|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
TR said writes: Please give sources, evidence, at least tell us what you are talking about. war site writes: Ron Wyatt, Dave Fassold and John Baumgardner surveyed the site with metal detectors and located a specimen which had the appearance of "wrought iron." It was reported by Dave Fassold that the semi -quantitative analysis of the iron samples, which was arranged by John Baumgardner, found them to contain from 60 percent to 91.84 percent FE2O3. http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-06.htm So why does John Baumgardner make such statements as:
quote: quote: Letter from John Baumgardner regarding Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat Are we to conclude that JB is lying? Deluded? In some ways the Ark is one of the more believable of Wyatt's scams - the Blood of Jesus one always gets me giggling - I had tears of laughter rolling down my face the first time I read it. Edited by CK, : Fixed dbcode error Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Oh no - Richard is not some "lackey" - Richard Rives is the boss - he's the president of WAR inc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Oh my mistake - you must be David then.
Because you know - Richard Rives talks about how he moved to Tennessee and over at Wikipedia you claim:
quote: So from what we know about the people on the digs - connected to WAR, lives in Tennessee, has R for a surname... Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Oh we know much more than that, the internet is a wonderful place full of fingerprints - give me ten minutes and we can see a work from the casebook of Sherlock Knight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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: 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: “we can see from the Wikipedia page for christmas that he edited in the following:
[Page not found – Too Long in the Sun – Richard Rives 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”.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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: 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Good god - A university has accepted that as a dissertation? Honestly? Where is it? Is it a diploma mill? Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
well how about we discuss the MFG... why don't you explain it to people who have never heard about such a wonderful tool? and how it was used by Wyatt in his "investigations"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: What conclusions? Are you unwilling or able to explain the MFG and how it was used? You support people having a full picture of what went on don't you? So let's start with the MFG. Once we have discussed that we can move onto the other methods and methodologies employed. That way we can arrive at a complete picture and context. Edited by CK, : No reason given. Edited by CK, : No reason given. Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
from the link that Lysimachus gave:
Lysimachus writes: Although carbon dating can be utilized up to 50,000 years, admittedly Geochron Laboratory in America refuses to use carbon 14 dating beyond 3000 years, claiming it is unreliable beyond that. They will not tell you this specifically on their website, but they have made this known in no uncertain terms. “50,000? years would be the alleged maximum to give any sort of interpretable results at all, but only concrete reliability within 3000 years. Beyond approx. 50,000, complete inaccuracy ensues. But even the existence of “50,000? years is imaginary, since when can one tell how old an object is until Carbon 14 testing is employed? If you are willing to learn more on this subject, read the following links: Another poster there replied:
Steve Forden writes: This is completely and utterly false. Geochron would not say that 3000 years is the reliability of radiocarbon; you are either lying or have misunderstood what they have said. The reliability of radiocarbon can be demonstrated by comparison with independent, non radiometric, dating techniques. If you don't like this, its your problem. Oh and by the way, there are other ways to determine whether something is 50ka than C-14. Anyone with a better understanding of the subject than me want to expand on this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
So you admit that the MFG is bunk and we can move onto the other methods uses and dicuss those in detail?
If you don't think it's bunk - please explain the principles it does work on. It might seems I'm being picky but it all goes to context and credibility. So is the MFG bunk or do you want to explain to the viewers at home how it works?
quote: and what did this instrument show? where can I see the images from it? EDIT - you really don't come out of that thread you link to at all well. Suggesting that it's a good thing to murder babies?
quote: Further edit: - that link really is a goldmine of good information - people should check out this page: Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion Board Many thanks for bring this damning discussion to our attention (not sure it was your intention however...) Edited by CK, : No reason given. Edited by CK, : No reason given. Edited by CK, : No reason given. Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024