Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_Tobin]

Yeah, and your "evidence" contains words like probably and dismisses real evidence because it doesn't fit the assumption in the case of the rock art. If that is evidence, then I have evidence that pigs can fly.

There WAS a spotted horse listed in that shipment. That's not a supposition. Your claim that the appaloosa was bred from antiquity in the Americas is backed by zero evidence.

So what? That proves zero. Show how spotted horse got from point A to point B then you have proof. You have NO evidence.

[_SteelHead]

A to B? Maybe a swallow gripped it by the hide and flew it?

(An African swallow of course.)

[_bcuzbcuz]

Youns wants to see my fozzilized scat collection?

Wow! a fossilized scat collection? No sh*t? Sign me up.

[_bcuzbcuz]

However, I think within the next decade the assumption that there were no horses in NA will fall like all bad assumptions. When and if it does, will you become a Mormon bcuzbcuz?
http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/pre-columbian-horses.html

"will you become a Mormon bcuzbcuz?" Nah. Been there, done that.

I read the article. He's makes the statement but doesn't reference to back it up. I await with bated breath.

[_Buffalo]

[So what? That proves zero. Show how spotted horse got from point A to point B then you have proof. You have NO evidence.

Your claim was that Appaloosas couldn't be from Europe because they're spotted. I not only disproved that notion, but provided a likely source for them.

All you've done so far is make discredited claims, and when called on them, say the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I." How dull.

[_Quasimodo]

Yeah, and your "evidence" contains words like probably and dismisses real evidence because it doesn't fit the assumption in the case of the rock art. If that is evidence, then I have evidence that pigs can fly.

The recent age of your rock art example is not an assumption. The age is fairly easy to tell because of the lack of patina. Dating petroglyphs is a real science and works pretty well. I don't think you do have any real evidence. Up till now, there isn't any.

The burden is on you to prove your assertions. Not on us to disprove them. If you want to "suspect" that evidence will be found, that is certainly your prerogative, but you can't expect anyone else to accept that.

If you could find some substantial evidence that proves your point I would give it serious consideration. You haven't done that yet.

[_Themis]

I can understand why runtu has to take break from people like tobin. He seems a good person, but way to biased and lacking comprehension skills. Some we can understand, although others are just downright puzzling that people can come up with certain things.

[_Tobin]

[So what? That proves zero. Show how spotted horse got from point A to point B then you have proof. You have NO evidence.

Your claim was that Appaloosas couldn't be from Europe because they're spotted. I not only disproved that notion, but provided a likely source for them.
All you've done so far is make discredited claims, and when called on them, say the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I." How dull.

Again, you are stating you have evidence or proof of something that is true. That is a high bar that you fail again and again to meet. I have not made any claims what-so-ever. I have stated I have suspicions and reasons that those suspicions may be true. I have not offered any evidence or proof nor pretended to try to meet those expectations, unlike you.

[_Tobin]

The recent age of your rock art example is not an assumption. The age is fairly easy to tell because of the lack of patina. Dating petroglyphs is a real science and works pretty well. I don't think you do have any real evidence. Up till now, there isn't any.
The burden is on you to prove your assertions. Not on us to disprove them. If you want to "suspect" that evidence will be found, that is certainly your prerogative, but you can't expect anyone else to accept that.
If you could find some substantial evidence that proves your point I would give it serious consideration. You haven't done that yet.

Wow, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of supoosition vs offering proof and evidence. I have offered none of the latter nor claimed to. I have stated I have some reasons for my suppositions only. It is you on the other side that are stating you have "proof" it is not so. I've seen very little proof so far, just more supposition.

[_Themis]

The recent age of your rock art example is not an assumption. The age is fairly easy to tell because of the lack of patina. Dating petroglyphs is a real science and works pretty well. I don't think you do have any real evidence. Up till now, there isn't any.
The burden is on you to prove your assertions. Not on us to disprove them. If you want to "suspect" that evidence will be found, that is certainly your prerogative, but you can't expect anyone else to accept that.
If you could find some substantial evidence that proves your point I would give it serious consideration. You haven't done that yet.

Wow, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of supoosition vs offering proof and evidence. I have offered none of the latter nor claimed to. I have stated I have some reasons for my suppositions only. It is you on the other side that are stating you have "proof" it is not so. I've seen very little proof so far, just more supposition.

All he seems to be saying is that the evdience you presented to show horse being around before Columbus was not accurate. IT really is your job to provide evidence to support your assertion, especially now that he has provided some for why you are wrong here. Good luck.