII, which I’ve repeatedly shown that scholars – apparently including Schmidt who was cited in the text – thought that the bottom layer of level VII was either pleistocene or the boundary of Pleistocene. It’s misleading to pretend that this date would be 1800 BC.

Reread your notes... the horses where found on the surface. per Mercer 1869 (3 horse skeletons)... Schmidt found the same 16 layers in his pit in another chamber of the cave and charcoal dating to 1800BC came from Layer VII. In Layers 2 and above there where horse remains and they where mixed with Pottery. You keep mixing Mercer and Schmidt up. Schmidt did what mercer did not. he showed the Pottery inter mixed with the horse remains. Some of this same Pottery has been dated to 400BC in other caves of the region. This is Solid evidence. Unless you can show C14 data that says these horses where post-columbus.

[_beastie]

Reread your notes... the horses where found on the surface. per Mercer 1869 (3 horse skeletons)... Schmidt found the same 16 layers in his pit in another chamber od the cave and charcoal dating to 1800BC came from Layer VII. So tell us how could the horses on the surface be in Layer 5 ?

I'd have to see Schmidt's article itself before I believed Sorenson's summary of it. Sorenson's summary conflicts with every other statement I've read about the cave so far.

[_Zakuska]

Even your source say the field notes where in conflict. But I think really its because you keep mixing Schmidt and Mercer. They are different. Mercer only excavated "Chamber 3" Schmidt excavated another Chamber in the same cavern.

Look at that map on pg 265 for details.

[_beastie]

Even your source say the field notes where in conflict. But I think really its because you keep mixing Schmidt and Mercer. They are different. Mercer only excavated "Chamber 3" Schmidt excavated another Chamber in the same cavern.

Look at that map on pg 265 for details.

They are different areas of the cave, but the levels ought to be equivalent for the different areas. Yes, my source explained why cave excavation can be confusing, and that would explain how an early opinion could contradict later opinions that were based on further study.

Can you find any source, other than Sorenson's summary of Schmidt, that claims to have found precolumbian horse remains in level 5?

[Guest]

It wasn't Sorensons Summary that claimed it... that was the title of Schmidts paper itself. As published in the Science Journal in 1988. That was already addressed in the 2004 farms article I linked earlier, when Larson accused FARMS of the same thing you just did.

Now that was 20 years ago... who knows what they have found since then. I guess we will have to wait for Chris to get us the pages of the book scanned in.

PS That is correct the levels are the same but what Mercer was unable to do is establish animal remains mixed with pottery. Schmidt did it and with a carbon date of 1800BC to boot!