This is the "Case for Horses" thread:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=23934
First, for the OP - I'm being lazy and just pulling from my horse essay here:
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/index.php/Horses
John Sorenson offered a controversial reference for such remains, which was then analyzed in The Quest for Gold Plates, by Stan Larson, page 190:
“Sorenson, in an effort to support his position that the horse might have survived into Book of Mormon times, stated the following:
"Archaeologist Paul S. Martin, for example, saw no theoretical reason why “pockets” of horses and other Pleistocene fauna could not have survived as late as 2000 BC. Dr. Ripley Bullen thought horses could have lasted until 3000 BC in Florida, and JJ Hester granted a possible 4000 BC survival date."
Let us examine Sorenson’s three assertions. (1)Paul S. Martin, professor of geosciences at the University of Arizona, was quoted out of context, for after expressing the theoretical possibility that Sorenson referred to, Martin then made the following strong statement: “But in the past two decades concordant stratigraphic, palynological [relating to the study of pollen], archaeological, and radiocarbon evidence to demonstrate beyond doubt the post-glacial survival of an extinct large mammal has been confined to extinct species of Bison.” (2)Ripley Bullen spoke in general of the extinction of mammals in Florida and not specifically of the horse as Sorenson asserted. (3)James J. Hester, professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado, did not suggest that the horse survived until 4000 BC, but rather used a date more than two thousand years earlier. Hester’s date of 8240 years before the present (with a variance of +- 960 years) was published in 1967, but the validity of the radiocarbon dating for these horse remains at whitewater Draw, Arizona, has been questioned. The next youngest horse of 10,370 +- 350 years ago has a better quality of material being dated and stronger association between the material actually being tested and the extinct genus. Clearly, Sorenson’s three arguments for a late survival of the horse do not hold up under scrutiny. Certain now extinct species may have survived in particular areas after the Ice Age. For example, one scholar recently stated that “in one locality in Alberta, Equus conversidens [a short-legged, small horse] may have been in existence about 8,000 BP (Before Present). While there may have been small “pockets” of horses surviving after the Late Pleistocene extinctions, the time period for such survivals would still be long before the earliest Jaredites of the Book of Mormon.
John W. Welch, professor of law at BYU, referred to the find in Mayapan or horse remains which were “considered by the zoologist studying them to be pre-Columbian.” Examination of Welch’s citation reveals that he misinterpreted the evidence, which does not date to pre Columbian times (and hence potentially to the Book of Mormon period) but rather to prehistoric Pleistocene times. This find at Cenote Ch’en Mul consists of one complete horse tooth and fragments of three others, which were found six feet below the surface in black earth and were “heavily mineralized (fossilized), unlike any other material in the collections.” Thousands of bones and teeth were examined at Mayapan, which is a Late Post Classic site established in the thirteenth century AD, but these four horse teeth were the only ones fossilized. The reporting scholar did not suggest that the Mayan people had ever seen a pre-Columbian horse, but that in Pleistocene times horses lived in Yucatan, and that “the tooth fragments reported here could have been transported in fossil condition by the Maya as curiosities. Thus, Welch’s assertion about pre-Columbian horses must be corrected to refer to ancient Pleistocene horses, since these fossilized horse teeth at Mayapan date to thousands of years before the Jaredites.” (p. 190-191)
Later, Smac offers some evidence, including the zombie Chapman page (I call it a zombie because it died long ago, just won't stay in the grave).
This is the ridiculous essay that includes ICA STONES as evidence of horses.
ICA STONES.... a well known hoax that also pictures alien visitation and ancient brain surgery.
http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
This horse/whackamole is a good demonstration of confirmation bias. I know smac, for example, was around the last time this was addressed and debunked. Yet, apparently, he has zero memory of it, nor does, more predictably, Charles.
