Re: Real Scholarship

On Jun 11, 12:37 pm, DJT <mousede...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:05 pm, m...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snipping

Silly plonker. The formation is natural, it has nothing whatsoever to
do with Ron 'The Con' Wyatt.

There has been no scientific study written that proves that.

Except for:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

I already told you several times (and you've continued to ignore them,
namely, that Lorence Collins repudiated his view. Not only that but
David Fasold wrote on alt.atheism that anyone who claims that the site
is a syncline (folded rock of a sort), has never seen the site. Of
course, if you contact Collins today he will tell you that he has nver
been to the site. Go ahead, give him a call.





In case
you're going to cite Lorence Collin's Article, you need to know that
it wasn't published in a professional hard geology publication,

It was, however, published in a scientific journal, which is more than
Wyatt ever even attempted.

It was on philosophy.



and
second, he repudiated his view, namely, his view that the site was
folded rock called a syncline.

Where is there evidence the "repudiated" this view?

Dude, do a web search and put Jim Lippard and Ian Plimer into the
search. Apparently Ian Plimer, too had accepted the Syncline theory
but later repudiated that and accepted the allothonous block theory as
did Collins. Where have you been, dude? Surfn'?



You're quite wrong on that ol' chap. '

Like usual, it's you who is wrong, yet again. Also, see:

Guner, Y., 1986, Is Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat? Geomorphological
development on
the Dogubayazit-Telceker landslide which is assumed to be related to
Noah's Ark: Jeomorfoloji, Dergisi, v. 14, p. 27-37.


that's not a real study. It's a summation of opinions. The man
misinterprets also, the views of Baumgardner and Bayracktutan so his
article was dud. A real study includes metal detectors and radar, and
note that he did neither.

In case you want to prove other wise, cite just one, just one point in
his article that shows that he actually did anything on the site.



snip

Was the expedition organized and led by Ron 'The Con' Wyatt? Yes or
No?

Before I answer that question, let me ask you a question. Is guilt by
association a logic fallacy?

Yes, and no matter how many times you use it, it's still a fallacy.
Note that what Bob is doing is not "guilt by association". Bob is
pointing out that it was Wyatt's expedition, and anyone's actions at
the site are Wyatt's responsibility.

That's guilt by association. Fasold smokes so does that make Wyatt an
endorser of smoking? Fasold uses MFD's so does that make Wyatt
responsible for the MFD? NO!







let me ask another question, did Ron
Wyatt own the molecular frequency generator?

That doesn't matter. He used it in his "results", which queers the
whole deal.

Yes, or no? Did Wyatt OWN the molecular frequency generator?




Now, yes, Ron Wyatt did purchase the tickets and David Fasold wanted
Wyatt to bring him to the site. So what of it?

It means that Wyatt didn't use science, he used wishful thinking.
snip

Guilt by association.

Guilt of not attributing proper association. This means that you will
NOT acknowledge the metal and the radar scan results.





Oh dear, how can such a stupid person as you manage to survive outside
an institution?

Just above you used the "guilt by association" logic error and you
expect anyone to buy that?

No, he did not. It's not association with Fashold that taints Wyatt,
it's his lack of scientific regimen.

Guilt by association.





I guess you're stuck in the Egyptian bronze age but you need
to expand your awareness.

You are the one stuck McClueless - stuck with utter stupidity.

And so what if you cling to a logic error. I guess that is OK.

Your entire case is built on logical fallacies.

Guilt by association.



snip
.



Sorry McClueless, you can stamp you feet all you want but the experts
can, and have. All you need to do is go to this websitehttp://www.ironsmelting.net/www/smelting/index.htmlandclickon
"history" in the left hand column. It just couldn't be easier.

There is no consensus on the origin of iron.

There is a consensus, however on when the "iron age" began. The
amount of iron supposedly used by your Noah is impossible to account
for before the technology to smelt iron was invented.

Smelting of Iron goes back a long ways.



There is only the
discussion of the widespread use and proliferation of iron.

And it post dates the supposed "Ark" by thousands of years.

As told
you before, primitive African tribes have been known to practice
metallurgy.

Having learned it from others who had already invented it.

That hasn't been documented. Neither any explanation as to why some
American Indians had fine jewelry. None of this has been documented
and there is no paper trail. And of course you are the one who
acknowledged the fact that the American Indians had iron. So how did
they know?



The use of iron is a rather obscure thing, and it's use
has been documented as far as 4000 years ago.

Use of small scale native iron from meterorites, yes. The widespread
use of large amounts of iron was only possible for the last few
thousand years. The amount of iron you claim to be in the "Ark" is
too much to have existed.

Iron has always been available. you just need to be in the right
location.







I
have a picture of native African tribesman working with his primitive
foundry.

So?

It's important to know because you CANNOT trace the use of iron.

But you can trace the widespread use and manufacture of iron.
Smelting iron is difficult, and leaves behind lots of evidence. The
amounts of iron needed vastly outstrips the ability of bronze age
technology to produce.

4000 years ago the iron would long have rusted. Working with a metal
detector occassionally you come across signals that were evidently of
severely rusted items that just crumble as you look for them. And of
course you come across a lot of coins that have been severely
distorted due to weathering.


These tribes have no written documentation. There is no paper trail.

Yet those tribes undoubtedly derived their iron working techniques
from other cultures who had already invented iron smelting. You
can't simply point out that modern day low technology tribes use iron
to mean that iron making is a low technology skill.

That's an assumption of yours. My point is that the process is
UNDOCUMENTED as acknowledged by historians and also that the process
is easily be done using primitive methods.







None of this has been documented

Of course they have.

Sure, and I'll go to the remote African tribes and ask access to
their libraries.

What has been documented is the spread of iron smelting technology
developed after the bronze age.


You mean the widespread use of iron. But sure, there are no libraries
in African tribe villages.









and there is no paper
trail. Every historian agrees that you can't establish the beginning
date of the use of iron.

Use of iron, no. That goes way back into pre-history. Use of large
amounts of iron, which requires smelting, that only started in the
very late bronze age - 20 centuries after your mythical Noah.

How much iron is dependent upon how much one works to produce it. An
African guy need only produce a hammer or some nails and that's all
he'll need. That's all he'll make. A person like Noah may need
more, so he goes to Tubal Cain and asks him to make a lot and sell it
to him, to which Tubal Cain goes "cha-ching."

What evidence do you have that "Tubal Cain" even existed, much less
had access to large amount of iron? Also, why didn't Noah take
Tubal on the boat with him, or why didn't Tubal make his own boat, if
he had access to that much iron? Where is the evidence of
pre-"flood" iron making industries? Where is the charcoal pits, the
vast amounts of slag, etc?

Anything from the preflood world would have been swept up by flood
related phenomena including "plucking." That is rushing water would
literally pluck a rock from the bottom through suction like
phenomena. Second the objects would be contorted and broken. third,
the objects would be subject to separation. Components broken down and
removed. Fourth, the objects, namely the heavier objects would find
burial. Fifth, objects would suffer weathering and erosion. Maybe
rust, streams of water breaking pieces apart and rounding edges. Or
parts carried down stream to be endlessly reshaped. Rust would do
the most heavy damage. And of course all iron that is left above is
rapidly collected and melted down. It is well known that recycling
was law in Mesopotamia. it is altogether possible that much iron is
in the form of some tool in some remote part of Turkey that has been
melted down and reconfigured many hundreds of years from one
descendent passed to another.




snip

So Ron 'The Con' Wyatt never mounted an expedition?

Sir, your error is guilt by association.

No, his only error is attempting to talk sense to you.

The real question is, has
there been a pattern of iron found on Noah's Ark.

The answer to that is "no". There is no "Noah's Ark" and no known
"pattern of iron" identified as such. Some questionable metal
detector readings, dowsing rods, and botched GPR don't make a "pattern
of iron".

Note that you have said no and also when i ask you if you have seen
the 1985-6 Noah's Ark Field Studies video, you say no. And also note
that you are very eager to add "dowsing rods" into every sentence that
you utter. This is guilt by association.




You haven't
answered that question.

It's been answered many times over. You just don't like the
conclusion.

snip what was ignored.

I ignored it because it was redundant and the salient points were
dealt with.

JM




DJT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Real Scholarship
    ... do with Ron 'The Con' Wyatt. ... Claiming that large amounts of iron were available 2,000 years before ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Real Scholarship
    ... do with Ron 'The Con' Wyatt. ... Wyatt ever even attempted. ... however on when the "iron age" began. ... amounts of iron needed vastly outstrips the ability of bronze age ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Real Scholarship
    ... I don't use tactics ye olde one. ... Wyatt ever even attempted. ... that magically caused Dr. john Baumgardner's metal detector to ... for before the technology to smelt iron was invented. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Real Scholarship
    ... Wyatt ever even attempted. ... Guner, Y., 1986, Is Noah's ark on Mt. ... for before the technology to smelt iron was invented. ... The amount of iron you claim to be in the "Ark" is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Real Scholarship
    ... Wyatt ever even attempted. ... that magically caused Dr. john Baumgardner's metal detector to ... for before the technology to smelt iron was invented. ... Long before these aforesaid geologists arrived on the scene, ...
    (talk.origins)