Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_Tobin]

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.

I reject that characterization. I don't think Mormons are the only group that doesn't like the Euro-centric theory that "they" were the first ones to introduce the horse to NA.

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.

Actually, I was already aware of this view and stated so when I presented the idea. You restating something I already knew and had already rejected isn't going to make me accept it on face value. It is plausible that the depictions of horses was added BEFORE Europeans re-introduced the horse to NA. And I never offered it as proof because of the question of when these depictions were added.

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.

Oh really? And why is that? You are aware that many Nez Perce deny it and have oral traditions that they have always raised horses. Without some evidence that the Spanish actually gave them the horses (beyond mere speculation), there is no reason to believe that over what the Nez Perce say themselves.

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

I think you should consider that your facts are not as solid as you may think and is based on a lot of supposition as well.

[_Quasimodo]

I reject that characterization. I don't think Mormons are the only group that doesn't like the Euro-centric theory that "they" were the first ones to introduce the horse to NA.

Who else?

Actually, I was already aware of this view and stated so when I presented the idea. You restating something I already knew and had already rejected isn't going to make me accept it on face value. It is plausible that the depictions of horses was added BEFORE Europeans re-introduced the horse to NA. And I never offered it as proof because of the question of when these depictions were added.

Sorry, just not plausible. The rock face bears me out. I've been there (Newspaper Rock). The petroglyph is just too new. Wanting to believe that it's older doesn't make it true.

Oh really? And why is that? You are aware that many Nez Perce deny it and have oral traditions that they have always raised horses. Without some evidence that the Spanish actually gave them the horses (beyond mere speculation), there is no reason to believe that over what the Nez Perce say themselves.

I love Native American folk lore. Spider Woman, Buffalo Wallow Woman, Corn Pollen Woman, Grandmother Momoy, all are Indian creation stories (interesting that they are all women). It goes along with my interest in petroglyphs. Even though I love the stories, I don't believe them.

The Spanish did not give them the horses (did you read the article?). They acquired the horses from the Shoshones. The Shoshones either found the mustangs running loose or stole them from other tribes.

I think you should consider that your facts are not as solid as you may think and is based on a lot of supposition as well.

I'm quite happy with the evidence I've provided. Yours is solely based on your own wishful thinking. You have no facts at all.

[_Tobin]

Who else?

The Nez Perce. A number of equistrian groups (for example, http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/nativehorse.shtml).

Sorry, just not plausible. The rock face bears me out. I've been there (Newspaper Rock). The petroglyph is just too new. Wanting to believe that it's older doesn't make it true.

Uh huh. How old is it exactly (CFR)? Who put it there (CFR)? I hope you get my point.

I love Native American folk lore. Spider Woman, Buffalo Wallow Woman, Corn Pollen Woman, Grandmother Momoy, all are Indian creation stories (interesting that they are all women). It goes along with my interest in petroglyphs. Even though I love the stories, I don't believe them. The Spanish did not give them the horses (did you read the article?). They acquired the horses from the Shoshones. The Shoshones either found the mustangs running loose or stole them from other tribes.

Yes, I am aware of what it says. That these are spanish horses traded by the Shoshone that supposedly stole them or captured them. I am also aware of what the Nez Perce say too.

I'm quite happy with the evidence I've provided. Yours is solely based on your own wishful thinking. You have no facts at all.

I don't think you have any evidence, just supposition. It is prevailing fictions like these that I really enjoy watching getting crushed when they find that first pre-columbian horse skeleton. I suspect that will happen in the next decade as more work is done in this area in genetics and focused study of this issue is done.

[_Quasimodo]

Who else?

The Nez Perce. A number of equistrian groups (for example, http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/nativehorse.shtml).

Sorry, just not plausible. The rock face bears me out. I've been there (Newspaper Rock). The petroglyph is just too new. Wanting to believe that it's older doesn't make it true.

Uh huh. How old is it exactly (CFR)? Who put it there (CFR)? I hope you get my point.

I love Native American folk lore. Spider Woman, Buffalo Wallow Woman, Corn Pollen Woman, Grandmother Momoy, all are Indian creation stories (interesting that they are all women). It goes along with my interest in petroglyphs. Even though I love the stories, I don't believe them. The Spanish did not give them the horses (did you read the article?). They acquired the horses from the Shoshones. The Shoshones either found the mustangs running loose or stole them from other tribes.

Yes, I am aware of what it says. That these are spanish horses traded by the Shoshone that supposedly stole them or captured them. I am also aware of what the Nez Perce say too.

I'm quite happy with the evidence I've provided. Yours is solely based on your own wishful thinking. You have no facts at all.

I don't think you have any evidence, just supposition. It is prevailing fictions like these that I really enjoy watching getting crushed when they find that first pre-columbian horse skeleton. I suspect that will happen in the next decade as more work is done in this area in genetics and focused study of this issue is done.

I've already answered all your questions and comments (several times). At this point, you are just being silly. If you do come up with something worth considering, I'll respond.

[_Tobin]

I've already answered all your questions and comments (several times). At this point, you are just being silly. If you do come up with something worth considering, I'll respond.

Oh come on. You engaged me in my suppositions and my reasons. I offered no claims, no facts, no evidence and no proofs - only suspicions (and I said so). You later tried to state that was my position or strenuously tried to disprove my suppositions with your own suppositions. What did you expect would happen? That I would auto-magically adopt your suppositions. Who is being silly?!?

Now don't get me wrong. I very much respect your opinion, but there is no other way this conversation was going to conclude since we aren't discussing any substantive claim of mine and I'm not seriously exploring this issue. I'm very aware of the facts involved at this time.

[_Quasimodo]

I've already answered all your questions and comments (several times). At this point, you are just being silly. If you do come up with something worth considering, I'll respond.

Oh come on. You engaged me in my suppositions and my reasons. I offered no claims, no facts, no evidence and no proofs - only suspicions (and I said so). You later tried to state that was my position or strenuously tried to disprove my suppositions with your own suppositions. What did you expect would happen? That I would auto-magically adopt your suppositions. Who is being silly?!?

Now don't get me wrong. I very much respect your opinion, but there is no other way this conversation was going to conclude since we aren't discussing any substantive claim of mine and I'm not seriously exploring this issue. I'm very aware of the facts involved at this time.

That's just the point. Your trying to engage in a reasonable conversation with only your suspicions. A waste of time from my point of view. I'm happy to chat with you, Tobin, but only if you come to the conversation with something other than foolishness.

[_Hades]

Oh come on. You engaged me in my suppositions and my reasons. I offered no claims, no facts, no evidence and no proofs - only suspicions (and I said so). You later tried to state that was my position or strenuously tried to disprove my suppositions with your own suppositions. What did you expect would happen? That I would auto-magically adopt your suppositions. Who is being silly?!?

Now don't get me wrong. I very much respect your opinion, but there is no other way this conversation was going to conclude since we aren't discussing any substantive claim of mine and I'm not seriously exploring this issue. I'm very aware of the facts involved at this time.

That's just the point. Your trying to engage in a reasonable conversation with only your suspicions. A waste of time from my point of view. I'm happy to chat with you, Tobin, but only if you come to the conversation with something other than foolishness.

Yeah, the Book of Mormon's true. You know why? Because I said so, that's why.

[_Tobin]

That's just the point. Your trying to engage in a reasonable conversation with only your suspicions. A waste of time from my point of view. I'm happy to chat with you, Tobin, but only if you come to the conversation with something other than foolishness.

Yeah, the Book of Mormon's true. You know why? Because I said so, that's why.

Well, if you are afraid to talk to God about it then - yeah, you'll just have to take my word for it.

[_Hades]

Yeah, the Book of Mormon's true. You know why? Because I said so, that's why.

Well, if you are afraid to talk to God about it then - yeah, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Afraid has nothing to do with it. The human mind can delude itself into believing anything. You get the answer you seek, whatever it may be.

[_bcuzbcuz]

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.

Tobin, I've gone through every picture I can find of the Anasazi wall paintings available on the internet. (There are more than 100 rock art sites) I can't do better than that since I live in Europe. I found one image of a horse at the birthing scene wall paintings that do not lie within any of the surrounding three National Parks. (Canyon Lands National Park, Arches National Park, Manti-La Sal National Park) Since that area does not lie within a protected (not that vandals don't scribble graffiti anyway) park area, there can be no guarantee to their dating or validity.

http://www.canyonsworldwide.com/chacocanyon/p1.htm
http://www.canyonsworldwide.com/chacoan ... eshow.html (The last picture of this slide show doesn't count. The guy is obviously wearing a Sears cotton button down shirt)
http://www.canyonsworldwide.com/chacoan ... nigma.html

It is known from Anasazi skeletal finds that many of the Anasazi suffered (both male and female) arthritis and spinal degeneration due to carrying heavy loads. So if they had horses, they hadn't figured out how to get them to carry loads.

There are wall paintings at the Canyon de Chelly site that depicts horses but it also clearly has a priest wearing a cross. Oops.

At the Nine Mile Canyon site someone has painted on top of a rock painting "NO TRESSPASSING THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY." Knowledge of spelling is not a vandalism prerequisite." Here is the photo.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/images ... raph_t.jpg
It is followed by: "Contemporary site stewardship ethics prohibit altering or even touching the glyphs. Unlike pottery and basketry, rock art must remain in the wild, a unguarded outdoor museum susceptible to the elements and to the species that created it. Ironically humans represent the greatest danger to rock art sites. Pictographs in European caves have endured for 25,000 years. Today rock art destruction is occurring at a rate that makes natural attrition seem harmless. The destruction wrought in the 20th century has probably outpaced the most productive era of rock art creation. Only the utmost care and respect can preserve our wild museums for future millennia."

Many other rock art sites are vandalized by A**holes who write their names across the pictures. Or even shoot then full of bulletholes. There are pictographs of horses and riders but it is nigh on impossible to date them. The coloration compared to other pictographs on the same wall would seem to indicate much later dating.

http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/fremont.html
http://www.jqjacobs.net/rock_art/images ... k_utah.jpg

You can buy a figurine of a Anasazi horse at ShopWiki.com but I hardly think that counts