Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 3:59 AM
196 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,962 Year: 16,785/29,783 Month: 773/1,956 Week: 276/331 Day: 4/50 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II
CK
Member (Idle past 2077 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 31 of 62 (317676)
06-04-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 4:50 PM


Sherlock Knight and a case of identity
Watson turned to Sherlock Knight, the greatest armchair detective of the 21st century.

“Why Sherlock, what causes you to make such a connection? Between this Richard Rives chap and Tennessee R?”

The great detective turned from his PC and fixed his eyes upon Watson “ah! It should be so obvious but come, set down next to me and I will explain all!”

“You see – it all started with a coincidence, a small one but significant. I was editing the Wikipedia entry on Ron Wyatt when I happened to notice the following discussion on the talk page:

quote:
Citation needed

I removed this sentence:
"The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) have always been well aware of the excavations, and, while most of the permits were verbal only, between IAA and Ron Wyatt, the IAA have issued official permits to all WAR excavations since 2002."

Since the preceding paragraph quotes an offficial of the IAA saying that a qualification in archaeology is needed in order to excavate, and since Wyatt never had any qualificationS, and since so far as I can tell from the WAR website none of his followers do either, I'd like to see a citation for this claim before including it.

PiCo 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who put this sentance in. I have been in the meetings with the IAA when they issued us (WAR) permits, so I know. It is not neccesary to have a degree in archaeology to excavate in Israel. You must have a qualified archaeologist work with you. And we do. Issued by IAA themselves.

Tennessee R

Hi I think Wikipedia classes that as original research.

--Charlesknight 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


At the same time, a Tennessee R also appeared on the EVC forum and proceeded to defend the work of WAR and Ron Wyatt – I therefore felt it would be safe to assume that they are both the same person.

Watson looked sceptical,“well yes I can see the connection but how does that show that the chap happens to be Richard Rives or at the very least one of the Rives family”.

"Watson, in the old days, my predecer would have determined his inferences from examining a man’s walk, the quality of his hat and so on. In this modern age, I more able to act in the way of Mycroft Holmes and work from the comfort of my armchair”.

Knight drew deeply on his pipe and turned back to the computer,“come Watson – watch as I outline my reasoning”.

Sherlock pulled up the user talk page for Tennessee R.

“you will see Watson that he/she has been involved with updating the Christmas entry on Wikipedia. His actions there caused the following discussion to take place on the talk page associated with that username:

quote:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Christmas, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing!

Mushroom 02:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you. I am not sure if this is the right place to write this for you to see it? Anyway, it is an excerpt from my family's website, so it is okay. What should I do?

Hi Tennessee, here is how it works: first of all, the text has to be released under the GFDL license. This will give to everyone the right to use that text, redistribute it and modify it (all the content of Wikipedia is released under this license). You have to be sure you want to do this, since you will lose part of the rights on the text. The only other way to put it on Wikipedia would be to rewrite it using different words. Then, I will send a mail for confirmation to the website, I will forward the confirmation to Wikipedia and you will finally be able to use it. Let me know what you decide. Thank you.

Mushroom 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


“we can see from the Wikipedia page for christmas that he edited in the following:


[http://www.toolong.com/index.htm The segment above is excerpted from the book, "Too Long in the Sun" (Click for Link)]

“So who’s family site is this Knight? And who wrote the book “Too long in the Sun?” asked Watson

“well Watson, if we visit Amazon.com, we find the following:”


Too Long in the Sun (Paperback)
by Richard M. Rives
Publisher: partakers publishers

“Then a short trip to WHOIS reveals the following about the twolong site:


Richard Rives
(TOOLONG-COM-DOM)
Partakers Publications
P.O. Box 23031

“So you see Watson – although it might not be RR himself, clearly connected, now get me the needles”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 4:50 PM Tennessee R has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 8:23 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 06-05-2006 8:52 AM CK has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19665
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 32 of 62 (317683)
06-04-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 3:39 PM


Re: Rivet Analysis Finally
Have these 'marine nodules' been found on mountains? Simple question still not answered.

Frankly I don't know, nor do I really care. There are certainly many other marine nodules found on mountainsides, what their specific mineral content is I do not know, nor am I "wedded" to the idea that they are marine magnesium nodules: I just pointed this out as a possiblity. There are other naturally occurring round formations.

A google on "magnesium ore nodule" gives a number of possibilities

http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/NDNotes/concretions/concretions_h.htm

Siderite nodules are typically found in lignitic bentonitic, sediments and are often concentrated along certain horizons. They are especially common in the Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation.

... and magnesite (a normally chalk-like magnesium carbonate, MgCO3). That is, siderite, rhodochrosite, and magnesite are the pure end members and intermediate forms exist.

Now here are 3 'riveting' pictures of biotite nodules:
http://www.mindat.org/picshow.php?id=20488
http://www.mindat.org/picshow.php?id=53642
http://www.mindat.org/picshow.php?id=53643

Biotite is a volcanic ore (not necessarily marine) with certain interesting elements in its composition:

The Ordovician biotites separate into two groups, Mg and Ti biotites (Deicke and Ragland), and Fe and Mn biotites (Millbrig and Kinnekulle). Deicke biotite compositional averages (all wt%) are 11.76 MgO, 5.12 TiO2, 18.43 FeO*, and 0.22 MnO, and these exhibit more compositional variability in Al2O3 – FeO – MgO space than do biotites from the other three beds. Ragland biotite averages are 10.39 MgO, 5.37 TiO2, 18.65 FeO*, and 0.14 MnO, Millbrig biotite averages are 8.27 MgO, 3.68 TiO2, 24.45 FeO*, and 0.37 MnO, and Kinnekulle biotites averages are 7.68 MgO, 4.59 TiO2, 23.66 FeO*, and 0.32 MnO.

Cenozoic biotite that best matches the magnesian-titanian biotite of the Deicke and Ragland beds is in quartz phyric to quartz sparsely-phyric metaluminous to weakly peraluminous (based on Al/K+Na+Ca < or > 1), dacitic to trachytic calc-alkaline lavas. These are associated with subduction zone or hotspot volcanism and include lavas and tephras from volcanic arcs in Japan, Chile, Costa Rica, and Kamchatka, and the Yellowstone hot spot.

The "boatshape" formations that cover the mountainside are also of volcanic origin it appears.

However, this is not a game of "50 questions," it is one of substantiating the evidence -- {you\Wyatt} claim they are alloy rivets.

Prove it.

Show they are actually rivets by actual shape, and not some natural round object that happens to have some metallic elements in it and happens to look like a rivet if viewed from one and only one angle.

And should you come back with one instance, I might expect the photos, strata data, elemental analysis, cross-sections, and a sworn statement from at least three witnesses.

LOL. And it still wouldn't prove anything other than a possibility.

You on the other hand need to refute the idea that it can be ANY naturally occurring round formation, (normally by showing that they really have the shape of rivets from one end to the other).

Or else we all could conclude that someone stole a rivet from Noah's Ark and planted it on another mountain, couldn't we?

First establish that they really were rivets. THAT is the issue here. Then we can discuss various conspiracy theories.

TennesseeR, msg 19 writes:

Far from it. These are just a few 'facts'.

I notice that you didn't address the issue of there being a fleet of arks on that mountainside, of many different sizes, but all "boatshaped" eh?

And saying a boatshape is a boat is nothing but anecdotal evidence no matter what the coincidences are for size, (includes length) and location.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:39 PM Tennessee R has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5351
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 33 of 62 (317685)
06-04-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 2:35 PM


Re: Rivet Analysis Finally
Uhhhh...Tennessee? You're not a chemist, I presume, and neither was Wyatt, so you perhaps can be excused from not knowing this.


Click to enlarge

That's from your second link. There's no metal, as in a rivet, in there at all! There are only oxides and/or silicates and aluminates - "ores," maybe, in the vernacular. It looks like the analysis of some rock that is kin to clay minerals, with a speck more titanium than average thrown in. SiO2 is silicon dioxide - sand! Not normal rivit material, I'm sure you'll agree. And it makes up nearly half the sample.

You've been misled.

Edited by AdminJar, : size the image down


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 2:35 PM Tennessee R has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Belfry, posted 06-04-2006 7:40 PM Coragyps has responded

    
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3035 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 34 of 62 (317716)
06-04-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coragyps
06-04-2006 5:46 PM


Organic C in ark "wood"
Similarly misleading things can be found on the page describing the "first lab tests" of the supposed petrified wood.

quote:
Laboratory analysis was performed on artifact labeled "deck timber". Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee tested samples taken from within the "formation' and from without. All of the laboratory procedures were videotaped, including the taking the sample from the specimen, and the actual execution of the analyses.

Results of "inside" "outside" analysis:
The sample outside the formation showed a 1.88% carbon content; but the one from inside yielded a 4.95% carbon content, an amount that was consistent with the presence of prior living matter, such as decayed or petrified wood. It also showed a surprisingly high iron content.

Note:
Petrified wood is commonly known to contain organic carbon; but it is not known to be found in natural minerals. Compounds of carbon can be analyzed to determine whether they are composed of matter that was non-organic (non-living), or organic (living). Therefore, the one test to determine if an object was organic (once living), or not is to determine its organic carbon content.

Procedure:
Gail Hutchens, Vice President of Galbraith, suggested that they run an analysis for total carbon content. This would include both inorganic and organic. Then, they would test for inorganic Then, the two tests would be compared. By subtracting the amount of inorganic from the total amount, the amount of organic carbon would be determined.

Results of organic carbon testing:
The result was that it contained .71% total carbon. Inorganic carbon totalled .0081%. It contained .7019% ORGANIC CARBON- almost 100 times more organic than inorganic!


Now, I'm not a geologist. But I do know that while minerals, by definition, do not include organic carbon, ROCKS often do include it. Some sedimentary rock contains LOTS of it. Even volcanic rock can include it. For an actual chunk of fossil wood, I suspect that there would be considerably more than <1% organic C. So, trace amounts of OC in the sample do not particularly startle me.

Edited by Belfry, : changed to new subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2006 5:46 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2006 7:53 PM Belfry has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 8:28 PM Belfry has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5351
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 35 of 62 (317719)
06-04-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Belfry
06-04-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Organic C in ark "wood"
but the one from inside yielded a 4.95% carbon content, an amount that was consistent with the presence of prior living matter,

Or limestone, which is all inorganic carbon, though normally laid down a living source. It's 12% carbon when pure. Coal is maybe 60 to 70%. I'm very unimpressed so far.

Galbraith Labs, incidentally, is top-notch for elemental analysis: they did some for me in grad school. But they have no control over the samples they're sent, or of what the senders claim for those samples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Belfry, posted 06-04-2006 7:40 PM Belfry has not yet responded

    
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 62 (317722)
06-04-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by CK
06-04-2006 5:19 PM


Re: Sherlock Knight and a case of identity
I knew all of that from the start. I could have told you that right off. ;)

Okay, you are pretty good. But, you must admit, it still took you more than an hour to respond, whatever the reason may be. (And by this time, you know I'm joking with you) ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 06-04-2006 5:19 PM CK has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19665
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 37 of 62 (317724)
06-04-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Belfry
06-04-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Organic C in ark "wood"
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/COBWQ/info/TOC.html

Total Organic Carbon (TOC):

The TOC in Boulder Creek samples is analyzed at the U.S. Geological Survey on a Sievers Model 800 Carbon Analyzer. TOC concentration is not directly measured; the Analyzer measures total carbon (TC) and total inorganic carbon (TIC) and subtracts TIC from TC to obtain TOC. An oxidizer and an acid are added to the sample. The acid reacts with bicarbonate and carbonate ions present in the sample to release carbon dioxide (CO2). The CO2 released from bicarbonate and carbonate ions represents the TIC in the sample. The sample is then subjected to ultra-violet (UV) radiation, which reacts with the oxidant and breaks down all remaining carbon bonds in the sample to release CO2. The CO2 released from both the acid reaction and the UV radiation represents all the carbon (TC) released from the sample. TOC is then obtained by subtracting TIC from TC.

Looks like the distinction is one based on having assumed organic carbon in the sample, rather than any real chemical or physical difference in the atoms (duh?), so when you are dealing with a very small fraction you are not likely to get all the 'TIC' out with the acid.

//sensors-transducers.globalspec.com/ ... /Total_Organic_Carbon_Analyzers

Generally, all total organic carbon (TOC) analyzers employ the same basic technique. A liquid sample is initially introduced to an inorganic carbon (IC) removal stage, where acid is added to the sample. At this point the IC is converted into carbon dioxide gas that is stripped out of the liquid by a sparge carrier gas. The remaining inorganic carbon-free sample is then oxidized and the carbon dioxide generated from the oxidation process is directly related to the TOC in the sample.

The analysis methods total organic carbon analyzers use to oxidize and detect the organic carbon may be combustion, UV persulfate oxidation, ozone promoted, or UV fluorescence.

I certainly wouldn't say that 0.7% carbon in a sample would be sufficient to claim that the original substance was carbon based.

One has to wonder about the normal % error of these systems. And contamination.

Also see
http://www2.andrews.edu/~merling/newpage21.htm

The reader should know that I write this article sympathetically. Nothing would please me more than the finding of Noah's ark. I am a Bible student, an archaeologist, and a curator of an archaeological museum. The discovery of any ancient artifact is exciting for me, but the discovery of Noah's ark would be a singular event: undoubtedly, the most significant archaeological find in history. Also, like the majority of the readers of the Adventist Review I believe in the biblical story of the flood. How could I not be excited if such a relic was found?!

...within the formation (4.95%) and outside the formation (1.88%). ... What Wyatt does not tell his readers is that both of these carbon percentages fall within the normal bounds of soil. Such percentages do not show evidence of ancient wood.

And a lot more on the whole boatload of problems with this issue.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Belfry, posted 06-04-2006 7:40 PM Belfry has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3821 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 62 (317854)
06-05-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by CK
06-04-2006 5:19 PM


Re: Sherlock Knight and a case of identity
CK, sorry to butt in here, but you've pinged one of my pet peeves. No one cares WHO "Tennessee R" actually is, any more than who Quetzal actually is. AFAICT, he has not misrepresented himself in any way. Sure, he's trying to support the unsupportable, but it really doesn't matter to the argument whether he's Ron Wyatt reincarnated. Do me a favor and drop the "identity check" line?

Thanks.

Quetzal: "The anonymous internet bird".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by CK, posted 06-04-2006 5:19 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 9:10 AM Quetzal has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2077 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 39 of 62 (317862)
06-05-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Quetzal
06-05-2006 8:52 AM


I reject your suggestion
Of course it makes a difference who he is to "the argument" for a number of reasons. If he was just Joe Blow and he's been reading the WAR site, I'd agree that it's not relevent.

If he's on the "outter" of the organization then we can forgive his knowledge of various subjects being shakey and again it's not particular relevent.

It's an entirely different matter if he is Richard Rives who is quoted as

quote:
After finishing their work at the Noah's Ark site, they traveled on to Israel. Richard has worked closely with Ron Wyatt at various archaeological sites in Turkey, Israel, the Middle East and Egypt and has been involved with the technical analysis of the artifacts collected.

If he is Richard Rives, it's an entirely relevent line of questioning to establish why he is so vague on the science and the technical details of the work that was done. The use of an alias in such a case is an attempt to have it both ways, to allow for the production of evidence and then go "gosh who knows I'm no scientist!, I'd have to check" when called upon it.

Its therefore entirely relevant to wonder why the person who is associated with much of the technical analysis is either clueless about science or the techniques used to perform the analysis.

I therefore reject your analysis that it's not relevent -as it goes to the heart of the credibility of WAR and the people connected to it.

(and as an aside - unless you are posting using a pay as you go mobile phone as a dialer to a old laptop you purchased with cash - you are not anonymous.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 06-05-2006 8:52 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 06-05-2006 9:57 AM CK has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 62 (317865)
06-05-2006 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 3:00 PM


Re: On the Flood and the Ark
quote:
In my very simple opinion (and without going into complicated analytical theories), either the Bible is true or not.

Define "true".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:00 PM Tennessee R has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 62 (317868)
06-05-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 3:14 PM


Re: evidence of ??? what?
quote:
These are just a few 'facts'. Actual facts that cannot be debated by anyone reasonable. Everyone here kept finding problems with the scientific data, I just gave a few undisputable facts. Never called it evidence.

I am confused, then.

Why did you mention these facts if they were not to constitute some kind of support for Wyatt's claims?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:14 PM Tennessee R has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3821 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 62 (317887)
06-05-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CK
06-05-2006 9:10 AM


Re: I reject your suggestion
(and as an aside - unless you are posting using a pay as you go mobile phone as a dialer to a old laptop you purchased with cash - you are not anonymous.)

Of course not. In fact, I know of two people on this forum who have actually seen my house using satellite imagery. :D OTOH, this is the first time I've seen someone's "credentials" being questioned when that individual didn't first try and use them as an argument in favor of their position (a la inkorrekt, etc).

Anyway, carry on, please. I'm enjoying the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 9:10 AM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 11:44 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2077 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 43 of 62 (317929)
06-05-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Quetzal
06-05-2006 9:57 AM


OT: Hi Lurkers!
quote:
OTOH, this is the first time I've seen someone's "credentials" being questioned when that individual didn't first try and use them as an argument in favor of their position (a la inkorrekt, etc).

To an extent, you are right about this. However the truth of the matter is that while I stick within the forum guidelines, I have no interest or motivation in trying to convince anyone here of the wrongness of their position. It's a complete waste of time and resources.

The people who post here are those (on both sides) who are already convinced of their "rightness" and while we sometimes see some minor shifts (generally in scientific terms and away from literal creation science), most of the long-term posters are complete entrenched.

The weaker ones on the creationist side will disappear very quickly once it becomes clear that a) "Hey I don't know what I'm talking about!" and b) "Hey if I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe the rest of it is nonsense as well - geez that's scary, better stop going to that site" (information blunting).

The important battle is here is for the hearts and minds of the lurkers and those who end up here via google or other mechanisms. I'd like to say that facts and evidence are the important aspects of the battle but for those people, it needs to be simple and it needs to be straight forward - those who want a more complex explanation will generally join in with the debate.

We keep talking about how scientists doing their debate via peer review rather than internet forum, it's true and it's also an illustration that science is a complex business and one that the average man in the street will struggle to get a grasp of without a significant investment of time. It's why the creationists are so effective on the internet - they pitch their material at the right level (it's irrelevant to an extent that it's made-up!).

Therefore there needs to be a level of discourse on those boards pitched at people with little or no experience or understanding of the sciences or the atheist/theist debate. Iano also digs me for my relatively short posts - but it's entirely intentional, I occassionally write long posts but will delete them and replace them with something much shorter.

The truth of the matter is that most of the lurkers will skip straight past the long posts for a varity of reasons (This is not off the top of my head, my real-world "expertise" is around the information-seeking behaviour of individuals and organizations. Therefore I have a fair idea of the process and the best mechanisms to attract attention). It's at this problem perpection level that I am trying to reach the lurkers - when they are still trying to define their source selection criteria.

At that level, it's more useful to try and get them to consider the source rather than what the source is saying/providing as evidence. The "education" in the relevence of the evidence is already provided by people like Razd, wounded king and others. People will seek out that information when they feel able to cope with it.

That's why as a element of any debate it is useful to question the motivations and backgrounds of the organizations that what they are actually saying.

Am I attacking the messenger? No I'm just highlighting aspects of their expertise and their bias that the reader should consider. It's an attempt to act out what in social cognitive theory terms is termed as "behaviour modeling". Many of the lurkers on here would struggle to replicate the questioning techniques of RAZD or Wounded King or many of the others in terms of evidence but attempting to model the lurkers behaviour in terms of source selection is slightly straight forward.

Let me give a practical example not associated with WAR to finish.

If someone starts discussing a piece from ICR as evidence of a young earth (Rapid Metamorphism of Rocks for example) - there are lots of people to attack such an account at a scientific level. A level that goes straight over the head of many people. However, if you point them to

The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and the fall of man, the curse on the creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal, man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.

Many of the non-literalists will then read that and dismiss that site as a source.

Now I know to an extent that goes again the concept of "debate the evidence not the provider" that many people here to stick by but I can see how the world is going and I'm more interesting in ensuring that the fundmentalist agenda is exposed far and wide. So full-spectrum warfare it is!

(I've used Lurkers as a very broad post in there but in reality I'm talking about the people who are only casually considering those issues or just starting to think about them).

Edited by CK, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 06-05-2006 9:57 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2006 1:12 PM CK has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-05-2006 1:40 PM CK has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 62 (317956)
06-05-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by CK
06-05-2006 11:44 AM


Re: OT: Hi Lurkers!
The people who post here are those (on both sides) who are already convinced of their "rightness" and while we sometimes see some minor shifts (generally in scientific terms and away from literal creation science), most of the long-term posters are complete entrenched.

i want to contradict this, slightly. i can't speak for other members, but i can speak for myself. one of the threads brought up recently was started a while ago, and contains a post or two mine from two year ago.

so i had the opportunity to see how my own views had changed in that time. and it was much more than i thought.

The important battle is here is for the hearts and minds of the lurkers and those who end up here via google or other mechanisms.

maybe i'm abnormal, but i'm here for myself. i'm here so i think about things, so i learn new things, and so i refine my arguments and beliefs the hard way -- by grinding them against those of others. i consider this sort of thing quite vital. otherwise i sit content in my knowledge and convinced of my own correctness.

from the lurker's point of view, i fear i may be misrepresented. even phat was suprised when i trotted out and displayed my former fundamentalist colors. i argue what i think are good arguments, often for the sake of argument alone. simply testing HOW good the argument is. often (though i try to indicate it) i will actually argue points contrary to my own belief. i find it very entertaining and educational.

Am I attacking the messenger? No I'm just highlighting aspects of their expertise and their bias that the reader should consider.

there was a debate a few months back where i dismissed something from aig out of hand, saying that aig was not an honest or reputable source regarding the bible. i was accused, of course, of an ad-hominem attack. probably rightly so -- but i had to explain that the sheer number of times i have caught them in falsehoods and distortions in attempts at apology has lead me to believe that they do not intend to be honest at all. if a source continually misrepresents things, it's wise to be skeptical of their material in general.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CK, posted 06-05-2006 11:44 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 45 of 62 (317965)
06-05-2006 1:27 PM


Please hold off on the off-topic messages
I'm going to spin-off the (Minnemooseus POTM nominated) topic that is triggering drift. Once there, please move existing replies and any new replies to that location.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC


    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018