Horse and Chariots--Another Apologist Red Herring

[_Tobin]

Again you have been reasons. Weathering, patina, placement, culture, etc are ways they can try to help determine these things.

All subjective - any CFR you want to link?

Why would you suspect this other then your belief the Book of Mormon is true, which is not based on any physical evidence, but an experience you believe came from God. This is what is driving your suspicions. We see no horse remains, no depictions that are confirmed to be pre-columbian, and others have given reasons why it is probably of a later date. The rock has depictions on it that cover a long time period and as I understand probably go from older to younger. The horse depiction looks to be right where it should be, but since it cannot be proven conclusively with this depiction alone you will hold desperately to it. If we look at what evidence we have here and over all throughout the Americas it becomes more obvious it is not pre-columbian.

Themis, it takes only one bone to disprove your position. I wouldn't get too comfortable with it. It will happen.

[_Themis]

All subjective - any CFR you want to link?

I think you have been given enough to go on. Your statement below says all we need to about your take on this.

Themis, it takes only one bone to disprove your position. I wouldn't get too comfortable with it. It will happen.

It will happen? LOL While it may be possible, I wouldn't count on it. In all this time we haven't found anything yet, thus why people have asked for just one. Considering that we have evidence from long ago, and then after horses were brought over, it is very unlikely horses existed during Book of Mormon times. If they did, it still only gets rid of one anachronism of the Book of Mormon. It does nothing to provide evidence for the Book of Mormon being true.

[_Chap]

...Themis, it takes only one bone to disprove your position. I wouldn't get too comfortable with it. It will happen.

It would only take one flying pig to disprove my position that there are none.

But I am comfortable with that position, and I think I shall be staying that way for the foreseeable future.

[_Tobin]

...Themis, it takes only one bone to disprove your position. I wouldn't get too comfortable with it. It will happen.

It would only take one flying pig to disprove my position that there are none.
But I am comfortable with that position, and I think I shall be staying that way for the foreseeable future.

I can send you a pig bone if you think it will help.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Isn't it interesting that those arrowheads (of undetermined age) bear a striking similarity to the other Clovis points that they were found with? But I must have just made up those pictures (and even made up the captions)! In fact, even the common arrowheads that I have (or that are listed on EBay) are similiar. Now that is some really dissimilar technology isn't it?

I wonder which of us has no regard for the truth?

Finding a Clovis spear tip, as you so aptly point out, is no big deal. Any visit to a weekend sale in Phoenix will produce innumerable examples. And if you don't like what you see, they can produce a better one within minutes, a sort of "Antiques Made While You Wait"

The trick is finding a clovis tip actually buried at a verifiable site that can date a find.

[_Tobin]

Isn't it interesting that those arrowheads (of undetermined age) bear a striking similarity to the other Clovis points that they were found with? But I must have just made up those pictures (and even made up the captions)! In fact, even the common arrowheads that I have (or that are listed on EBay) are similiar. Now that is some really dissimilar technology isn't it?
I wonder which of us has no regard for the truth?

Finding a Clovis spear tip, as you so aptly point out, is no big deal. Any visit to a weekend sale in Phoenix will produce innumerable examples. And if you don't like what you see, they can produce a better one within minutes, a sort of "Antiques Made While You Wait"
The trick is finding a clovis tip actually buried at a verifiable site that can date a find.

Oh, I agree. It really isn't a big deal, unless you find a authentic one. That is why I was shocked and amazed when Quasi blew up about what I said. He really has some weird ideas about things sometimes.

[_Morley]

Oh, I agree. It really isn't a big deal, unless you find a authentic one. That is why I was shocked and amazed when Quasi blew up about what I said. He really has some weird ideas about things sometimes.

Quasi is right and was justified. The Clovis culture did not have bows and arrows. Technically, one can discover a Clovis point but cannot discover a Clovis arrowhead.

[_Quasimodo]

Oh, I agree. It really isn't a big deal, unless you find a authentic one. That is why I was shocked and amazed when Quasi blew up about what I said. He really has some weird ideas about things sometimes.

Quasi is right and was justified. The Clovis culture did not have bows and arrows. Technically, one can discover a Clovis point but cannot discover a Clovis arrowhead.

Morley, Tobin's a troll. He's just playing around to get reactions. He answers any post with incendiary comments and childish responses. Just getting his psychological rocks off (his warped sense of humor).

I've learned through this and other threads that it's best not to play. It just encourages more childish behavior on his part.

[_Tobin]

Morley, Tobin's a troll. He's just playing around to get reactions. He answers any post with incendiary comments and childish responses. Just getting his psychological rocks off (his warped sense of humor).

I've learned through this and other threads that it's best not to play. It just encourages more childish behavior on his part.

Welcome back Quasi!!! I won't respond to what you said because I know you take things personally, but it is nice to see you back.

[_Tobin]

Oh, I agree. It really isn't a big deal, unless you find a authentic one. That is why I was shocked and amazed when Quasi blew up about what I said. He really has some weird ideas about things sometimes.

Quasi is right and was justified. The Clovis culture did not have bows and arrows. Technically, one can discover a Clovis point but cannot discover a Clovis arrowhead.

Well, I don't agree that he was right to fly off the handle like that. I was ambiguous in what I said and I can understand why he might disagree. However, I never stated the Clovis people introduced the bow to NA 13,000 years ago. In fact, I stated the bow was introduced in a later post in 2500BC. I view the Clovis technique (or technology), introduced 13,000 years ago, of flaking of pieces of material to forms spear (or much later arrowheads) as something entirely seperate from the Clovis people themselves.