annewandering Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Shrek is a donkey? Ok I am very confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livy111us Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Wade Miller has taken over the infamous "Horse Project" at BYU to replace Steven Jones, who was severely side tracked by the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Wade has carbon dated around 7 separate horse remains in Mesoamerica which carbon dates to Pre-Columbian and BOM times. The horse issue is no longer an issue. He will formally publish his findings soon. You can read his preliminary research in his FAIR Conference address here:Science and the Book of Mormon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urlaubulusprime Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 I look forward to reading about the horse bones he mentions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livy111us Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 His wife is sick and so he's been putting the project on hold. Last I spoke to him, he had just found a few more but wanted to get even more specimens to make an airtight case when he writes his paper. He's doing some great things and is completely putting this argument, which has been used for decades as evidence against the Church, to rest. I am sure people have left the Church over this issue, but if they would have just held on a little bit longer the evidence they were looking for would have made itself known. God ALWAYS knows more than archaeology. The Book of Mormon is true. Even if we can't see all of the evidence right now due to the restrictions of archaeology and man, it is true. The *only* witness that we need is from God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Wade Miller has taken over the infamous "Horse Project" at BYU to replace Steven Jones, who was severely side tracked by the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Wade has carbon dated around 7 separate horse remains in Mesoamerica which carbon dates to Pre-Columbian and BOM times. The horse issue is no longer an issue. He will formally publish his findings soon. You can read his preliminary research in his FAIR Conference address here:Science and the Book of MormonUntil the evidence actually comes out, so other scientists can examine the evidence, it is not evidence. I've been waiting over a decade on this claim from Jones and now Miller. So, call me skeptical.As for Dudley's claim that Sir Francis Drake claimed to see huge swaths of horses on the west coast, what happened to them? They are there, and within just a few decades, they all vanish. The tribes along the west coast did not pick up using horses until after the Sioux and others did. We saw the huge herds of buffalo. Where would these huge herds of horses be, for later explorers to find? Lewis and Clark, Spanish monks with their monasteries, etc., do not recount seeing any giant herds of wild horses, much less some that did not look like they derived from European stock.That Dudley is the only witness for Drake's claim, we have to wonder about its accuracy. For all we know, Drake could have been referring to buffalo, or some other herd animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 The horse issue is no longer an issue. He will formally publish his findings soon. You can read his preliminary research in his FAIR Conference address here:Science and the Book of MormonInteresting article.I've actually done a lot of work with fossil horses from many areas and from different periods of time. A lot of my work has been done on them in Mesoamerica, primarily in Mexico. While the vast majority of dates for these various kinds of horses are well before man was known in the New World, a few of the dates are very surprisingly young. I have Carbon-14 dates on horses that are as recent as 800 years. Other dates are only 1200 years to 1400 years ago. More dates in this range are needed to be able to convince others that horses were indeed here before 1493, when they were reintroduced.Yeah- exciting stuff, except for the date of August 2009, and then the big pile of silence ever since then.I'd love to see his findings published soon too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livy111us Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Until the evidence actually comes out, so other scientists can examine the evidence, it is not evidence. I've been waiting over a decade on this claim from Jones and now Miller. So, call me skeptical.That is completely understandable. But I have personally seen the evidence and am a bit more inclined to promote this than others who have not. I hope it will get published soon, but am not crossing my fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livy111us Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 He does have a blog as well, but there hasn't been anything new since April.Ice Age MattersAgain, he is having some major health issues in his family which is his first priority. So until they are resolved, don't expect too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urlaubulusprime Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 For all we know, Drake could have been referring to buffalo, or some other herd animal.But this cant be said of Joseph Smith? Or the authors of the Book of Mormon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why not? Did Joseph actually see the animals, or interpret the record? Sometimes we assume too much, when things may not be exactly as we think.For example, when Ammon defended the flocks of King Lamoni, what were the flocks? Sheep? Probably not, as there is no evidence of anyone anciently herding sheep here. If not sheep, what then? Well, the ancient Maya had flocks of turkeys. Suddenly, the possibility totally turns on its head from our modern assumptions.We do damage to the Bible and Book of Mormon when we try to impose our modern views on them. Instead, we must try and understand it from their perspective, and be careful not to allow our assumptions to lead us down wrong paths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Dravin, I see your point, but my thoughts still apply even here. Yes, there were pre-Columbian horses. But unless we find them contemporary to the BoM times and places, you may as well say there were pre-Columbian dinosaurs as well. It is true, but it is useless information when one is discussing the BoM, which for LDS is the most common reason to do so. My personal point in all this is that arguments used to disprove the Book of Mormon also disprove the Bible. If we cannot count the horses as evidence that there were horses - because it predates the time period of the Book of Mormon - what does that say about Adam being the "first" man and the Bible clearly placing Adam at most 6,000 years ago? Are we to demand that Native Americans are not really human and thus should not have the same G-d given rights? Or that baptizing a Native American to any Christian sect based on the Bible is an abomination? In such discussions I suggest that what-ever criticism one encounters as a Christian concerning the Book of Mormon that they employ whatever excuse or exception they make for the Bible.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Dravin, I agree with your point. My point is, we should be cautious with what we hold up to be "evidence" so that we do not look like those "6000 year old earth" Creationist nut-cases who use pseudo-science to "prove" themselves right. I don't mind if they believe that way, that is their right. However, to cheapen science, truth and logic by using extremely flimsy evidence does not breed respect for their theories. They would do better to just say, "the Bible teaches it, and so I believe it." LDS do harm when we push concepts that just do not have evidence in the science realm, and still try to find the slimmest reasons to claim it is scientific. So, using horses that existed 12,000 years ago in America to "prove" there were horses here in Book of Mormon times really makes us look bad. That we can find horses from 12 millennia ago, but cannot find any in the Jaredite/Nephite timeframe, and then can find them after the Spanish conquest points the evidence against horses being here. It would require some solid evidence to change that view, and it has not yet emerged. You'll note I wrote "yet", as it could happen in the future. But until then, we need to use the evidence we have to make our case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Dravin, I agree with your point.Did you mean Traveler? I haven't thrown a post your way in this thread in several months. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yep, I agree with Traveler. I guess saying I agree with Dravin's point is pointless.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.