Simply put I called you guys a liar. Whether or not you want to make
a side-point a matter of contention is obviously not relevant to the
arguments I made in support of Noah's Ark.
>
>
>
> > 1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.
>
> James Iwrin found no evidence of an Ark. "I've done all I possibly
> can," he said, "but the Ark continues to elude us"
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jbirwin.htm
Here Drafterman shoots himself in the foot. He claims that James Irwin
found no evidence of an Ark and quotes Irwin. The problem is, I said
in the above point, number one, that Jim Irwin merely substantiated a
pattern of iron at the site. This is proven by his statement in this
short video clip:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkSn9dBavQ
In no way did I say that Jim Irwin EVER claimed that Noah's Ark was
found. In fact, the only thing that Irwin did claim was that the
pattern seemed to indicate that the Durupinar formation was manmade.
There is no evidence to show that Jim Irwin ever considered the full
evidence in regard to the Durupinar site. In fact, the evidence shows
that Jim Irwin was already committed to find the Ark on Mt Ararat, a
fact that Drafterman suppressed (if he didn't suppress that fact he
was ignorant of the fact- and that looks bad for him.
At anyrate, we know this much:
Fact: Pattern of Iron.
Opinion: Jim Irwin "I never found the Ark."
So Drafterman uses Jim Irwin's opinion in regard to Noah's Ark against
the fact that there is a pattern of iron at the Durupinar site. So
opinion versus fact.
Drafterman fails basing his views on opinion and not fact.
>
> > 2. Baumgardner found a pattern of iron on the site.
> > 3. Radar shows ribbing.
>
> The formation "discovered" by Baumgardner and Wyatt is a natural
> formation.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
Drafterman, here, cites the work of a "Lorence Collins."
1. Collins never did a study of the Durupinar site.
2. Collins has never been to Turkey.
3. Collins erroneously claims that the formation is made of rock.
Further:
In the Journal of Geoscience, Education, volume 44, 1996, p.42, there
is a drawing of what is supposedly a representation of the Duripinar
site, a boat shaped formation that is located some 14 miles south of
Mt Ararat. Collins' chart depicts this formation as a natural eroded
syncline. Unfortunately, for Collins, this chart was a total
fabrication. Even his co-writer David Fasold says it was fabricated.
Collin's syncline theory was merely a presupposition. On page 443 we
read: "Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses
demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely
natural rock formation." David Fasold, his cowriter, on the other had
admittedly said:
"THE ARTICLE I WROTE WITH LARRY COLLINS PRESUPPOSES IT'S A SYNCLINE
AND HOW IT WOULD SOLVE THE RIDDLE, BUT FOUR OTHER GEOLOGISTS SAY IT'S
NOT A SYNCLINE. (IT'S NOT FOLDED ROCK BY THE WAY AND THERE IS NO
SHISTOSITY DOWN THE MIDDLE) IT'S JUST SOMETHING COVERED IN MUD. "
- David Fasold
1998/03/20
alt.atheism
How could Larry Collins have described the formation as being a
natural rock formation? The facts are simple, anyone can write
anything they want, without regard for accountability. And having a
Ph.D makes no difference and is no guarantee that said writing will be
anything but fictitious. But the fact is, if you contacted Mr Collins
today, on the phone, or even by mail, he would honestly admit to you
that he never went to the Duripinar site. Yet, the article somehow
found it's way into the Journal of Geoscience Education. Collins
violated a rule of science. Science is about observation and accuracy
of information. Without that direct observation, Collins was violating
that rule.
"PEOPLE WHO POP-OFF THAT IT'S A SYNCLINE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. "
- David Fasold
1998/03/20
alt.atheism
Collins gives a naturalistic explanation to the "thirteen lines of
limonite, marking supposed walls" that converge toward the structure's
pointed end[s]." It behooves us to remind the untrained layman, that
limonite is an oxidized form of iron. And as many are aware, iron was
used in the preflood world, according to the Bible. The coincidence
that Collins finds in the pattern of limonite being similar to that
found on a boat doesn't lead him to support this as a manmade
structure, because he says:
"I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed
by natural processes."
"Could be's" form a part of presupposition and speculation. In
reality, there are cracks that are found in the Duripinar site. An
earthquake in 1978 formed a crack along the top deck. This cuts across
partly from across the top deck from rear almost to prow but veers
starboard. Even an earthquake could not produce the even lines, or
cracks that Collins speculates on being the cause of these evenly
space limonite (iron) deposits. At least Collins readily agree that
there is a pattern of iron there.
One thing that Collins is not pointing out, is that iron changes
composition in exposure to air and water. It becomes rust and
limonite. He criticizes an "iron bracket" that was discovered by Dr.
John Baumgardner as being not consistant with iron forged out of a
priimitive smelter, because it was thorougly mixed with clay, quartz,
calcite , and anthophyllite particles, but would have been solid iron.
It's hard to imagine a 4000 year old vessel containing pristine
undecomposed iron, but a ready explanation is that much of the iron
rusted, and like the process involved with petrification, holes in the
iron were replaced with quartz, calcite and a host of other particles.
We would not expect to find a 4000 year old piece of iron buried in
the mud in a perfect state of preservation, in other words.
But I would think that if Collins wanted to make a point, he would
discover a place on earth somewhere, where one could find a pattern of
iron that match the ones with rigidity as the pattern that is found at
the Duripinar site. If he can show that nature can and has duplicated
such a fantastic feat, producing even iron spacings that go vertically
up a plane and even on the sides of a surrounding wall, we would be
impressed.
>
> > 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.
>
> When asked why it had to be a ship, he replied, "because there is no
> other explanation."
> This is hardly the basis for any sort of argument. Because a single
> person can't think of another explanation, doesn't mean squat.
What Ekrem Akurgal said was that the object was a ship.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UM8BuKm7CNI
So your tampering with the words I wrote is disingenuous.
>
> > 5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.
>
> So?
>
> Essentially all you have put forth is that some pattern has a ship-
> like shape. You, nor anyone else, has done any sort of connection that
> the pattern is an actual ship, rather than just a ship-shaped object
> or formation. You, nor anyone else, has shown, that if it is an actual
> ship, that it MUST be Noah's Ark.
What I have put forth is the shape is 1. that of a ship:
http://www.anchorstone.com/images/u2_small.jpg
That there is a pattern or iron, the sort you would expect if it were
a ship:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEydyhk2wE
This is a fact that you haven't even commented on.
>
> So, again, you have presented no argument to debunk because you have
> presented no argument. You are drawing conclusions from things that
> are not conclusive. You are asking us to punch holes in something
> which is basically one big hula hoop and when we scratch our heads
> wondering how exactly this "argument" can be demolished any more you
> turn around and declare yourself the winner.
Actually I have presented several lines of argument. Jim Irwin said
there was a pattern of iron there. World famous archeologist said that
the formation is a ship. The pattern is such that would expect to
find if it were a ship.
On the other hand you have merely argued in a vague manner stating,
"you have presented no evidence." In other words you have made no
claims in regard to the evidence.
In regard to the pattern of iron, you argument could be: 1. There is
no pattern of iron, Irwin lied. Or, 2. It's just lucky chance that the
pattern is that of a ship, on a ship like shape. 3. I can site
several examples, in the Journal of Micky Mouse they found 5 natural
rock boat shapes that coincidentally have a pattern of iron that fits
that of a ship. They are found at Disney World, Disney Land, Epcot
Center, Disney in Japan....
The best you could do was to cite a geologist from California, a man
who:
1. Never went to the site
2. Who's cowriter says that the formation isn't rock and that Collins
presupposed that it was rock.
That's pretty sad if that's the best you can do.
JM