There is precisely one type of Oak that grows in South America, and it's only found in the northern reaches of Colombia, and there is a small selection of Oak that grows in Central America.
If I had to guess I'd suggest mahogany.
No, we've got a few dozen iron mirrors from the Olmecs, and from what I've been able to find many of those are of questionable authenticity due to them being discovered outside of secured archeological sites.
There are also the iron ore cubes, which are not described as having been smelted.
It seems inevitable, after every accusation is countered, that the accuser gets personal, and insulting.
Non of the "Accusations" have been countered. What you are calling "personal, and insulting" are, as far as I can see, simple statements of either fact or reasonable supposition. What's next, getting you feelings hurt because of bad artwork depicting Joseph Smith?
Pointing out the truth rarely results in humility. Would you die of embarrassment to admit even one point?
No, there is no embarrassment in science in revising an opinion based on new information (unlike religion that colapses like a house of cards when proven wrong, even on small, seemingly meaningless, things). You have not made any arguments or identified any new data would cause a rational person of change his or her view(s).
Codependancy is an excessive reliance on other people for approval and identity. That fits you better than me, since you identify yourself with "the entire rest of the world". I, on the other hand, don't care what the rest of the world thinks of me, nor do I believe that the majority is always right. I can think for myself.
All available evidence points in the opposite direction. You seem quite incapable of doing anything except toeing the LDS line, even when that line strains credulity way past the breaking point. I remind you of the question, WHERE'S THE BEEF?" with all that implies.
Everyone knows about invasive species. It is a sad fact of modern life. You haven't disproven the opposite at all - that sometimes species don't adapt to a new environment.
You are begging the question. There are multiple lines of information that indicate that European Honey Bees were not present in the New World. You are making Smith's classic mistake of assuming that everyone else knows as little about the subject as you do and so you can make any claim that you wish, regardless of the violence it does to the facts that stem from all those other lines of evidence.
Which is about the time of the last mention of them in the Book of Mormon... so what is your point?
It turns out that this 5,000 year figure was in error, the last document-able member of the elephant clade was gone more than 10,000 years ago (at least in the New World). Members of the same species survived in the Old World until about 4,100 years ago. "Analysis of tusks of mastodons from the American Great Lakes region over a span of several thousand years prior to their extinction in the area shows a trend of declining age at maturation; this is contrary to what one would expect if they were experiencing stresses from an unfavorable environment, but is consistent with a reduction in intraspecific competition that would result from a population being reduced by human hunting." (Fisher, Daniel C. (2009). "Paleobiology and Extinction of Proboscideans in the Great Lakes Region of North America". In Haynes, Gary. American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene. Springer. pp. 55–75. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8793-6_4. ISBN 978-1-4020-8792-9.)
More insults. Are you telling me that you wouldn't recognize a penned up peccary as a pig? REALLY?
Again, you don't grasp the totality of the information and are trying to play lawyer with potential possible single incidents setting a precedence that defines "truth" ... BTW: peccaries were not domesticated.
That was your specification, not mine. I never claimed any such thing. Once again, you are lowering yourself to dramatics ("lying his head off"), and obfuscation ("when HE claimed that horses"). I don't need to show that there were horses in America during the Book of Mormon periods. You made the accusation; you need to support it with evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence. All I did was show that not every archaeologist agrees with the majority opinion, and that some do in fact believe there were horses here.
No ... now you are lying. The information that you provided did not indicate that there were any European horses in the New World after the Pleistocene extinction. That is what Smith claimed, that is what you claimed you could demonstrate ... massive failure on Smith's part, massive failure on your part, lies all the way round. Would it make you feel better if I referred to them as "prevarications?
I don't understand why telling the truth should lead you to ridicule me, or attack my character. Why make it personal? I don't know you from Adam. I only know what you yourself have told me about yourself.
I don't know you from Adam, hell ... I've never met Adam either. But I do know that what you are claiming is false and we have all seen that while you bluster and bloviate you can't come up with the goods. WHERE'S THE BEEF?
It does nothing of the sort. I believe in science.
But you deny science when it strikes at the heart of your belief system. You "believe" in science only when it is convenient, when it is not you obfuscate, lay down a smoke screen and try to sneak aground the science. WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Out of deference to you, I have tried to respond to all your accusations in a scientific manner.
And you have failed. WHERE'S THE BEEF?
I believe you are pushing science way past its limits. There is no way that science can tell us that not once in 5000 years, did a horse ever find its way to the American continent. You already admitted that you can't prove a negative, and conversely, can't prove that Joseph Smith was a liar.
There is nothing that can be proved, but I have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that Smith was a liar and that you can't support your claims. WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Which is the real world? I have seen miracles with mine own eyes. I think it is you who rely too much on your trained apologists.
If you can document a "miracle" go start another thread, I'm sure people would be interested.
I have no trained apolgists, you could at least come up with an accusation of your own, or answer my accusations rather than just trying to recycle them.
It has done flip flops - arguably while progressing. One doesn't preclude the other.
Science rarely flip-flops, it simply changes.
The Book of Mormon never mentions the Pleistocene, let alone tell us which animals went extinct. Setting that aside, for the moment, I am not the only one who believes the archaeological record to be sketchy.
Of course it doesn't if Smith had know about the Pleistocene and know about which animals went extinct then he would not have used species that we now know were not there in his fairy tale. That's what this thread is about.
"The fossil record's very incomplete, and just because the most recent remain is from 12,500 years ago, that doesn't mean that the horse became extinct at this time," (Andrew Solow of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, in a recent study)
Actually, it is you who have resigned from rational debate, as soon as you resorted to name calling and ridicule. This isn't personal - I don't even know you, yet somehow made you mad when I refuted your allegations with science. What happened to your love of science?
You've not "refuted my allegations with science" you've attempted, at every turn, to not answer them. This is a perfect example. I happen to know Andrew, he's a great guy, he's not an authority on this particular subject, he's a statistician not a paleontologist. But he's correct, and is couching his statement in the careful language of science. What you're doing is quote mining, using a single sentence to misrepresent an opinion held by someone. Andrew said, "The fossil record's very incomplete, and just because the most recent remain is from 12,500 years ago, that doesn't mean that the horse became extinct at this time." He's covering his butt on the off-chance that someone will find a slightly more recent bone from a tiny remnant population in some hidden valley somewhere, that in no way impacts Smith's massive ungulate fail ... much as you are trying to do with the rumors pf remnant members of the elephant clade. In point of fact, the Mastodon was gone 8,500 years ago, the Pygmy Mamoth was gone from the mainland 11,000 years ago and the Stegodons who were gone 12,000 years ago.
