Re: Science vs Scholarship and the Newport Tower

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:37:17 GMT, "David B." <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Peter Alaca wrote:
"David B." <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ilx6j.983$eU4.223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think we have here a case of two wrongs not making a right. Eric
mentioned "historical records" as well as "archaeological findings".
The archaeology (now strengthened by the discovery of "numerous
ceramic, glass and metal artifacts from the late 17th century" in the
latest digs) offers no evidence that the tower was built BEFORE the
second half of the 17th century; the historical records offer evidence
that a stone mill tower did exist there BY (but again, not BEFORE) the
late 17th century. Taken together, they strongly imply that the Tower
was built IN the second half of the 17th century; the hypothesis that
Eric refers to.

No, unless the material is clearly related to the NT.
17th c material can also be found without a building
on the site.

The significant aspect of what I wrote was not so much the presence of
17th century material, but that such presence was combined with a
complete absence of earlier material- which I'm sure the Chronognostic
folks would have trumpeted to the world if they'd found a single scrap.
Eric was writing about "archaeological findings" (as opposed to "finds")
by Godfrey- who again placed more significance on absence than presence.

I would be interested to know your source for this. Here is the final
paragraph of chapter IIX of Godfrey's thesis (page 137):

"In spite of the great numbers of fragments of various kinds found,
it cannot be said that the collection shed more than the faintest
light on the problem of the Tower. Fascinating as it is to browse
around the many boxes containing tantalizing fragments of our
ancestors culture, the pieces do not tell when, why, and by whom
the Tower was built. Oae could speculate endlessly about the
portion of the neck of a Spanish oil Jar: where did it come from,
how did it get here, but its position indicated that it arrived
long after the Tower's builder departed. China doll fragments
suggest a world of pathetic young misses in crinolines, weeping
over their broken treasures, but do not suggest who moved the
stones, mixed the mortar, and designed this strange structure. For
that solution, we must look further."

I am not aware that Godfrey was able to progress past this point.

And the documentary record IS clearly related to the NT, unless the 1677
stone mill within that plot of land is not the 1777 old stone mill.

We can't presently answer that implied question.



Eric Stevens
.