Calling Daniel Peterson

[_Mister Scratch]

I didn't get an answer from them

Did you contact them?

Quit fiddling around and live up to your word.

I'm not fiddling. Nor am I waiting around for commands from you. I'm writing a book.

I don't recall your ever actually saying that you had sent a question to them. If you did, and received no answer, I'm happy to put the question to somebody there myself.

Please send your question to me. If it's a substantive one, I'll pass it on.

Sure, my question is two-fold:

1) Why, given that there is no hard evidence to support it, does the Institute claim on its website that there were horses in Florida circa 100 B.C.?
2) Since the Institute has received at least a half-dozen inquiries into this particular claim, why hasn't the assertion been taken down?

Thanks in advance, Prof. P., for keeping your word. I'll be looking forward to hearing the answer.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've passed your two questions on to a friend at the Institute who is in a position to respond.

However, it's August. Graduation is upon us, as is Education Week, and many if not most BYU faculty and personnel flee, if they can. Whether he's in town or not, I don't know. So I would appreciate it if you would wait at least 15-20 minutes before impugning my integrity on this issue.

[_Mister Scratch]

I've passed your two questions on to a friend at the Institute who is in a position to respond.

However, it's August. Graduation is upon us, as is Education Week, and many if not most BYU faculty and personnel flee, if they can. Whether he's in town or not, I don't know. So I would appreciate it if you would wait at least 15-20 minutes before impugning my integrity on this issue.

Thanks for passing along the question, Dan. I appreciate it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, I copied the questions to the person in charge of the Institute's website, wondering (again) whether the "Contact Us" function was not working. Here is that person's response, which arrived just a moment ago:

"As I assured you before, the Contact Us feature is, in fact, working. We even keep track of the messages that we receive. The first message we got regarding the horse issue was received on Friday last week. XXXX and XXXX provided an answer to the questioner yesterday (I was CC-ed on the response)."

(I've omitted the names of the individuals concerned, not wishing them to become targets of vituperation or subjects of "dossiers.")

I'm curious to know what means were used by the various individuals here who say that they have sought to contact the Institute with no result.

[_Tarski]

Incidentally, I copied the questions to the person in charge of the Institute's website, wondering (again) whether the "Contact Us" function was not working. Here is that person's response, which arrived just a moment ago:

"As I assured you before, the Contact Us feature is, in fact, working. We even keep track of the messages that we receive. The first message we got regarding the horse issue was received on Friday last week. XXXX and XXXX provided an answer to the questioner yesterday (I was CC-ed on the response)."

(I've omitted the names of the individuals concerned, not wishing them to become targets of vituperation or subjects of "dossiers.")

.

That is false. I asked about it using the contact function months ago when it came up on the FAIR message board!

[_truth dancer]

Dan... could you summarize the information you received as a response?

Thanks,

~dancer~

[_Mister Scratch]

Incidentally, I copied the questions to the person in charge of the Institute's website, wondering (again) whether the "Contact Us" function was not working. Here is that person's response, which arrived just a moment ago:

"As I assured you before, the Contact Us feature is, in fact, working. We even keep track of the messages that we receive. The first message we got regarding the horse issue was received on Friday last week. XXXX and XXXX provided an answer to the questioner yesterday (I was CC-ed on the response)."

So, what was the response?

(I've omitted the names of the individuals concerned, not wishing them to become targets of vituperation or subjects of "dossiers.")

I'm curious to know what means were used by the various individuals here who say that they have sought to contact the Institute with no result.

Well, your "anonymous informants" are very rigorously stating that the "Contact Us" feature is working, and that they have assiduously documented each and every message, so it should be no problem to give us the response. So what was it?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan... could you summarize the information you received as a response?

I will, when I receive a response on the issue of horses. I haven't yet.

Incidentally, I copied the questions to the person in charge of the Institute's website, wondering (again) whether the "Contact Us" function was not working. Here is that person's response, which arrived just a moment ago:

"As I assured you before, the Contact Us feature is, in fact, working. We even keep track of the messages that we receive. The first message we got regarding the horse issue was received on Friday last week. XXXX and XXXX provided an answer to the questioner yesterday (I was CC-ed on the response)."

So, what was the response?

I don't know. I haven't seen it.

Presumably it wasn't a response to your specific questions, since you claim that you received no response to your questions.

When I receive a response to your questions, I will pass it on.

I won't pass on responses to other people's questions that I haven't seen.

Well, your "anonymous informants" are very rigorously stating that the "Contact Us" feature is working, and that they have assiduously documented each and every message, so it should be no problem to give us the response. So what was it?

If you really want access to everything that goes on at the Institute, why don't you simply hack into the Institute's computers?

[_Mister Scratch]

Presumably it wasn't a response to your specific questions, since you claim that you received no response to your questions.

When I receive a response to your questions, I will pass it on.

Thank you so much. I'm grateful for your efforts here, and will be anxious to see what your colleagues have to say.

I won't pass on responses to other people's questions that I haven't seen.

Wait a second... Why are you being so selective? The questions coming from critics such as myself, Beastie, Tarski, and CKSalmon were essentially the same in spirit. So, you can pass along the responses. Right?

Well, your "anonymous informants" are very rigorously stating that the "Contact Us" feature is working, and that they have assiduously documented each and every message, so it should be no problem to give us the response. So what was it?

If you really want access to everything that goes on at the Institute, why don't you simply hack into the Institute's computers?

I just want you to live up to your word! You said that if an effort was made to get a legit answer from the Institute, and that if no legit answer was received, that you'd "look into it." Now you are adding all these qualifications, waffling, flopping back and forth, saying that things have to happen in a very specific way before you'll fork over an answer, and there's really no need (so far as I can tell) for you to do that. I am really just looking for one of the following things:

1) We have some good sources supplying evidence for the horse. You can access them here:_________, here:_______, and here:___________. Further, we will put these links/citations up on the website.
2) We don't have any real evidence, and will remove the claim from the website.
3) The evidence for the horse is sketchy at best, and so we'll adjust the language in the claim on the website to reflect this fact.
4) The evidence may be "minimal," but we believe it is enough to maintain faith in the horse, and so we're not changing the claim on the FAQ.

Simple, eh? Heck, Prof. P., I don't care if you merely summarize what the gist of your colleagues' answer was. I just want *an* answer.

[_Tarski]

Dan... could you summarize the information you received as a response?

I will, when I receive a response on the issue of horses. I haven't yet.

Incidentally, I copied the questions to the person in charge of the Institute's website, wondering (again) whether the "Contact Us" function was not working. Here is that person's response, which arrived just a moment ago:

"As I assured you before, the Contact Us feature is, in fact, working. We even keep track of the messages that we receive. The first message we got regarding the horse issue was received on Friday last week. XXXX and XXXX provided an answer to the questioner yesterday (I was CC-ed on the response)."

So, what was the response?

I don't know. I haven't seen it.

A response was posted on the other thread. It is very bad as we discussed at length. Only the silly Hester thing (now used as an example of a false positive) waas brought up along with yet more unreferenced claims.
The website is still up and is depeptive for a couple reasons. Mainly it misrepresents the state of science on the issue for the purposes faith promotion.

Here is the response recieved by cks.

In response to your question:

One horse specimen, discovered near Saint Petersburg, Florida, was radiocarbon-dated to the first century BC (I.e., 2040 BP [before the present] +/- 90 years [= 123BC to 53AD--CKS]), providing evidence that not all American horses postdate the arrival of the Spaniards. James J. Hester, who reported the find, dismissed the radiocarbon date on the grounds that the horse was unknown in recent times until the arrival of the Spanish. It is typical to ignore the radiocarbon dates if they do not fit with the theory that there were no horses prior to the arrival of the Spaniards. See James J. Hester, “Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating,” American Antiquity 26/1 (July 1960), 65, 70.

Meanwhile, other precolumbian horse remains have been subjected to radiocarbon dating and other methods. Horse bones from a Wyoming cave were subjected to thermoluminescence testing some years back and dated thereby to about 1000 BC. Plans are under way to narrow down the date using AMS (accelerator mass spectrometer) method of radiocarbon dating. A specimen from Colorado was radiocarbon dated to AD 1260-1400, thus after Book of Mormon times but prior to the arrival of Columbus.

Bones found in a cenote on Cozumel Island, Mexico, by archaeologist Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales have been radiocarbon dated to AD 1230-1300. The bones were identified as either equine (horse) or bovid (cattle), a question that could not be settled by DNA sequencing because there was insufficient collagen in them. The question will be settled after the bones undergo a protein radio-immuno assay. In either case, it would bode well for the Book of Mormon, which mentions horses, asses, cows, and oxen.

Horse bones have also been found in conjunction with precolumbian Mayan pottery at the Mexican sites of Mayapan and Loltun, but have not yet been submitted to radiocarbon testing.

All of this will be discussed in detail, along with other issues concerning Book of Mormon animals, in a forthcoming book.

John Tvedtnes