Horse-Tapir Laughable?

[William Schryver]

Thank you.

So @William, if these are indeed carved into rock, those images hold no scientific value of evidence to any "dated" time period, except by subject matter alone, which can easily be skewed and swayed to fit someone's belief... soft evidence..

They've been dated to ~2000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Rock_State_Historic_Monument

There are numerous instances in the Colorado Plateau area of rock art depicting horses, dating to periods prior to the arrival of the Spanish.

[William Schryver]

We're talking a gap of 1000 years that horses just seemed to disappear in time. Why would that be?

It's quite simple, actually. It's because the archaeological record is woefully incomplete. As Mark Wright, John Clark, and others have pointed out, only about 1% of known archaeological sites in the Americas have been excavated.

[Jesterss]

They've been dated to ~2000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia....storic_Monument

There are numerous instances in the Colorado Plateau area of rock art depicting horses, dating to periods prior to the arrival of the Spanish.

Yeah I'm no archeologist but those definitely don't look right when compared to the normal american indian carvings/paintings as far as spacing, that's a lot of carving... but the dating used isn't anything substantially accurate

Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jesterss]

It's quite simple, actually. It's because the archaeological record is woefully incomplete. As Mark Wright, John Clark, and others have pointed out, only about 1% of known archaeological sites in the Americas have been excavated.

You didn't address the rest of my proposed logic...

[Calm]

We're talking a gap of 1000 years that horses just seemed to disappear in time. Why would that be?

How about for the same reasons scientists give for their disappearance but at a later date?

Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[William Schryver]

Yeah I'm no archeologist but those definitely don't look right when compared to the normal american indian carvings/paintings as far as spacing, that's a lot of carving... but the dating used isn't anything substantially accurate

As I said above, when it comes to the question of pre-Columbian equus (and many other things, for that matter) dogma is the paramount concern of a good number of people--including archaeologists.

I find that quite ironic.

Edited October 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah I'm no archeologist but those definitely don't look right when compared to the normal american indian carvings/paintings as far as spacing, that's a lot of carving... but the dating used isn't anything substantially accurate

Here is the relevant portions.

The first carvings at the Newspaper Rock site were made around 2,000 years ago, left by people from the Archaic, Basketmaker, Fremont, and Pueblo cultures.^[2] These petroglyphs, pecked into these rocks allow a glimpse of the life and world of the people who farmed the Puerco River Valley 650 to 2,000 years ago

So the latest date is 1362. That puts the dates well within in pre-columbian for the pictures of the horses. What is your explanation for them? I have one, it is really simple. The fact is that there were horses here before Columbus.

You just don't like this because it goes against your world view. You are basically saying "nu'uh". I just don't like those carvings.

It almost sounds like you are saying "I think these are fake because they don't look like other American Indian carvings."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I said above, when it comes to the question of pre-Columbian equus (and many other things, for that matter) dogma is the paramount concern of a good number of people--including archaeologists.

I find that quite ironic.

I have noticed this in a few other areas as well. I think it quite an interesting thing when there seems to be a dogma when anything scientific is discussed. It is almost like a religion.

[Jesterss]

As I said above, when it comes to the question of pre-Columbian equus (and many other things, for that matter) dogma is the paramount concern of a good number of people--including archaeologists.

I find that quite ironic.

It's the same for you believing that there were horses around during the nephites time period. All Dogma... none of it is factual... it is just your belief.. you still refuse to address the other questions I presented. As of course you can present a belief on the first, but consider the rest as well..

[Jesterss]

How about for the same reasons scientists give for their disappearance but at a later date?

So then you believe their reasoning for extinction, yet they reappeared somehow, then by the same extinction process disappeared again, only to be reintroduced by spaniards this time for good?

[Jesterss]

Here is the relevant portions.

So the latest date is 1362. That puts the dates well within in pre-columbian for the pictures of the horses. What is your explanation for them? I have one, it is really simple. The fact is that there were horses here before Columbus.

You just don't like this because it goes against your world view. You are basically saying "nu'uh". I just don't like those carvings.

It almost sounds like you are saying "I think these are fake because they don't look like other American Indian carvings."

Wikipedia articles without sources are not a valid case. You wouldn't be allowed to cite this article in a scientific paper or research....

[Jesterss]

I have noticed this in a few other areas as well. I think it quite an interesting thing when there seems to be a dogma when anything scientific is discussed. It is almost like a religion.

No, the fact of the matter is, he provided an article on wikipedia of all places, that anyone could have written, and lacks any citations.... It is not scientific at all.. Not to mention the fact that it's a rock in Utah, a predominately LDS state. It leads to high speculation to its validity..

[Calm]

So then you believe their reasoning for extinction, yet they reappeared somehow, then by the same extinction process disappeared again, only to be reintroduced by spaniards this time for good?

No.

Fossils give an upper limit for disappearance, but they don't eliminate the possibility that some survived past that date...perhaps even way past that date (who doesn't love those books and movies about the 'lost valley of the dinosaurs' ) and were later wiped out due to overharvesting by humans or disease, both potential causes for extinction as determined by scientists. It would explain some of the anomalous findings of horse bones where they shouldn't be (or they could be contamination of the sites as is currently believed by most, I am just discussing possibilities, I don't know enough to have an opinion on it yet).

Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[Uncertain]

Hi, Uncertain.

I appreciate the discussion.

Likewise.

"Someone is wrong on the internet . . ."

A fellow fan I see. Clearly you can't be all bad, I don't care what all those apologist down at Farms say .

In response to my statement here:

"Again the text on the plate would have also have been the Nephite word for tapir."

you wrote

Not necessarily. There are several complicators here, including a whole discussion about the Nephite popular language and what was used on the plates--if there is a difference--and what impact it may have on this discussion. But based on your comments further on, I think you and I both agree that there would have been a local indigenous word for tapir. If so, the Nephites would likely have been aware of that word. So if the Nephites have deliberately chosen to use the word "horse" in spite of that, what does that tell us? Is there a reason that they call an animal that is of the same family of the horse by the name of horse in spite of the fact that it may have its own name of which they are aware? What does this mean? Could there be a reason why the Nephites deliberately choose to think of it as a horse? How would a priestly family with strict dietary laws removed to a new world classify animals? Would that classification matter from a religious perspective?

I am not sure why this is relevant. You appear to be making a argument as to why the Nephites would have referred to tapirs by the old world term for horse instead of just using the local term for tapirs. Suppose we entirely grant your supposition is correct. I don't see how this in any way weakens the point I am trying to make. Okay so the Nephites for various religious reasons used the old world term for horse to refer to tapirs. Once they have done so the old world term for horse now takes on two meanings it can mean an old world horse or it could mean tapirs. Fair enough, how is this circumstance any different than the loan-shifting argument I am criticizing? Under your supposition the Nephite word for horse to a Nephite could mean two different animals either a horse or a tapir. If the Nephites wrote on the plates their word for horse it also by your supposition here would have been the Nephite word for tapir since the word has been expanded to mean two things. By definition if the Nephites wrote on the plates their word for horse it would also be their word for tapir so the plate text would in fact have contained the Nephite word for tapir. As I have argued ad nauseum when a word has multiple possible meanings like the Nephite word for horse it is the job of the translator to translate the word to the correct meaning. I simply don't see how your supposition is not another version of the loan-shifting argument and hence is subject to all the same problems I have outlined in this thread.

Who is the reference point for this argument? God or JS? If you are saying that these animals had no known equivalency to JS, then couldn't you make the same argument with the tapir? Did he know what a tapir was? Did he even realize it was an option during translation? But if you make the argument that God helped JS with the translation and thus JS should have been provided with the meaning component of tapir and the English word tapir, then I think you need to apply the same argument to these other words. Doesn't God know what they are? Can't he tell JS what they are or were? Or the closest thing to them? Or explain them, just as many other words or concepts are explained?

Well I always assumed as a faithful member the animals being referenced simply had no close English equivalent and hence it is simply impossible to translate those animal names into English. I suppose God could have provided paragraphs of text describing in some detail these animals but I see no reason to assume he would. On the other hand there is ample reason as I have pointed out to correctly translate Nephites animals into the corresponding non anachronistic animals.

This is a better example than the computer mouse analogy. So lets imagine that a priestly family that lives a strict dietary code and classifies animals a certain way in their legal code moves to the American Northwest and deliberately identifies a moose with the name elk even though they know the local name for "moose"? On further investigation, you see that their strict dietary legal code only refers to an elk and classifies and names the elk using identifiers that are also common to the moose? Would that give you a different perspective on the issue?

It would certainly justify their using the term for moose as a term for elk. In which case one word could mean two animals elk or moose so what? It would still be incorrect to translate a word with two meanings only and always into only of its meanings. The English word elk in fact does have two meanings when used by a European it means moose when used by and American it means elk. Do you think it is correct in general to translate the American English usage of the term elk as the animal "moose"?

So they deliberately refer to the animal by the old world name in spite of knowing the new world name. Their dietary/priestly legal code only refers to the old world animal and classifies that animal with identifiers that are common to the new world animal. Does that give us a plausible scenario that might fit?

It certainly provides a plausible reason as to why Nephites would have used the old world term for horse to refer to tapirs instead of adopting the local word. So I think you have made a plausible case as to why the Nephites would have engaged in loan-shifting and expanded the meaning of the word horse to encompass tapirs instead of using the local word for tapir. My entire argument was geared towards the idea loan-shifting is indeed what took place so I fail to see how this affects my argument in any fashion. If we accept your supposition the text on the plates would in fact have been the Nephite word for tapir as well as the Nephite word for horse. It is the job of the translator to correctly render which animal is being referred to. If the translation process incorrectly translated the Nephite word for horse/tapir as tapir when the Nephites meant horse i.e.(Isaiah quotations). Or it incorrectly translated the Nephite word for horse/tapir as horse when the Nephites meant tapir i.e.(any reference in the new world) the translation process still made a mistake one with serious consequences.

I don't see any evidence in the BoM for horses pulling plows or being used as pets. Do you? And unforunately, I'm not familiar with the pre-classic Mayan evidence (or lack thereof) for the domestication of tapirs. Are you?

Sorry about that confusing reference I am not claiming the BOM said horses pulled plows or were used as pets. I was confusing which apologetic article you were referencing. I had read one recently which dug up isolated cases of Brazilian farms trying to train tapirs to pull plows I assumed this is the article you were referring to. In any case I am not an expert on pre-classic Mayan but I do know the consensus is tapirs were not domesticated. There are examples of them being tamed similar to my zebra and lion examples but as far as I am aware no pre-classic Mayan expert claims tapirs were domesticated similar to turkeys and dogs if you know of one I would be interested in hearing about it.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited October 7, 2011 by Uncertain

[William Schryver]

No, the fact of the matter is, he provided an article on wikipedia of all places, that anyone could have written, and lacks any citations.... It is not scientific at all.. Not to mention the fact that it's a rock in Utah, a predominately LDS state. It leads to high speculation to its validity..

Whatever. Your veiled allegation is completely unfounded.

Newspaper Rock is a famous site, located in the Needles District of Canyonlands National Park. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that the horses and riders depicted on it are forgeries by Mormons. That's utterly ridiculous. The whole pre-Columbian horse issue in relation to the Book of Mormon is a recent controversy--the past 50 years or so.

The horse petroglyphs at Newspaper Rock (and several other locations throughout the southwest) pre-date the arrival of Mormons into the area. Not only that, but the patina on the horse and rider petroglyphs is entirely consistent with the rest of the petroglyphs at the site.

Edited October 7, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, the fact of the matter is, he provided an article on wikipedia of all places, that anyone could have written, and lacks any citations.... It is not scientific at all.. Not to mention the fact that it's a rock in Utah, a predominately LDS state. It leads to high speculation to its validity..

So you have nothing more than "I just don't like these rocks". Good one Jester. Nice conspiracy theory too. Surely you jest.

I know of no article that claims these glyphs are fake. Do you have anything of substance that suggests that the glyphs date to Columbian times are later? I have personally seen many of these glyphs and on every occasion everyone accepted them as real.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[William Schryver]

I should add that the horse petroglyphs found in several locations on the Colorado plateau present quite a conundrum for the various scientists who consider them. Although they will consistently date surrounding petroglyphs to periods significantly pre-dating the arrival of the Spaniards, they will automatically conclude that any petroglyphs containing images of horses must be post-Spaniard--for no other reason than that they feel compelled to adhere to the established dogma!

This is why I stated above that I find it so ironic that so-called "objective scientists" will so often ridicule religious beliefs. There are, without question, all kinds of dogmatic, quasi-religious, beliefs to which one must pledge allegiance in the scientific world--one of them being the alleged non-existence of horses in the Americas prior to 1500 A.D., notwithstanding a substantial body of evidence that appears to suggest otherwise.

[Jesterss]

Whatever. Your veiled allegation is completely unfounded.

Unfounded on what? the premise that you believe you're right and I'm just simply wrong? Good one...

Newspaper Rock is a famous site, located in the Needles District of Canyonlands National Park. To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that the horses and riders depicted on it are forgeries by Mormons. That's utterly ridiculous. The whole pre-Columbian horse issue in relation to the Book of Mormon is a recent controversy--the past 50 years or so.

How is it ridiculous? It's just as ridiculous to believe it's factual... Skepticism vs Skepticism..

The horse petroglyphs at Newspaper Rock (and several other locations throughout the southwest) pre-date the arrival of Mormons into the area. Not only that, but the patina on the horse and rider petroglyphs is entirely consistent with the rest of the petroglyphs at the site.

I don't see any patina on the actual images themselves... They look pretty clean to me (I zoomed in on the big image)... If they were 2,000 years old, I would expect a buildup of patina on them... Perhaps I will have to make my own trip to Moab to investigate this..

[Jesterss]

So you have nothing more than "I just don't like these rocks". Good one Jester. Nice conspiracy theory too. Surely you jest.

I know of no article that claims these glyphs are fake. Do you have anything of substance that suggests that the glyphs date to Columbian times are later? I have personally seen many of these glyphs and on every occasion everyone accepted them as real.

Of course the people who work there are going to say "yes they are real".. They like tourists, money in their pockets.. Surely you jest in using this as evidence that "it must be true"?

[Calm]

No, the fact of the matter is, he provided an article on wikipedia of all places, that anyone could have written, and lacks any citations.... It is not scientific at all.. Not to mention the fact that it's a rock in Utah, a predominately LDS state. It leads to high speculation to its validity..

The references led to this site: http://www.sciencevi.../newspaper.html

Does this meet your requirements for dating or not?

This government site lists Newspaper Rock as an Anasazi site: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/more/cultural/archaeology/rock_art.html

Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jesterss]

The references led to this site: http://www.sciencevi.../newspaper.html

Does this meet your requirements for dating or not?

No, it has nothing of substance as far as where it got the dates it even mentions from?

I could write an article in a newspaper and have it published that I was born and raised in california and that I was actually born in 1940, but it doesn't mean it's true at all... and it wouldn't be.. it would just be a newspaper article on the misrepresentation of my life..

[Calm]

Added a link from a government site that states Newspaper Rock is an Anasazi site. Are you debating this as well?

[Jesterss]

Added a link from a government site that states Newspaper Rock is an Anasazi site. Are you debating this as well?

Not at all.. the anasazi lived in that area... that's a given.. I only proposed that how do we know that these specific petroglyphs are indeed real, if they are indeed 2,000 years old, and if they were indeed images of horses on these rocks..

I have a site that says that they could have been dinosaurs or some other monsters.. and one archeologist says the anasazi were horseless people... http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2705

[Calm]

Not at all.. the anasazi lived in that area... that's a given.. I only proposed that how do we know that these specific petroglyphs are indeed real, if they are indeed 2,000 years old, and if they were indeed images of horses on these rocks..

I have a site that says that they could have been dinosaurs or some other monsters.. and one archeologist says the anasazi were horseless people... http://www.apologeti...g/articles/2705

I am just talking about dating right now....

So you agree that the petroglyphs at Newspaper Rock are an Anasazi site as stated on the government website? So we can assume for a start that the petroglyphs belong to the same time period as the Anasazis?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course the people who work there are going to say "yes they are real".. They like tourists, money in their pockets.. Surely you jest in using this as evidence that "it must be true"?

I have not said anything about that as being evidence that it is true. What is lacking is that nobody but you thinks they are fake. You have only asserted it. Again, do you have a scientific study that claims they are fake?This is an easy one for you.I am not aware of any such studies that think they are fake. So, go ahead, find one for us. I bet you cannot.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram