Calling a common scientific consensus to be "bunk science" and offering your "proof" as an article that offers up as evidence-- a single eye-witness account from "the Carolinas" which is found among hundreds of accounts of Native American behavior that includes everything from devil worship to cannibalism (but the claim about seeing one guy on a horse one time fits the writer's agenda, so that's the one and only account to be called credible), "oral histories" that literally could have been made-up yesterday to fit their political agenda and just claimed to have been said for "countless generations" with no possible way to distinguish one from the other and.... a fossil found in one cave that could charitably be called a horse and was supposedly dated past when people thought they were extinct.
And the article itself puts the claim on exactly the same footing as the claim that Native Americans popped into existence out of thin air and are no way related to the rest of humanity because some scraps were found on a 100,000 year old mammoth bone that one scientist thought could have been made by some hominid species.
I really don't think you comprehend what "bunk science" is. It isn't "any science that goes against my creationist mythos". Singular eye witness testimony is never much evidence for anything-- and stories passed on 10th+ hand with no way to verify that it is even what was originally said is meaningless.
Horses are not inherently something related to Europeans. In fact-- both domesticated horse species in use today were domesticated by Asians. One was domesticated around 3500 BC in China and the other in 2000 BC in Mongolia and almost certainly done in response to the Chinese having horses. The thing is-- the last time migration by land was possible to the Americas was a full 10,000 years prior to either of those species being domesticated. And while domestication could have happened even earlier, 10,000 years earlier is quite a stretch. So unless there was a more recent migration of Mongolians into the Americas, they wouldn't have been able to bring horses. But-- if they did-- why did they not also bring over knowledge of how to make metals?
Which would mean that any supposed Native American horse species would have to be of an entirely separate lineage from both of the main two lineages. And 10,000 years more of genetic diversion would be super easy to verify with a simple genetic test. And not only that-- but that the Native Americans chose to domesticate the exact same genus of animal in the exact same way for the exact same purpose using the exact same tools independently of those who were doing it on the other side of the Pacific. So if we are to believe that any of these supposed Native American horse lineages that supposedly were bred in the thousands and spread across the entire continent are to have any descendants today, a simple genetic test would show conclusive evidence of this. If they were all extinct-- then there should be hundreds of skeletons of horses dating from 13,000 BC to 1200 AD. Not one bone found in one cave-- hundreds of virtually entirely intact skeletons scattered across the continent.
There have been found whole lineages of giant sloths as well as American cheetahs and camels, and giant versions of beavers, armadillos, wolves and bears-- how could the remains of all these animals be found multiple times, but no one has ever found the vast numbers of remains of horses? No-- let me guess-- it is some giant conspiratorial cover-up by the "scientific community" (as if scientists love anything more than to prove one another wrong) to hide the fact that creationism is real.
I am not opposed to the idea inherently-- but when someone throws down what is clearly, on its face, crap "science" and blatant creationist propaganda and think they have proved something-- that needs to be called out.
May as well believe that all ancient human sites were created by aliens or that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel or some other wild, unsupported idea because one guy claimed it once.
And-- you know-- on a certain level I get the suspicion on behalf of the tribes. After all-- U.S. schools aren't really in the habit of telling children that Native Americans had their own dog breeds or reasonably large cities and vast trade networks, or that Native Americans excelled at agriculture and were responsible for breeding many of the grains and vegetables that have become staple foods for people around the world. But-- thing is-- the scientific community never opposed any of those ideas, it was the politics of those who got to decide what got taught in school that decided to bury those things and only those who really focused on studying those particular fields that knew about it. But these are things that actually happened. Enough study has been done to uncover and demonstrate all of that. And yet.... what has never been found? Pre-1500s horse breeding and riding.
Going the other way and asserting that creation myths and tribal propaganda that no one can demonstrate wasn't just made up one day during the last 200 years are all necessarily true is insane. That is truly bunk. Just like every time the remains of anyone from prehistory is found, every single tribe claims that individual is their personal ancestor in order to further this agenda in claiming they have "always" been there-- as if it actually matters if they have lived in the region for 15,000 years or infinite years actually changes anything about their current situation at all.
I just didn't know if appendix E had some on it or what the major ones would be to add. Do you have some favorites?
