FAIR releases online videos

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Zak, the problem is that you are so eager to believe, so eager to find evidence that reinforces your belief that you don’t approach texts with enough skepticism to do things like look up EQUUS CONVERSIDENS to figure out when this horse appeared on this continent. At least, I’m guessing that’s what you do, and that’s what the FARMS authors bank on people like you doing, because I can’t figure out how you otherwise find this evidence so impressive.



This argument, given the ambiguous and fragmentary nature of the data in question, appears to apply equally to your own efforts to defend the status quo academic turf on the matter. Even if an intact skeleton of a modern Horse were found in its entirety in a Mesoamerican tomb, complete with its rider and a signed autograph from Mr. Ed himself, the critics would cry "fraud" and return to their comfortable space. Explaining away is the modus operandi. A creative and open mind is not. There is, of course, no reason whatever that Horses could not have existed in Mesoamerica in historic times. Its only the dearth of evidence (thus far) that presents the problem, and at least part of this can be explained by environmental factors affecting the preservation of such substances as animal bone.

I predict this: if and when the date of the last extent Horses in Mesoamerica is moved up into Book of Mormon times, the exmo's and antis will be the last to admit it, even in the face of hard evidence, and even when secular Archeology has made its peace with the data and moved on.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Zakuska
_Emeritus
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:58 am

Post by _Zakuska »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
Zakuska wrote:Lions not Domesticated? So you're tellin me that all those Christians Daniels being fed to Lions by the Romans and Kings of Babylon is all just a Myth?


Actually, the book of Daniel is a Maccabean fiction. But no, the Romans feeding Christians to the wild beasts isn't a myth. I'd say, though, that it hardly counts as domestication, and was extraordinarily rare. Was that even done in Palestine? Or was it mostly restricted to Rome herself? Certainly any Babylonian den of lions wouldn't have been in Palestine.

-Chris


Don't forget about these accounts:

1 Sam. 17: 34, 37
32 ¶ And David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of him; thy servant will go and fight with this Philistine.
33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.
34 And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:
35 And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
36 Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God.
37 David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee.


I'd be intrested in seeing ANY archeological evidence for Lions and bears in Palestine.

Ursus arctos syriacus

Of course perhaps this isn't speaking specifically of a Real Bear or Lion but poetically of two men David earlier slew.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:16 am, edited 5 times in total.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

There's been nothing to "explain away". There's only been "explain" to people who are so eager to believe that they are relying on dated, discredited sources or openly fraudulent evidence.

Once again, there is a reason that apologists have crafted other arguments, such as tapir = 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.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I am positive carbon dating the horse bones will show a pre-extinction origin. There is enough body of material available regarding Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon period that there is no chance - in my opinion - that evidence supporting the existence of the horse will EVER be found in that time period.



This is quite interesting for the repudiation of long held philosophical principles governing both the practice of science and the limitations and substance of its methodology. As Popper said, "All theories are tentative forever"; no theory or mainstream opinion among scientists is ever beyond revision and correction in response to new data. As there is no particular biological or environmental reason Horses could not have remained in the America's into historic times (after all, other creatures most certainly did), the entire argument is of the classic absence of evidence is evidence of absence form. This situation obtains because the critics, like Beastie, are soiled with the very same tendentiousness they claim adheres so viciously to LDS scholars.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

But there are possible explanations - one is that the strata were disturbed for some reason (I don't buy the rodent reason, but there are other reasons strata can be disturbed). Another could be that some of the bone fragments originally assumed to be equus might be actually be something else. Or what one person deemed too "numerous" to qualify as curious is totally subjective and open to disagreement. There are other, far more likely possibilities than that there really were horses during the Book of Mormon time period.


I'll take Zak's position here. Let's date them, and hold off on all the hypothetical "possible explanations". The bones are, or are not, empirically pre-Columbian. Let's find out for ourselves, shall we?


So, zak, let's return to TD's question. Would you insist on carbon dating for a dinosaur bone she happened upon in her backyard?


Time to be intellectually serious Beastie. 10,000 years vs. 65 Million? Come now, let's keep the discussion within some sight of shore...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

You are starting from the premise of assumption. That there where no horses... and that's why you keep missing the tree in the forest.



Precisely, and this is an assumption in lieu of actual empirical knowledge. It is also a circular argument, as it would have us accept an undemonstrated premise as part of an argument that intends to prove exactly that undemonstrarted premise.

I thought science was about exploration, open mindedness, and constant and continual self correction? Only one problem here: much of science, as actually practiced, has and will continue to be about intellectual gate keeping, and this has, and will, continue to slow down the actual progress of scientific investigation across a number of fields.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Just let me know when you're ready to be "intellectually serious", coggie.
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.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Once again, there is a reason that apologists have crafted other arguments, such as tapir = horse.



And once again Beastie, there are reasons-deeply personal issues of weltanschauung, that animate those of your intellectual temper to fight tooth, fang, and stinger against any and all arguments and evidence, no matter how restrained and temperate they may be, regarding pre-Columbian horses, an issue, were it not connected with the Book of Mormon, would be interesting, but hardly so provocative as it clearly is to critics of the Gospel such as yourself.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

You;re very good at arguing the tiniest details of an archaeological find as represented in sundry published sources, and as long as the data is suitably ambiguous, fragmentary, inconsistent, and unverified, you hold your own. As soon as real philosophical rigor is demanded, however, you retreat into internet smarm ("yawn" etc.)

I noticed you have no rejoinder to my pointing out of your retreat from the very core of science itself: its self correcting, open ended commitment to new knowledge and new data. And come now, Beastie, Archeology is hardly "science" in the way that Biology or Physics is science. You make unsubstantiated (and, as Zak has been at pains to point out to you, unsubstantiable until the actual C14 work is actually done) claims regarding evidence that is hardly clear cut and make inferential leaps well beyond what that same evidence could legitimately be said to bear. And then you claim that it is apologists who are driven by ulterior agendas?

Mesoamerican Archeology is still in its infancy, but it does critics little good to admit as much.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Coggins,

1) Hokey anti-realist postmodern BS won't get you any farther than it got David Bohn,
2) There are plenty of reasons to believe that there were no horses in ancient Mesoamerica, whereas there are no reasons to believe the opposite (all question-begging aside), and
3) FARMS has evidently had a carbon-dating project underway for years, but has yet to publish any carbon-date evidence in favor of Book of Mormon historicity.

Frankly, anybody who wants to overturn the accepted scientific paradigm needs to put in the legwork. If you're convinced that carbon-dating of horse bones will do the trick, then it's up to you. But I'm convinced that the carbon-dating that has already been done, which all shows that pre-Columbian horse bones date no later than the Pleistocene, is positively decisive when taken in conjunction with the archaeological evidence.

Best,

-Chris
Post Reply