The Name of the TRUE Church

[_Spanner]

LOL!

So what is your response to my refs showing no evidence of a horse culture in pre-columbian America and no horse evidence at all during Book of Mormon times. Joint human/horse finds date back to the tail end of the ice age, when the last of the horses were being finished off by hunters. There is no evidence for your fantasy. Undated finds do not challenge those that were properly dated - for example by including a bridle or bit. Rather they are butchered or gnawed bones. You will have to do a lot better. And you can't. Not without inventing something.

[_Chap]

LOL!

So what is your response to my refs showing no evidence of a horse culture in pre-columbian America and no horse evidence at all during Book of Mormon times. Joint human/horse finds date back to the tail end of the ice age, when the last of the horses were being finished off by hunters. There is no evidence for your fantasy. Undated finds do not challenge those that were properly dated - for example by including a bridle or bit. Rather they are butchered or gnawed bones. You will have to do a lot better. And you can't. Not without inventing something.

If you want to see a great Mormon scholar 'turning in the wind' on the horse issue, see Hugh Nibley at work in this delicious video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwi0L-mwn4M

He starts in a way which seems to suggest he is really going to go at it head on: "We can't get any further until we deal with the question of horses then, because this is the main crux, this is the strongest argument supposedly that's been raised against the Book of Mormon."

After ten minutes or so of rapid talking, during which no relevant point of substance is made, he end up with "You can't make an open and shut case of the horse at all. The moral is the problem is not solved yet, and you can't prove a negative. So this shouldn't slow us down, we should go right on here."

I think some testimonies may have died a little in that class on that day.

[_Drifting]

I can get more, but I honestly think that I would be wasting my time.

Well, I think you should waste your time the same way you've been wasting ours.

No horses dating from Book of Mormon times in the Book of Mormon geography (someplace somewhere on the American continent North or South) still remains the factual position.

[_Chap]

I can get more, but I honestly think that I would be wasting my time.

Well, I think you should waste your time the same way you've been wasting ours.

No horses dating from Book of Mormon times in the Book of Mormon geography (someplace somewhere on the American continent North or South) still remains the factual position.

"... this shouldn't slow us down, we should go right on here."

[_gdemetz]

I've given two already, and even if I gave 100, you guys would still not accept it because you want to believe what you want to believe. It's that simple! You give me a reference that proves there were no horses on the continent when the Spanish arrived!

[_Bob Loblaw]

I've given two already, and even if I gave 100, you guys would still not accept it because you want to believe what you want to believe. It's that simple! You give me a reference that proves there were no horses on the continent when the Spanish arrived!

I would accept evidence if there were solid science behind it. Everything I've read on this subject ends up a dead end as far as pre-Columbian horses are concerned. Can we prove that there were no horses anywhere in the Americas when the Spanish arrived? Nope, as it's pretty hard to prove a negative. But we can say with a great degree of certainty that they were not used as beasts of burden or for transportation and that there is no archaeological evidence for anything past the ice age.

[_PrickKicker]

What is this thread about?
Oh Yeah, the name of the true church, well we'll have to find one that has not been taken already.

[_Spanner]

I've given two already, and even if I gave 100, you guys would still not accept it because you want to believe what you want to believe. It's that simple! You give me a reference that proves there were no horses on the continent when the Spanish arrived!

Your references are evidence-free speculation.

Your references took evidence of ice-age horses and tried to extrapolate the existence of horses thousands of years later during a period when there is absolutely NO evidence of horses. By using the same reasoning there could be a saber-tooth tiger in the Rocky mountains right now. Prove to me that there isn't!

Further, one of your references used a fallacious straw-man argument by trying to put words in the mouth of "evolutionists". "Evolutionists" have never made the claims asserted - that the Indian Pony could not have miniaturized to the extent it did so within a few hundred years. Darwin was an avid pigeon breeder and was well aware of how rapidly an animal breeder could completely change the appearance of a breed. I even provided you with a link to a neutral article on feral horses in New Zealand which, in accordance with evolutionary principles, display a wide variation of sizes after only 200 years including horses much smaller than Indian ponies. Depending on selection pressures, the breed could miniaturize very rapidly.

Doesn't the tactic used by the author of the article about Indian ponies make you suspicious? Why does the author have to misrepresent facts?

[_Quasimodo]

What is this thread about?
Oh Yeah, the name of the true church, well we'll have to find one that has not been taken already.

'Joe's Joint' might work except that I don't think it's been Joe's church since Brigham took over. I think he totally made it his very own church and empire.

Brigham's Band? (I like alliterations).

[_gdemetz]

Spanner, there were many evidences listed on those articles! Were those evidences that clearly proved that there were horses when the Spanish came? No. However, as I stated before, there is no evidence to the contrary (and I know the difficulty in proving a negative), and there are numerous indicators, such as the ones mentioned, that there were.