Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_Tobin]

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.

And as I've said, I haven't offered any evidence. I have stated I have a suspicion and certain reasons I think they are true. I never stated they were evidence or could be held up as proof.

[_Themis]

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.

And as I've said, I haven't offered any evidence. I have stated I have a suspicion and certain reasons I think they are true. I never stated they were evidence or could be held up as proof.

You have stated what you think is evidence, even if you don't understand that is what you did, and others have shown why it is not. I understand you don't consider them proof. It is not likely that horse existed during Book of Mormon time period, but not impossible, so I will remain open to new evidence. As such though, it still remains as anachronistic in the Book of Mormon.

[_Tobin]

You have stated what you think is evidence, even if you don't understand that is what you did, and others have shown why it is not. I understand you don't consider them proof. It is not likely that horse existed during Book of Mormon time period, but not impossible, so I will remain open to new evidence. As such though, it still remains as anachronistic in the Book of Mormon.

Again, I have taken no such position. Otherwise, this wouldn't be a subject of discussion. Here, look at this - proof there really were horses in NA pre-Columbus. * you pause to look at it * Ok, next topic.

You really need to understand what my position is and what your position is. You claim to have proof that my "reasons" to suspect that is not the case are not true. So far, all I've received are more suppositions and very little proof. Quasi has stated that the depiction of the horse on the rock art is not as old as the Anasazi depictions. He can not tell us how old it is however or who carved it. Buffalo on the otherhand has offered no proof what-so-ever, just a lot of supposition to counter my supposition. He claims to have proof that my suspicions are not true. To-date, I have seen none.

[_Themis]

Again, I have taken no such position. Otherwise, this wouldn't be a subject of discussion. Here, look at this - proof there really were horses in NA pre-Columbus. * you pause to look at it * Ok, next topic.

You do when you provide what you think may be evidence for per-columbian horses. I never said you thought it was proof.

You really need to understand what my position is and what your position is.

I know what my position is. :)

You claim to have proof that my "reasons" to suspect that is not the case are not true.

Shall I say reading comprehension again. Maybe you need to refresh yourself with what proof and evidence mean, then you may understand that I never said this.

So far, all I've received are more suppositions and very little proof. Quasi has stated that the depiction of the horse on the rock art is not as old as the Anasazi depictions. He can not tell us how old it is however or who carved it.

You brought it up. He provided enough for you to go on that it was probably not as old as you might think. If you want to show it as being older, then it is your job to do so. That's it.

Buffalo on the otherhand has offered no proof what-so-ever, just a lot of supposition to counter my supposition. He claims to have proof that my suspicions are not true. To-date, I have seen none.

Basically we are all still waiting for someone to present real evidence here. So far none. I am open to any.

[_Tobin]

evidence: every type of proof which is intended to convince the person of facts relevant to the subject at hand. Evidence must not be irrelevant, immaterial, hearsay, or subject to legitimate doubt as to its veracity.
proof: confirmation of a fact by evidence. A "reasonable" person needs to become satisfied the evidence shows by a preponderance of the evidence that something is factual. Usually that means a providing detailed trail or detailed description of how the evidence is pertinent to the fact.

For example, if you have proof that Appaloosa came from the Spanish, you would show specifically how they received them; who was involved; when this occured; and so on.

[_Quasimodo]

You really need to understand what my position is and what your position is. You claim to have proof that my "reasons" to suspect that is not the case are not true. So far, all I've received are more suppositions and very little proof. Quasi has stated that the depiction of the horse on the rock art is not as old as the Anasazi depictions. He can not tell us how old it is however or who carved it. Buffalo on the otherhand has offered no proof what-so-ever, just a lot of supposition to counter my supposition. He claims to have proof that my suspicions are not true. To-date, I have seen none.

I can tell you how old it isn't. No older that 300 years. Probably less than 200 years. Well within the time of "Spanish" horses.

Recapping, Tobin admits that he has no good reasons to believe what he does other than the desire to believe that.

We have provided good reasons why he might want to rethink his position. Tobin rejects those because he would rather continue in his beliefs. I would use the word "obtuse", but it reminds me too much of "Shawshank Redemption".

There really is no point in going on. Whatever realities are proposed, Tobin will reject them claiming they don't meet his very own criteria.

On the bright side, it has provided a good example to those watching of how banal and mindless Mormon apologetics often are.

[_Themis]

evidence: every type of proof which is intended to convince the person of facts relevant to the subject at hand. Evidence must not be irrelevant, immaterial, hearsay, or subject to legitimate doubt as to its veracity.
proof: confirmation of a fact by evidence. A "reasonable" person needs to become satisfied the evidence shows by a preponderance of the evidence that something is factual. Usually that means a providing detailed trail or detailed description of how the evidence is pertinent to the fact.

For example, if you have proof that Appaloosa came from the Spanish, you would show specifically how they received them; who was involved; when this occured; and so on.

Evidence is presented in courts of law, and it may point in different directions. One is found not guilty(hopefully) if they find insufficient evidence to prove guilt.

[_Quasimodo]

For example, if you have proof that Appaloosa came from the Spanish, you would show specifically how they received them; who was involved; when this occured; and so on.

Third down the list of the quick Google search I did on "Appaloosa":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appaloosahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appaloosa

This...

The Spanish probably obtained spotted horses through trade with southern Austria and Hungary, where the color pattern was known to exist.[28] The Conquistadors and Spanish settlers then brought some vividly marked horses to the Americas when they first arrived in the early 16th century.[28][29] One horse with snowflake patterning was listed with the 16 horses brought to Mexico by Cortez,[30] and additional spotted horses were mentioned by Spanish writers by 1604.[31] Others arrived in the western hemisphere when spotted horses went out of style in late 18th-century Europe,[32] and were shipped to Mexico,[33] California and Oregon.[32]

And this...

The Nez Perce people lived in what today is eastern Washington, Oregon, and western Idaho,[34] where they engaged in agriculture as well as horse breeding.[35] The Nez Perce first obtained horses from the Shoshone around 1730.[33] They took advantage of the fact that they lived in excellent horse-breeding country, relatively safe from the raids of other tribes, and developed strict breeding selection practices for their animals, establishing breeding herds by 1750. They were one of the few tribes that actively used the practice of gelding inferior male horses and trading away poorer stock to remove unsuitable animals from the gene pool,[24][36] and thus were notable as horse breeders by the early 19th century.[37]

This is a very simple and reliable explanation of how the Nez Perce acquired the breeding stock to create Appaloosas. I'm sure Tobin will find it unacceptable because it doesn't fit his theories.

[_Tobin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appaloosahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appaloosa

Yes, Quasi, I too have the internet and have read that material. Most of the statements are speculative. It is a lot of supposition in support of an assumption. For example, citing the arrival of a snow-flaked horse thousands of miles away does not prove the Nez Perce people received its descendants (I certainly hope you aren't saying Cortez gave the horse to the Nez Perce). For all we know, that horse could have died or not had any descendants. You can do the same careful examination of the rest of the material as well.

[Guest]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appaloosahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appaloosa

Yes, Quasi, I too have the internet and have read that material. Most of the statements are speculative. It is a lot of supposition in support of an assumption. For example, citing the arrival of a snow-flaked horse thousands of miles away does not prove the Nez Perce people received its descendants (I certainly hope you aren't saying Cortez gave the horse to the Nez Perce). For all we know, that horse could have died or not had any descendants. You can do the same careful examination of the rest of the material as well.

Tobin, I do appreciate your even handed responses and what seems to be an admirable willingness to get along with others on this board (seems to be a rarity among some apologists these days). That being said :), you've got it all upside down.

You and Joseph Smith's adherents are the only people I know of that are claiming that horses existed in the Western hemisphere between the Pleistocene era and historical times. Scientific and empirical evidences dramatically point the other way. It's up to you and that relatively small band of believers to give good evidence to refute it.

One of the examples you used was the Newspaper Rock petroglyph. I've given good explanations of why that it is not from an era before the Spanish arrived (not just my opinion). Unless you can come up with something better (other than "I don't think so"), it stands.

Another example you stated was that the Nez Perce people may have developed the Appaloosa from a post Pleistocene, indigenous horse. I've quoted some very good evidence of why that probably didn't happen. This goes along with current theories believed by most. If you have some evidence that supports your contention, it's up to you to present it. If you have some, I and the scientific world are waiting to hear it. Otherwise, current theories stand.

Barring that, you are the one that is just speculating.