A lot of Scholors don't Acknowledge the "Book Of Mormon"...

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Barter_Town

Hey that's pretty neat! Thanks for showing me that. Perhaps I was a little too hasty in attributing shenanigans to Mormon apologists (although I've certainly seen it in the past!).

I still have to wonder why he would cite such an outdated book. And I still have to wonder what evidence the author of that book is basing his assertion on that this creature lived as recently as 400 AD, given that the scientific consensus is that it died out several thousand years before that time.

Maybe it was the latest thing when he got his degrees.

I think it does show a point to bear in mind, though: scientific "consensus" is always evolving. Neither side to this discussion should get to comfortable thinking their position has been scientifically "proven" once and for all.

[changed]

Originally Posted by Barter_Town

Also, is there any evidence that these things were domesticated? The Book of Mormon says they were. But I have never heard of any paleontologists or zoologists saying that Gomphotheris was domesticated. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me (but when has that ever stopped a religious apologist, lol).

This Native American pipe, is made of a light-colored sandstone, and contained evidence of grease, resin and smoke. It definitely lacks the characteristic tusks and shoulders of a mammoth. It was taken from a burial mound near an old bed of the Mississippi by the Reverend Dr. Blumer on March 2, 1880


Elephant Figures on ancient
Mayan ruins, circa 500 AD
Chichen Itza, Mexico


Pre-Columbian Indian Burial Mound
in Grant County, Wisconsin
is elephant shaped.
(Smithsonian Report, 1872)
Click photos to enlarge.

from: Page 3 of Amazing Photos - Book of Mormon Evidences - LDS Scriptures Supported by Science



Elephant
The only place that elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Ether 9:19 in approximately 2500 B.C. Thus any elephants existing upon the American continents need not have survived past about 2400 B.C...Besides the traditions, five elephant effigies have been found in ancient Mexico. Dr. Verrill, a well-known (non-Mormon) archaeologist describes one of these figures as “‘so strikingly and obviously elephantine that it cannot be explained away by any of the ordinary theories of being a conventionalized or exaggerated tapir, ant-eater or macaw. Not only does this figure show a trunk, but in addition it has the big leaf-like ears and the forward-bending knees peculiar to the elephants. Moreover, it shows a load or burden strapped upon its back. It is inconceivable that any man could have imagined a creature with the flapping ears and peculiar hind knees of an elephant, or that any human being could have conventionalized a tapir to this extent’”...
The oral traditions, written records, and artwork depicting elephants lends strong support for the claim that the elephant existed in ancient America. Even more substantial support-- actual remains-- have also been discovered. Today all scholars agree that mastodons and mammoths (which are unquestionably elephants to zoologists) once lived in the Americas. The dispute today is how late they lived. According to the Book of Mormon they need not have lived later than 2400 B.C. Within recent years archaeological evidence has demonstrated that the elephant could very well have survived to such a late date. Butchered mastodon bones were recently discovered at one archaeological site which dates to shortly after the time of Christ. Another site, dating to approximately 100 B.C. has yielded the remains of a mammoth, a mastodon, as well as a horse.[10]
Mastodon or Mammoth?
Some scholars have suggested that the elephant (mammoth or mastodon) lived later than hitherto believed. Ludwell Johnson, in an article entitled “Men and Elephants in America” published in Scientific Monthly, wrote that
“Discoveries of associations of human and proboscidean remains [Elephantine mammals, including, elephants, mammoths, and mastodons] are by no means uncommon. As of 1950, MacCowan listed no less than twenty-seven” including, as noted by Hugo Gross, a “partly burned mastodon skeleton and numerous potsherds at Alangasi, Ecuador...There can no longer be any doubt that man and elephant coexisted in America.... Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years."
If the elephants had died off at least 3000 years ago, they would still have been well within range of the Jaredite era. And as noted above, some evidence indicates that the elephant may have survived in limited numbers for centuries later.[11]
Other elephants

This is a public domain image of Tetrabelodon angustidens, a member of the family Gomphotheriidae. We do not yet have a public-domain image of the South American species believed to have persisted into historical times. This should not be considered an image of a Jaredite "elephant," but simply an illustration that these recently-extinct animals certainly qualify as "elephants" in appearance. (Image source:CW Andrews, A guide to the elephants (recent and fossil) exhibited in the Department of geology and palæontology in the British museum (London, Printed by order of the Trustees, 1908). 46 pp. Original graphic file from here.A lesser-known type of elephant-like creature also existed from 12 million years ago until around A.D. 400. These were the Gomphotheres:

The Gomphotheres are a diverse group of extinct elephant-like animals (proboscideans) that were widespread in North America during the Miocene and Pliocene epochs, 12-1.6 million years ago. Some also lived in parts of Eurasia and Beringia, and following the Great American Interchange, in South America. From about 5 million years ago onwards, they were slowly replaced by modern elephants, but the last South American species did not finally become extinct until as recently as 400 CE[1].
Gomphothere remains are common at South American Paleo-indian sites.[2] One example is the early human settlement at Monte Verde, Chile, dating to approximately 14,000 years ago.
Gomphotheres differed from elephants in their tooth structure, particularly the chewing surfaces on the molar teeth. Most had four tusks, and their retracted facial and nasal bones prompt paleontologists to believe that gomphotheres had elephant-like trunks.[12]

In short, the elephant presents no problem for the Book of Mormon.

from:
Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals - FAIRMormon

[Barter_Town]

Thanks for the efforts, Changed, but there was no mention in your post as to whether or not Gomphotheres was domesticated. I've certainly never heard from any credible researcher that these prehistoric animals were domesticated. Sounds like science fiction to me.

As for the rest of your post. The first pic (of the Native American pipe) looks like a bear to me, not an elephant. Just because the snout is carved into its base does not make it a trunk.

The second pic (of the ruins of Chichen Itza) is a depiction of the Mayan god Chaac, who is always portrayed with a long snout. The only people claiming these are elephants are Mormon apologists. No professional archaeologists are saying these are elephants. It's a shame to see such irresponsible "scholarship" on the part of Mormon apologists.

The third pic (of the burial mounds) is simply selective observation. If you panned the camera further back, you'd see it is connected to a larger network of mounds which render it into shapes that could be interpreted any way you like. It's like looking at only part of a puzzle and ignoring the rest, when looking at the bigger picture completely changes the meaning or shape of the smaller piece.

Also, just because something resembles something else does not mean it represents the thing it resembles. I've never heard any archaeologists saying that these mounds represent elephants. Once again, crackpot Mormon apologists lead the way in irresponsible scholarship.

This is the problem with beginning with your conclusion and then selectively choosing your "evidence" to support your conclusion. Inevitably you will find all sorts of "parallels" and "resemblances" that seemingly support your conclusion (if you use your imagination enough), when in reality there is no relationship whatsoever. Sorry, but I'm going to stick with credible research, not the claims of crackpots.

As for the rest of your post (copied and pasted from FAIR, preeminent Mormon apologist website), you've only reasserted what the previous poster said. FAIR cites the same outdated book for children (Marshal Encyclopedia) as the Wiki article.

Again, current research places the extinction of Gomphothere at 11,000 years ago at the latest. There is no evidence that this creature (which wasn't even an elephant) lived as recently as 400 AD. That's why I'm wondering where the author of this book was getting his evidence. Because it certainly doesn't jive with current research.

I mean if there was credible evidence that elephants (or closely related creatures) lived as recently as Book of Mormon times, great, I'd gladly accept it. Unfortunately all I'm seeing is wishful thinking on the part of Mormon apologists.

I mean there's a reason why current research puts its extinction at 11,000 years ago, you know? There's a reason why archaeologists do not believe that man domesticated Woolly Mammoths (it's called "lack of evidence"). And there's a reason why the only place you're getting this sort of info is in Mormon apologist websites. Think about it..

[changed]

p068-07.gif (image)

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf068/p068-07.gif


Let me guess - that is not an elephant either, it's a parrot? A very large parrot that people have decorated and ride around on.

LOL! People dig up elephant bones, publish article after article on it, mesoAmericans carve pictures on walls of them, make statues of them, design gods/idols after them... but they must not have never existed there.

You think that is a bear? just a shape? one of their Gods? Where did they get the idea to put a long snout on their god? (PS - it is not a snout, it is called a trunk).

No matter how much evidence you show an anti, they have their mind set, the earth is flat to them, there is no amount of anything that will ever change their stubborn mind.

LOL! Everyone else here sees the elephant in the room.

[Barter_Town]

Originally Posted by changed

Let me guess - that is not an elephant either, it's a parrot?

Or a tapir, or an anteater. All have long, curved snouts. Or again, Chaac, the long-nosed God of rain. Why are you insisting it's an elepant? (Oh, right. Because you need something to prove that the Book of Mormon is a historical record).

What's curious to me is why you choose to believe the claims of Mormon apologists over the wealth of current research from virtually every professional in the field of Mesoamerican archaeology.

We know how the Mayans (and other Mesoamericans) have depicted macaws, anteaters and tapirs. Anyone with a passing interest in Mesoamerican archaeology has seen many of them.

Sorry, but the fact remains that the only people claiming these images to be elephants are crackpot Mormon apologists or non-professional hobbyists. You see nothing of the sort coming from professional, responsible and objective scholars in their respective fields of expertise.

For example, let me point out the problems with the following:

"Dr. Verrill, a well-known (non-Mormon) archaeologist describes one of these figures as “‘so strikingly and obviously elephantine that it cannot be explained away by any of the ordinary theories of being a conventionalized or exaggerated tapir, ant-eater or macaw. Not only does this figure show a trunk, but in addition it has the big leaf-like ears and the forward-bending knees peculiar to the elephants. Moreover, it shows a load or burden strapped upon its back. It is inconceivable that any man could have imagined a creature with the flapping ears and peculiar hind knees of an elephant, or that any human being could have conventionalized a tapir to this extent’”...

To begin with, why are you citing the opinion of someone who wasn't even an archaeologist? Don't you think that might be a little bit relevant when it comes to archaeology? Check out Dr. Verrill's credentials, as cited in 'Who Was Who in America':

Verrill, Alpheus Hyatt, author, illustrator, naturalist, explorer and science fiction writer of the 20s and 30s, was born in New Haven, Conn., 23 July 1871.

http://www.fossickerbooks.com/AHVerrill.html


He studied plants and animals, and wrote science fiction. He was NOT an archaeologist. He did quite a bit of "exploring" in his day, and went on a handful of "archeological expeditions" in the 1920's and 1930's (before much archaeology had been done in Mesoamerica), but that hardly makes one an archaeologist.

On top of that, his books were published in the 1930's. No one could read Mayan in the 1930's.

So why are you accepting his unqualified, non-professional and outdated opinions over the current assessments of professionals in their fields? Where is your respect for scholarship?

Citing some random person's irrelevant opinion from the 1930's is not only intellectually dishonest, but underscores the weakness of the Mormon apologist position.

A very large parrot that people have decorated and ride around on.

Mayan design is highly stylized and not drawn to scale. Otherwise, humans larger than the sun most certainly existed, and jaguars several times larger than humans onced roamed the earth as well. The fact that you assume that these depictions of animal-gods are drawn to scale only demonstrates how uninformed you really are on this subject.

LOL! People dig up elephant bones,

Correction: Mammoth (not elephant) bones have been found, and dated using highly sophisticated and very reliable dating methods. That is how we know they lived no later than 11,000+ years ago, at the end of the last ice age -- several thousand years before the era descibed in the Book of Mormon.

publish article after article on it,

Really? Peer-reviewed? In archaeological journals? Can you provide these articles?

mesoAmericans carve pictures on walls of them,

Source please?

make statues of them,

What statues are you referring to? And can you provide sources for any archaeologists who say they are elephants? Thanks.

design gods/idols after them...

So, because a god has a long nose, it must have been modeled after elephants? Why not anteaters, tapirs or macaws, which ARE indigenous to Cental and South America?

but they must not have never existed there.

So far, you've provided precious little evidence to support your claim. The evidence you have provided is wholly unconvincing to any fair-minded observer.

You think that is a bear? just a shape?

To begin with, all you've provided is a drawing. Can you provide the source for this image, or a photograph? What is the opinion of archaeologists on this piece?

one of their Gods? Where did they get the idea to put a long snout on their god?

If you insist that the elongated nose corresponds to something in the animal kingdom, then armadillos, anteaters, and tapirs are all prime candidates.

(PS - it is not a snout, it is called a trunk).

Says who? You?

No matter how much evidence you show an anti,

Excuse me? An "anti"..? So, anyone who doesn't accept the spurious claims of Mormon apologists is by default an "anti"?

they have their mind set,

I'm afraid that if anyone's mind is already "set", it is you. I am quite open to any and all evidence, and will readily change my mind if the evidence is convincing. So far, the evidence you've provided to support the claim that domesticated elephants once lived in the recent ancient Americas has not only failed spectacularly, but flies in the face of all professional, responsible and objective historical and archaeological consensus.

the earth is flat to them,

Terrible analogy. We know the earth is flat because we have the evidence to prove it. You've provided nothing of the sort. If anyone is akin to flat-earth believers, it would sadly be you.

there is no amount of anything that will ever change their stubborn mind.

See above.

LOL! Everyone else here sees the elephant in the room.

You've already made up your mind (that the Book of Mormon is a historical record), therefore you are not willing to consider the stunning lack of evidence to support anything it describes. Instead of keeping with current and relevant archaeological research, you resort to citing non-archeologists from the 1930's to help support your claims. The only elephant in the room here is the lousy state of Mormon apologetics.

[pam]

This thread is now closed.