FARMS and the Invention of Evidence

[_enigm0]

There are a lot of anomalies found in dating items, especially dating done half a century ago. This is obviously an interesting find, especially for FARMites, but when you have a single item dating anomaly that contradicts a mountain of other evidence and other dating, it would be quite natural and logical to confirm the anomalous date before relying on it as published evidence, even on a website.

e-0

[_rcrocket]

Not one paleontologist I spoke to considered that to be anything to contradict the consensus.
There was no authentication (without which we have nothing really).

I don't know much about science, but in sports the word "consensus" means that others of expertise disagree.

From C. Ray, Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan, The Journal of Mammalogy, Vol 38, No 2, p. 278 (1957, I believe; I have the entire article but not the face page of the volume):

"It is now possible to report horse remains of probable pre-Columbian aage from a locality in Yucatan."

"Although the teeth and bones were in many cases heavily encrusted in lime, pottery occurred throughout the deposits and two foot bones present in the top of two layers in which horse remains occurred were identified as those of domestic ca[rest of the word cut off in copying]."

The author also reports horse finds in the cenotes (these are the natural cisterns in which the Mayans threw their sacrifices).

rcrocket (sorry I'm back; just for a while)

[_beastie]

rcrocket -

No one is saying that people aren't allowed to express opinions in favor of an assertion that defies what the experts believe, but the honest thing to do is to NOTE when you are so doing.

So why is it that to support your point you're forced to use an article dated from 1957?

Do you think for one little moment that if this has panned out, that experts would NOT have been all over this like white on rice?

At any rate, here's what Stan Larson reported on this find:

The Quest for Gold Plates, 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.”

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons Reviewed By: Daniel C. Peterson, Matthew Roper

In his discussion of horses, Larson claims that Sorenson tried to buttress "his position that the horse might have survived into Book of Mormon times" (p. 190). He concludes that "Sorenson's three arguments for a late survival of the horse do not hold up under scrutiny" (p. 192). And, in fact, one of the three propositions does indeed seem to be incorrect. After close study of the topic and discussion with Sorenson, we believe that it rests on a simple note-taking error. We are grateful to Larson for his careful proofreading, which will ensure that the error is not perpetuated. But what of his other objections?

Hester did report that horse remains from St. Petersburg, Florida, had been dated to 2040 BP (before present), or just before the time of Christ. While he calls this date "anomalous" and says that it is "suspect" because "the strata are unconsolidated and the fauna may have been redeposited,"61 it is difficult to see how stratigraphic uncertainties would affect radiocarbon dating.

Larson maintains, against Sorenson, that Ripley Bullen did not claim that horses could have survived until 3000 BC in Florida. Rather, he says, "Bullen spoke in general of the extinction of mammals in Florida" and, contrary to Sorenson's assertion, "not specifically of the horse" (p. 191). We disagree. A careful reading of the document in question indicates that Bullen did include horses in his general statement about the possible survival of Pleistocene fauna. Sorenson never said that Bullen believes in such survival, merely that he allows that it might have occurred.

Larson claims that Sorenson takes Paul Martin's statement about the theoretical possibility of horses and certain other Pleistocene fauna surviving to as late as 2000 BC out of context, since, in fact, Martin says that only extinct species of bison have been indisputably demonstrated to have survived into the postglacial period (p. 191). But Martin's view of the current state of the empirical evidence (with which, by the way, Sorenson tells us he tends to agree) does not rule out (even for him) the theoretical possibility of future evidence that may mandate revision of current ideas. Dr. Sorenson is only saying that Martin did not regard the question as definitively closed. And his reading of Martin appears to us to be correct.

FYI the FARMS response to Larson's criticisms listed by Beastie above.


Phaedrus

//So there's no actual evidence but one expert does not rule out the theoretical possibility of future evidence and that's all Sorenson was saying?

Phaedrus
[/quote]

[Guest]

Do you think for one little moment that if this has panned out, that experts would NOT have been all over this like white on rice?

That's the question, isn't it? Does anyone remember the movie Space Balls, where Dark Helmet orders his men to "Comb the desert!" And then you see the guys out there with gigantic combs blindly hoping, apparently, to happen upon something? This is the vision I'm getting with FARMS and their horse and smelting research. The smelting stuff Beastie brought up a few years ago had this same feel, the most promising nuggets from nearly a century ago and difficult to decipher.

So here we have a single-page paper presented in a respected journal by Clayton E. Ray between the time he had his bachelor's degree and his masters. It would be interesting though to see what his opinion was, Crocket doesn't quote that part, if indeed he expresses one. From what I could get Google to steal from JSTOR, it reads like, "here's this find and that find".

Why leave the secret burried, as Beastie asks?

Somewhat interesting is the fact that Clayton E. Ray went on to be one bad-ass of a paleobiologist. In fact, he was apparently a key researcher for the Smithsonian institute for 30 years, during that time of course that the Smithsonian issued their Book of Mormon statement affirming no precolumbian horses.

[_rcrocket]

Before you deride my source you might read it. If you are an academic it is available online through JSTOR. I would be curious as to your reaction to the article. It is brief.

The study of archaeology involves expert sources which span decades because, like this source, the sources often involve first-hand eyewitness testimony of the application of the scientific method. In other words, he saw and handled the material. Unlike Larson or Welch, whom I don't desire to defend.

But, Tarski used the word "consensus." That implies that at least 50.1% of the peers advocate one position over the positions advocated by other peers in the area. It does not imply, as your post suggests, that some idiot lay person is defying the unanimous will of experts.

For another anthroplogical view that horses pre-dated Columbus, see Frank, Roe, Indian and the Horse (reprint, 1977). He draws upon accounts of the consquistidors and others to argue that horses pre-dated Columbus. For example, he quotes from the Spanish in the 1500s who encountered the Indians as expert horsemen riding a very inferior breed of horse. Roe reasons that this sort of journal information conflicts with the consensus view that the Spanish brought horses to the Indians. If that were the case, he reasons, why weren't the Indians riding those horses?

rcrocket

[_Phaedrus Ut]

That's the question, isn't it? Does anyone remember the movie Space Balls, where Dark Helmet orders his men to "Comb the desert!" And then you see the guys out there with gigantic combs blindly hoping, apparently, to happen upon something?

Gotta love a spaceballs analogy.

[_Tarski]

Not one paleontologist I spoke to considered that to be anything to contradict the consensus.
There was no authentication (without which we have nothing really).

I don't know much about science, but in sports the word "consensus" means that others of expertise disagree. )

In science (and especially in this type of situation) it usually implies much more.
If 50.1% of experts agree on something they don't just slap it into to text books as a fact. Even if 10% disagree they would use a disclaimer or some qualification in a text book.

In this case, it is just simply stated in the texts.

[_rcrocket]

Not one paleontologist I spoke to considered that to be anything to contradict the consensus.
There was no authentication (without which we have nothing really).

I don't know much about science, but in sports the word "consensus" means that others of expertise disagree. )

In science (and especially in this type of situation) it usually implies much more.
If 50.1% of experts agree on something they don't just slap it into to text books as a fact. Even if 10% disagree they would use a disclaimer or some qualification in a text book.

In this case, it is just simply stated in the texts.

Sorry; I read a whale of a lot of academic literature for my profession and I don't usually see disclaimers or an explanation of a contrary point of view from the author. These writers are given a very little amount of space to make their case and they do so without paying much lipservice to the other side.

The global warming literature is a primary example. I don't really think there is a consensus on (1) whether there is non-systemic warning, and (2) whether it is man-induced. I tend to believe that the evidence tilts slightly in favor of yes and yes to those questions, but the academics who advance a yes and yes position usually don't mention the other side.

Sometimes.

I think when it comes to pre-Columbian horses it is indeed the consensus view that they didn't exist, at least in recent history, but the true experts will acknowledge a peer-level contrary view. The problem I see with the pre-Columbian horses is that there has been insufficient radiocarbon data to support that view. There is plenty of stratigraphic evidence.

rcrocket

[_beastie]

I think when it comes to pre-Columbian horses it is indeed the consensus view that they didn't exist, at least in recent history, but the true experts will acknowledge a peer-level contrary view. The problem I see with the pre-Columbian horses is that there has been insufficient radiocarbon data to support that view. There is plenty of stratigraphic evidence.

Well, I'm no expert in the field, but I have read over thirty books about ancient Mesoamerica, written by widely respected scholars in the field, and I've never read even one statement that could even be twisted to imply that some scholars believe horses existed in Mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period.

But I could be wrong. Since a consensus only means 50.1 percent, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find some respected nonLDS Mesoamerican scholars who support the contrary view, ie, that horses really did exist in the specified time frame. And please use sources no less than twenty years old.

And while you're at it, you may want to explain why no horse exists in Mesoamerican art or literature, either, despite the heavy use of animals in their mythology.