Ancient horse skeleton found in Lehi, Utah

[Eek!]

In the early 70's I read a newspaper article reporting that horse bones - teeth as I recall - had been found in southern Louisiana, and had been dated (carbon-dated I believe) to be about 800 years old.   My recollection is that the bones/teeth were found on Avery Island.   I have tried and failed to find the article, but my search was online only.   I'm not saying this is proof of anything, but it stuck out in my mind at the time for obvious reasons.  Wish I'd have clipped the article and kept it. 

[blueglass]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm no expert on Book of Mormon archaeology, but I suspect if we want to help support the literal historicity of scripture using a 2 million year old fossil, it might open up a can of worms.

McConkie said that if the science of evolution could be proven it would kill divine Christology and atonement doctrines, that if there are 2 Million year old horse bones then the entire plan of salvation crashes, and God himself is dead.

"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life [pleistocene horses]; if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life; nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God."

 

[snowflake]

10 hours ago, blueglass said:

McConkie said that if the science of evolution could be proven it would kill divine Christology and atonement doctrines, that if there are 2 Million year old horse bones then the entire plan of salvation crashes, and God himself is dead.

"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life [pleistocene horses]; if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life; nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God."

 

Lucky for the LDS the "science of evolution" has never been even remotely proven.....it's simply a state sponsored religion. 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Lucky for the LDS the "science of evolution" has never been even remotely proven.....it's simply a state sponsored religion. 

Not sure I would call that luck.

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Lucky for the LDS the "science of evolution" has never been even remotely proven.....it's simply a state sponsored religion. 

Many "state sponsored" evolutionary biology footnotes in the Book of Mormon and DNA essay, but I don't think any of the q15 cared to check before endorsing.  It's just an essay after all.  

[MormonMason]

Personally, I stopped worrying about horses a long time ago.  The animals called horses in the Book of Mormon may not have been what we today call horses.  Ancient peoples sometimes gave common names to different creatures with which they were unfamiliar.  Horses in the Book of Mormon also don't do horse things.  They never are ridden.  And they were gathered together and listed as subsistence animals along with cattle.

Quote

Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years, in the which time they did hope to destroy the robbers from off the face of the land; and thus the eighteenth year did pass away.

(3 Nephi 4:4)

Under the Law of Moses horses cannot be subsistence animals.  No cloven hoof nor chewing of the cud.  I once saw someone explain in writing all sorts of ways that "subsist" doesn't necessarily mean what it implies because it refers to horses.  I saw another once suggest that there were no horses among the Nephites after a certain time because they ate them to extinction.

Well, if the animals in the Book of Mormon were called "horses" but really weren't horses, there is no conflict with the Law of Moses, is there? The Nephites wouldn't have been the first people to name an unfamiliar animal with a familiar name.  The ancient Greeks called a certain kind of animal swimming around the Nile a "river horse" but they weren't horses!  Hippopotamus means "horse of the river".  We know they weren't horses but the Greeks called them that.  Why could not that have been a similar case among the Nephites? If they find horses dating to Book of Mormon times, cool!  If they don't, no big deal.  It no longer concerns me.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

The animals called horses in the Book of Mormon may not have been what we today call horses.  Ancient peoples sometimes gave common names to different creatures with which they were unfamiliar.  Horses in the Book of Mormon also don't do horse things.  They never are ridden.  And they were gathered together and listed as subsistence animals along with cattle.

There is no evidence of cattle in the Americas either. There were also no sheep, goats or any other animals that could have been considered kosher subsistence animals. Deer, elk and reindeer maybe? Were any of these animals herded by Mesoamerican natives in flocks? Llamas, like camels, aren't kosher. Tapirs have cloven hooves, but as far as I know they don't chew the cud. 

If this is a case of misidentification, what kosher new world animals do you propose for "horses and cattle and flocks of every kind"? 

1 hour ago, MormonMason said:

The ancient Greeks called a certain kind of animal swimming around the Nile a "river horse" but they weren't horses!  Hippopotamus means "horse of the river".  We know they weren't horses but the Greeks called them that.  Why could not that have been a similar case among the Nephites?

The problem is that those practicing the Law of Moses would not misidentify a cloven-hooved animal like a hippo with a non-cloven-hooved animal like a horse. They would not misidentify a ruminant like a llama with a non-ruminant horse. 

[california boy]

On 5/2/2018 at 5:01 AM, blueglass said:

McConkie said that if the science of evolution could be proven it would kill divine Christology and atonement doctrines, that if there are 2 Million year old horse bones then the entire plan of salvation crashes, and God himself is dead.

"If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life [pleistocene horses]; if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life; nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God."

 

Let's hope that McConkie's quote doesn't catch on.  Because if it does, there are a lot more problems than just horses.  It would mean that God created dinosaurs during the time of Adam and Eve as well which didn't start dying until the fall.  What is that all about?

I am someone who has to believe that man has lived more than 6,000 year.  That death has been around for longer than 6,000.  You wold have to ignore a mountain of physical evidence to not believe that.  Dinasaur bones maybe being one of the biggest things you would have to just ignore as if they have all been faked.

I have to admit, this quote makes some sense and has me wondering now, what to believe.  I can't just ignore all the physical evidence.

[snowflake]

On 5/3/2018 at 3:16 AM, california boy said:

Let's hope that McConkie's quote doesn't catch on.  Because if it does, there are a lot more problems than just horses.  It would mean that God created dinosaurs during the time of Adam and Eve as well which didn't start dying until the fall.  What is that all about?

I am someone who has to believe that man has lived more than 6,000 year.  That death has been around for longer than 6,000.  You wold have to ignore a mountain of physical evidence to not believe that.  Dinasaur bones maybe being one of the biggest things you would have to just ignore as if they have all been faked.

I have to admit, this quote makes some sense and has me wondering now, what to believe.  I can't just ignore all the physical evidence.

The only way the whole story of the bible makes sense is if you take the Bible for what it is and what it says. The creation claims found in the bible are just as relevant as the claims about Jesus, who he was, and what his claims were as well. The bible absolutely refutes evolution, an old earth and death before the fall.  

I struggled with evolution for many many years....simply because it is taught in all public schools starting in kindergarten...it is forced on kids at school...same with the age of the earth. The "group think" on these issues is astounding....you can't even raise questions, without being attacked as some crazy person on these topics.....The discussion is over, evolution is fact, you evolved from a rock California boy!  

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, snowflake said:

you evolved from a rock California boy!  

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground. - Genesis 2:7

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The only way the whole story of the bible makes sense is if you take the Bible for what it is and what it says. The creation claims found in the bible are just as relevant as the claims about Jesus, who he was, and what his claims were as well. The bible absolutely refutes evolution, an old earth and death before the fall.  

 

To take the Bible out of its historical and literary context, as you propose, is to grievously distort the Bible.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

The only way the whole story of the bible makes sense is if you take the Bible for what it is and what it says. The creation claims found in the bible are just as relevant as the claims about Jesus, who he was, and what his claims were as well. The bible absolutely refutes evolution, an old earth and death before the fall.  

I struggled with evolution for many many years....simply because it is taught in all public schools starting in kindergarten...it is forced on kids at school...same with the age of the earth. The "group think" on these issues is astounding....you can't even raise questions, without being attacked as some crazy person on these topics.....The discussion is over, evolution is fact, you evolved from a rock California boy!  

People have told me before that I ROCK!  I always thought it was just a compliment.  I didn't know they meant it literally.

Seriously, if religion expects me to believe that dinosaurs never existed, the world is only 6,000 years old and there was no death prior to that time, then count me out. I could never believe in such a religion that ignores such an abundance of proof.

It is fine to have faith.  But in my world view, faith does not mean dismissing truth.  For me, faith has to support truth.  I realize that others have a different view.  That is ok.  It is why we are on this board discussing different perspectives.

Edited May 4, 2018 by california boy

[snowflake]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

People have told me before that I ROCK!  I always thought it was just a compliment.  I didn't know they meant it literally.

Seriously, if religion expects me to believe that dinosaurs never existed, the world is only 6,000 years old and there was no death prior to that time, then count me out. I could never believe in such a religion that ignores such an abundance of proof.

It is fine to have faith.  But in my world view, faith does not mean dismissing truth.  For me, faith has to support truth.  I realize that others have a different view.  That is ok.  It is why we are on this board discussing different perspectives.

What are you talking about dinosaurs never existed, we have bones buried worldwide...that is pretty well established. What do you mean by that?

There is a lot of evidence for a younger earth, for example, the rotation of the earth is slowing down measurably, the moon is moving away from the earth in a distance that we can measure.

You don't accept "evolution" as truth do you? 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

What are you talking about dinosaurs never existed, we have bones buried worldwide...that is pretty well established. What do you mean by that?

There is a lot of evidence for a younger earth, for example, the rotation of the earth is slowing down measurably, the moon is moving away from the earth in a distance that we can measure.

You don't accept "evolution" as truth do you? 

 

Dinosaurs lived about 65 million years ago and died.  Humans first appeared about 1.5 million years ago.They were extinct over 63 million years before the earliest man appeared.  You can't have no death before the fall of Adam and still have dinosaurs wandering around waiting for Adam to fall before they can become extinct.  There is absolutely no way you can make the numbers work no matter what young earth theory one might come up with.  If you have figured out how to make this all work I am all ears.  

[snowflake]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Dinosaurs lived about 65 million years ago and died.  Humans first appeared about 1.5 million years ago.They were extinct over 63 million years before the earliest man appeared.  You can't have no death before the fall of Adam and still have dinosaurs wandering around waiting for Adam to fall before they can become extinct.  There is absolutely no way you can make the numbers work no matter what young earth theory one might come up with.  If you have figured out how to make this all work I am all ears.  

I'm not sure how accurate your dates are above but I will assume that the current scientists are correct.  First rocks.....then primordial soup......then a bacteria......dinosaurs.... etc.....all the way up to you.....so you are an evolved rock.  If you are satisfactory with this as a "scientific theory" that have at it....just sounds like a faith based religion to me. 

I can't really explain the LDS take on this either....you can't pin it down, many faithful LDS on this board agree with you paragraph above.....others go with the take from 2 Peter 3:8 that states a day to the Lord is a thousand to us...... 

I've said this before but I go with the "crazy young earther" take, that the text in the Bible is accurate in its dates (that the earth is around 6000 years old) and that Man lived with dinosaurs that were created on Day 6 ....along with all the other creatures...they were all vegetarians...Genesis 1:28-30. I simply go by what the Biblical texts says.  I assume the Bible to be the word of God...that the dates and Genealogies are accurate and to be trusted.  

I know it sounds crazy...but you believe your great great great great great grandfather was a rock....so who has more faith? 

[CA Steve]

I always hated it in school when theories like gravity, evolution and such were forced on me.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, snowflake said:

I'm not sure how accurate your dates are above but I will assume that the current scientists are correct.  First rocks.....then primordial soup......then a bacteria......dinosaurs.... etc.....all the way up to you.....so you are an evolved rock.  If you are satisfactory with this as a "scientific theory" that have at it....just sounds like a faith based religion to me. 

I can't really explain the LDS take on this either....you can't pin it down, many faithful LDS on this board agree with you paragraph above.....others go with the take from 2 Peter 3:8 that states a day to the Lord is a thousand to us...... 

I've said this before but I go with the "crazy young earther" take, that the text in the Bible is accurate in its dates (that the earth is around 6000 years old) and that Man lived with dinosaurs that were created on Day 6 ....along with all the other creatures...they were all vegetarians...Genesis 1:28-30. I simply go by what the Biblical texts says.  I assume the Bible to be the word of God...that the dates and Genealogies are accurate and to be trusted.  

I know it sounds crazy...but you believe your great great great great great grandfather was a rock....so who has more faith? 

I hope you don't, ,mind if I ask you for clarification.  It is a sincere inquiry to see if I can figure out how you make this work for you.  

My question was, if dinosaurs and man lived together at the same time, how do you rectify that dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans appeared?  

I don't want this thread to derail into a whole creationism/evolution thread, so I think it best if I don't defend my beliefs on evolution.  And maybe this is too much of a derail.  You can PM me if you think it is.

Edited May 5, 2018 by california boy

[Marginal Gains]

15 hours ago, snowflake said:

I've said this before but I go with the "crazy young earther" take, that the text in the Bible is accurate in its dates (that the earth is around 6000 years old) and that Man lived with dinosaurs that were created on Day 6 ....along with all the other creatures...they were all vegetarians...Genesis 1:28-30. I simply go by what the Biblical texts says.  I assume the Bible to be the word of God...that the dates and Genealogies are accurate and to be trusted.

So you go along with the idea that a literal, global flood wiped out the entirety of humanity and the animal kingdom, except the occupants of a single boat, sometime a few thousand years after 4,000BCE? And believe that all scientific dating that places things as living on earth at a time before 6,000BCE is all wrong? Simply on the basis that it’s what The Bible says?

Edited May 5, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[snowflake]

On 5/5/2018 at 5:06 AM, Marginal Gains said:

So you go along with the idea that a literal, global flood wiped out the entirety of humanity and the animal kingdom, except the occupants of a single boat, sometime a few thousand years after 4,000BCE? And believe that all scientific dating that places things as living on earth at a time before 6,000BCE is all wrong? Simply on the basis that it’s what The Bible says?

Correct. 

[snowflake]

On 5/5/2018 at 3:59 AM, california boy said:

I hope you don't, ,mind if I ask you for clarification.  It is a sincere inquiry to see if I can figure out how you make this work for you.  

My question was, if dinosaurs and man lived together at the same time, how do you rectify that dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans appeared?  

I don't want this thread to derail into a whole creationism/evolution thread, so I think it best if I don't defend my beliefs on evolution.  And maybe this is too much of a derail.  You can PM me if you think it is.

I put my trust in the Bible as more trustworthy than what the "scientists" say. So the Bible says that the earth is young, I go with that. The dinosaurs were created on day 5 with all the other beasts meaning man lived on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.  

Remember scientific "fact" constantly changes...the age of the earth, the big bang all of these theories are constantly changing and evolving.....is simply trust the Bible more than man. 

 

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I put my trust in the Bible as more trustworthy than what the "scientists" say. So the Bible says that the earth is young, I go with that. The dinosaurs were created on day 5 with all the other beasts meaning man lived on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.  

Remember scientific "fact" constantly changes...the age of the earth, the big bang all of these theories are constantly changing and evolving.....is simply trust the Bible more than man. 

 

And no dinosaurs died before the fall of Adam?  How do you explain the 65 million years between man appearing and dinosaurs?  Or do you just ignore all the science and figure that every single word in the bible comes from God and is accurate?

[Marginal Gains]

On 5/5/2018 at 10:06 AM, Marginal Gains said:

So you go along with the idea that a literal, global flood wiped out the entirety of humanity and the animal kingdom, except the occupants of a single boat, sometime a few thousand years after 4,000BCE? And believe that all scientific dating that places things as living on earth at a time before 6,000BCE is all wrong? Simply on the basis that it’s what The Bible says?

 

55 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Correct. 

Who did Cain and Abel marry?

[snowflake]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

And no dinosaurs died before the fall of Adam?  How do you explain the 65 million years between man appearing and dinosaurs?  Or do you just ignore all the science and figure that every single word in the bible comes from God and is accurate?

I reject the evolutionary world view and timeline. You have to realize you have been taught this timeline your entire life so I know I sound crazy....I get it (the vast majority of Christians think the young earthers are nuts too!)   But the biblical narrative is quite clear in my opinion about the age of the earth. We have the Geneology from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5,  Genesis 10 and then Matthew 1 tells us Abraham to Jesus.  

I am just pointing out scripture if you do a little homework you would come up with the same young earth timeline. Now some of the LDS and Christians alike come up with all sorts of explinations to justify their billions of years old theory of the age of the earth. Or the easy way is to just say the Bible is inaccurate....which I reject. I trust the creater of the universe, the designer of you and I, more than the scientific world view.  

If you want to be intillectually fair to yourself just you tube "Kent Hovind's creation seminar" he gives an excellent presentation of the young earth...you would probably be suprised that there is a ton of evidence pointing to the bible being accurate.  

[snowflake]

23 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Who did Cain and Abel marry?

I don't belive the bible is clear on this but it must have been their sisters. 

[Marginal Gains]

17 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I reject the evolutionary world view and timeline. You have to realize you have been taught this timeline your entire life so I know I sound crazy....I get it (the vast majority of Christians think the young earthers are nuts too!)   But the biblical narrative is quite clear in my opinion about the age of the earth. We have the Geneology from Adam to Noah in Genesis 5,  Genesis 10 and then Matthew 1 tells us Abraham to Jesus.  

I am just pointing out scripture if you do a little homework you would come up with the same young earth timeline. Now some of the LDS and Christians alike come up with all sorts of explinations to justify their billions of years old theory of the age of the earth. Or the easy way is to just say the Bible is inaccurate....which I reject. I trust the creater of the universe, the designer of you and I, more than the scientific world view.  

If you want to be intillectually fair to yourself just you tube "Kent Hovind's creation seminar" he gives an excellent presentation of the young earth...you would probably be suprised that there is a ton of evidence pointing to the bible being accurate.  

Hovind? You’re not serious?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind