Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II

If no one explained, all threads are cut off at 300 posts. This serves several purposes, not the least of which is whether anything new can be said after 300 posts (and for a lot of threads that happens much sooner). It also cuts off any off-topic discussions, so it tends to re-focus thoughts, and if there is still need to continue, then a new thread can start clean.I only got one post in before it was closed, and did not reply directly to you in that one, so I will take the opportunity now to say "welcome to the fray".I understand you work in some capacity for the "Wyatt Museum" -- good, then you can verify things with the "Museum" eh? You will forgive me for using the quotes, but anyone can call any kind of collection a "museum" these days. I took this to mean alloys made up of these materials, but that your wording was a little sloppy.The first thing I thought of even before I saw the picture was a marine nodule, well known for concentrating certain materials into round objects, see Wikipedia Article on Marine Nodules (quote captured 6/4/06): Round, concentrates manganese, makes formations like the ones in the pictures that you don't want to disturb ... perhaps NOT because they will fall apart but because something else will - the riveting theory? Kind of hard to say that round balls are rivets eh? Archeologists are experienced at removing debris from much more delicate objects, so he could have called in an expert to do the work for him ... if he wanted to know. Whenever I see an excuse like this my first impression is (thanks jar):
My signature actually means what it says.Actually I've actually been through the actual "story" before, so I actually might actually know more actually than you actually think I actually do. I've seen pictures from the air of the site showing the "boat shaped object" ... and several others (was there a fleet?), and I've seen pictures from ground level. None of them impress me as either being remains of a bonafide boat or of any special significance. Significance comes from doing real science on the artifacts, and so far this is missing.Fossils are found on the surface all the time and they are still related to the stratum on which they are found. Relationships between objects are more important than the objects themselves in most of archaeology, and removing stuff to put in museums is doesn't accomplish that. It's poor science, done like the early dinosaur hunters that possibly destroyed more information than they collected."Lucy" is one example of such a surface find, and so are the resently discovered Tiktaalik rosea fossils, so making this claim as an excuse for lack of strata information is BOGUS. Presumably you mean the "Wyatt Museum" topic, and not the questions about rivets, petrified wood and moon pools. Nope. It, especially combined with the rocks on the cantelevered beams, would tend to help the vessel sink.Of course, with the information you have on hand of the actual remains of the actual vessel that was actually afloat (according to the actual theory here), it should be pretty easy to confirm or refute the existence of large opennings in the bottom of the hull eh?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.

My, what a compilation of anecdotal "evidence" Or just pick the one geological artifact that you think you can sell the easiest out of all the possiblities:
(click to see full size)
from Noah's Ark Search - Mount AraratWas there a fleet? Tombstones of what age? If the images are clearly discernable they can't be that old eh? Or is it much more likely that the "tombstones" and the "byzantine style crosses" were ADDED at the same time?"Drogue stones" must of course appear in the bible too, right (I must have missed it, but then I am no scholar on that book: enlighten me)?Otherwise they cannot be evidence of a biblical connection eh? Just of Wyatts imagination. Oh gosh, that really settles it. None of these have anything to do with verifying that we are really talking about a boat and not a common geological formation that looks enough like one to fool the gullible.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.

They are a natural artifact, one of many ways such things can be formed. Similar can be formed by volcanic action when magma balls are thrown from the caldera area.The point is that nothing here really shows these to be rivets and NOT some natural formation.It should be easy to refute them being some rounded natural formation -- a cross-section that shows a clear flattened head, shaft like body and flattened tail of a rivet.If it looks like a ball, walks like a ball and talks like a ball, then it is most likely that it is a ball like structure, and NOT a rivet. So? there are seashells on the tops of mountains too. There are geological reasons for marine sediments, seashells and marine fossils to be found on mountains, consistent with the evidence we have of plate tectonics.And this does not even begin to address the issue of the verification of the rivets as objects found in the vicinity of the purported ark formation.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.

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 possibilitiesNorth Dakota Geologic Survey Now here are 3 'riveting' pictures of biotite nodules:
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
Just a moment...Biotite is a volcanic ore (not necessarily marine) with certain interesting elements in its composition: 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. 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). First establish that they really were rivets. THAT is the issue here. Then we can discuss various conspiracy theories. 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.

BASIN: General Information on Total Organic Carbon 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 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 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.

Cop-out. Either you have substantiating evidence or your 'argument' is just an(other) string of assertions. I don't expect others to dig through old posts to try to ascertain my points, so I think this is just trying to avoid really dealing with the issue.And btw, the way they calibrate the age is by counting the years of known systems and comparing them to the 14C results ... which if your argument were anywhere near correct should result in a scatter plot instead of a nearly linear distribution.The two lines pretty well define max\min boundaries for the results as well.But it's not just that -- it's all the correlations of all the dating methods by different systems that would have no other reason to give the same results.Try {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)< !--UE-->And see if you can provide the evidence that has so far been lacking from creationists that shows how all these systems result in not just errors but the same errors.Enjoy.

---

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

---

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

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.