3,000 Year old Wheel Discovered...No Not Nephite

[TrespassersW]

On 2/19/2016 at 9:57 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Its a trap to make such a leap in logic.  Just because  A = B and B = C does not necessarily mean that that C would = A. To assert that because Ancient Americans put wheels on their toys does not mean that they put wheels on "other practical purposes" This is a logical fallacy.

I don't know where you studied either math or logic, but the way I learned it... if A=B and B=C, then C absolutely does equal A. 

Personally, I don't think it's all that large a leap of logic. We know that they knew how to make small wheels. We know that they did, in fact, make small wheels. So, they probably also knew how to make larger wheels. I don't see how that is such a big stretch.

[Calm]

Would the method made to make the small wheels work for larger wheels that needed to handle weights and all that stuff?  Just curious.

[Russell C McGregor]

On 2/19/2016 at 4:42 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

Despite mentioning the word chariot in the Book of Mormon many times the word Wheel is never mentioned at all.  This has led some apologists to make assertions and apologetic theories to explain this lack of evidence for a wheeled vehicle of any kind in the Pre-Columbian America.

 

01. Wheels are there, we just haven't found one yet.

02. Wheels were there, but over time due to being wood they've decomposed and so we wouldn't expect to find a 2,000+ year old Nephite wheel. 

and

03. Joseph used the word chariot but he meant something quite different,  a Travois a wheelless means of native American transportation. So we should never expect to find Ancient American wheels

 

Well folks we can now cross Theory #2 off the list...a 3,000 year old wheel has been discovered...unfortunatly for LDS apologetics it was discovered intact in England

Equally interesting at least to me is the fact that the archeologists discovered the skeleton of a horse near by...thus confirming that wheeled vehicles often had horses near by similar to the Book of Mormon claim

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35598578

 

 

 

Here is an un-exhaustive list of the use of the word Chariot in the Book of Mormon

2 Nephi 12:7

Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. 

Alma 18:10

...king Lamoni heard that Ammon was preparing his horses and his chariots he was more astonished, because of the faithfulness of Ammon, saying: Surely there has not been any servant among all my servants that has been so faithful as this man; for even he doth remember all my commandments to... 

Alma 18:12

And it came to pass that when Ammon had made ready the horses and the chariots for the king and his servants, he went in unto the king, and he saw that the countenance of the king was changed; therefore he was about to return out of his presence. 

3 Nephi 21:14

Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots; 

Alma 18:9

...feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi; for there had been a great feast appointed at the land of Nephi, by the father of... 

3 Nephi 3:22

...proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until... 

 

 

1. So this wheel has been sitting in one of the most heavily investigated archaeological sites in the whole world -- and they only just found it? Wow!
2. Two of your references are quotations from OT prophecies. Which are entirely irrelevant about Nephite chariots.
3. So, just where did you cut-and-paste this list from?

 

 

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, TrespassersW said:

I don't know where you studied either math or logic, but the way I learned it... if A=B and B=C, then C absolutely does equal A. 

Personally, I don't think it's all that large a leap of logic. We know that they knew how to make small wheels. We know that they did, in fact, make small wheels. So, they probably also knew how to make larger wheels. I don't see how that is such a big stretch.

Making big wheels, that is following your logic that if they could make small wheels they could make big ones, is not that difficult. Making big wheels that would work as carriage or chariot wheels is an entirely different problem. The wheel from this UK find is a rather primitive solid frame wheel, used only for slow carts. If you examine pictures of wheels from Egyptian temples (and the Egyptians only learned how to make wheels after borrowing the technology from the Levant and Babylonia) you will see that the wheels are far more advanced, having spokes and probably an outer rim to provide structural integrity. The solid wood frame wheel has neither spokes nor outer rim. They were heavy and wobbly and the central axis was definitely a weak point. The axles and wheel axis are also the areas that need most attention, because these are the areas of most friction. (A toy with wheels doesn't need lubrication, a weight bearing wheel most definitely needs lubrication)

Add to that that roads were virtually non-existent in the Americas therefore wheel technology was without a motivator. Making light weight, speedy, spoked, well lubricated wheels (with very possibly a metal rim) for chariots, without going through the necessary technological advances from wheel usage on roads and paths for transport, is very unlikely. Then it becomes not A=B nor B=C but A=Y

 

[Brant Gardner]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Would the method made to make the small wheels work for larger wheels that needed to handle weights and all that stuff?  Just curious.

It depends upon the nature of the weights involved and how the wheels are attached to the frame. In the case of some of the figurines, there is evidence of an axle as well as the wheels. Wear patterns confirm that it was a rolling axle. That is one innovation that assists in bearing heavier loads. 

That means that the technology was known, but there is no evidence that it was used. Without animals to pull the larger vehicles, they were of limited use. A man with a tumpline is a remarkably able mover of goods over regular paths. Where there are sacbeob (the Maya white raised roads) there are no indications of wheel tracks which would show in the wear on the roads.

A reminder to all who are speculating on this topic, the Book of Mormon never mentions wheels. They are assumed because of the word chariots, but it is an assumption based on the word used in translation. The Book of Mormon does not specifically require wheels.

[TrespassersW]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

It depends upon the nature of the weights involved and how the wheels are attached to the frame. In the case of some of the figurines, there is evidence of an axle as well as the wheels. Wear patterns confirm that it was a rolling axle. That is one innovation that assists in bearing heavier loads. 

That means that the technology was known, but there is no evidence that it was used. Without animals to pull the larger vehicles, they were of limited use. A man with a tumpline is a remarkably able mover of goods over regular paths. Where there are sacbeob (the Maya white raised roads) there are no indications of wheel tracks which would show in the wear on the roads.

A reminder to all who are speculating on this topic, the Book of Mormon never mentions wheels. They are assumed because of the word chariots, but it is an assumption based on the word used in translation. The Book of Mormon does not specifically require wheels.

Two questions, Brant:

1 - Since the Book of Mormon (the way I read it) doesn't require chariots to be common, only to exist, how likely is it that very rare use of wheels would not leave permanent tracks on the roads?

2 - Do the sacbeob show track marks for the sort of dragging sled that you've posited? If not, should we expect them to?

OK, that was three questions. Sorry.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 Do you really believe they were that stupid? The builders of pyramids, aqua ducts and great cities couldn't envision their toys in a larger scale for practical use?

Hindsight is 50-50, what seems so obvious to you wasn't so obvious to a civilization that had no harness animals. Why invent a wheeled wagon or chariot when you have no animals to pull it...no they weren't stupid, but they didn't have all the pieces to make that leap

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, TrespassersW said:

I don't know where you studied either math or logic, but the way I learned it... if A=B and B=C, then C absolutely does equal A. 

Personally, I don't think it's all that large a leap of logic. We know that they knew how to make small wheels. We know that they did, in fact, make small wheels. So, they probably also knew how to make larger wheels. I don't see how that is such a big stretch.

Really?  Haha, you should have gone to a better school, kinda silly to challenge me because you are just flat wrong. Let me make it simple

If Jane(A) is Mary's(B) daughter and Mary's(B) is Lucy's (C)  daughter you really want to say that that makes Lucy (C) Jane's (A) daughter?  

to you it's not a Hugh leap in logic because you #1 are all ready aware of the wheel and #2 have access to all the pertinent knowledge necessary such as animals etc. what leap in logic would cause them to make a larger wheel if they had no animals to pull the wheeled vehicle?  That would be like you making something for no practical purpose

[Russell C McGregor]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really?  Haha, you should have gone to a better school, kinda silly to challenge me because you are just flat wrong. Let me make it simple

If Jane(A) is Mary's(B) daughter

Then A != B.

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

and Mary's(B) is Lucy's (C)  daughter

Then B != C.

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

you really want to say that that makes Lucy (C) Jane's (A) daughter?  

to you it's not a Hugh leap in logic because you #1 are all ready aware of the wheel and #2 have access to all the pertinent knowledge necessary such as animals etc. what leap in logic would cause them to make a larger wheel if they had no animals to pull the wheeled vehicle?  That would be like you making something for no practical purpose

Like a wheelbarrow?

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really?  Haha, you should have gone to a better school, kinda silly to challenge me because you are just flat wrong. Let me make it simple

If Jane(A) is Mary's(B) daughter and Mary's(B) is Lucy's (C)  daughter you really want to say that that makes Lucy (C) Jane's (A) daughter?  

to you it's not a Hugh leap in logic because you #1 are all ready aware of the wheel and #2 have access to all the pertinent knowledge necessary such as animals etc. what leap in logic would cause them to make a larger wheel if they had no animals to pull the wheeled vehicle?  That would be like you making something for no practical purpose

I think the difference is that mother doesn't equal daughter.

Right from the beginning the logic falls apart because mothers and daughters are not the same by definition.  They are two different things.  One is a mother.  The other is a daughter.  Equal signs mean "the same" so you've used it incorrectly in your equation.

I think to prove your argument you have to come with an A and B (and B and C) that are actually equal. 

If, under those circumstances, you can show that A doesn't equal C, you'll have proven your point. 

[Johnnie Cake]

32 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Then A != B.

Then B != C.

Like a wheelbarrow?

 

Study intransitive relations as they apply to logical fallacies.  And no they didn't even make that leap to the wheelbarrow

 

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the difference is that mother doesn't equal daughter.

Right from the beginning the logic falls apart because mothers and daughters are not the same by definition.  They are two different things.  One is a mother.  The other is a daughter.  Equal signs mean "the same" so you've used it incorrectly in your equation.

I think to prove your argument you have to come with an A and B (and B and C) that are actually equal. 

If, under those circumstances, you can show that A doesn't equal C, you'll have proven your point. 

Step outside your box....again it's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because A=B and B = C that C would equal A. 

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Study intransitive relations as they apply to logical fallacies.

If Jane is Mary's daughter, then Jane absolutely does not equal Mary.

This is hardly rocket science, Johnnie.

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 And no they didn't even make that leap to the wheelbarrow

I didn't say they did. The point is that it's an assumption that you need animals to make use of wheels.

Much like it's an assumption that a chariot is necessarily a wheeled vehicle.

Quote

Step outside your box....again it's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because A=B and B = C that C would equal A. 

No, it's not. If A=B and B=C then A must =C. That's absolutely elementary logic.

Doubling down on it just makes you look stubborn.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really?  Haha, you should have gone to a better school, kinda silly to challenge me because you are just flat wrong. Let me make it simple

If Jane(A) is Mary's(B) daughter and Mary's(B) is Lucy's (C)  daughter you really want to say that that makes Lucy (C) Jane's (A) daughter?  

Lucy's daughter=Mary and Jane=Mary's daughter, If Lucy is A, and Mary is B and Jane is C than that translates into A's daughter=B and B's daughter=C or the daughter of A's daughter is C, which is logical.

 

[TrespassersW]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Study intransitive relations as they apply to logical fallacies.  And no they didn't even make that leap to the wheelbarrow

 

Step outside your box....again it's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because A=B and B = C that C would equal A. 

I have studied intransitive relationships. And equality is NOT an intransitive relationship. It is as transitive as it gets. So, to take your Jane example:

If Jane IS Mary (i.e. they are the same person)

and Mary IS Lucy,

then, yep, Jane IS Lucy. 

See Transitive Property of Equality

Honestly, my initial response was a bit tongue-in-cheek because I thought you simply misspoke. I didn't expect you to double down on it. I don't really think it has anything to do with whether the Nephites had wheels.

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I didn't say they did. The point is that it's an assumption that you need animals to make use of wheels.

Much like it's an assumption that a chariot is necessarily a wheeled vehicle.

No, it's not. If A=B and B=C then A must =C. That's absolutely elementary logic.

Doubling down on it just makes you look stubborn.

You're making the same logical misstep  that JAHS made when he proposed that just because ancient Americans had toys with wheels they must have had larger wheeled vehicles. Is illogical. I pointed this out and your Running to his rescue? Why defend him when he's wrong

sorry but you're just plain wrong.

Here I'll dumb it down for you even further. Just because a wolf eats a deer and a deer eats grass...you can't conclude that wolves eat grass...I can't make it more obvious or clear for you...it illogical to make this leap in logic that just because A=B and B=C that A would = C,  so when you say it must you're just flat wrong and you're beginning to embarrass yourself

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Step outside your box....again it's a logical fallacy to conclude that just because A=B and B = C that C would equal A. 

I disagree.  If you can provide a reference to support your assertion I'll happily change my mind.

Edited February 22, 2016 by bluebell

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're making the same logical misstep  that JAHS made when he proposed that just because ancient Americans had toys with wheels they must have had larger wheeled vehicles. Is illogical. I pointed this out and your claiming he correct?????

sorry but you're just plain wrong.

Here I'll dumb it down for you even further. Just because a wolf eats a deer and a deer eats grass...you can't conclude that wolves eat grass...I can't make it more obvious or clear for you...it illogical to make this leap in logic that just because A=B and B=C that A would = C,  so when you say it must you're just flat wrong and you're beginning to embarrass yourself

 

Again, saying something eats something else is NOT the same as saying something equals something else. 

A wolf (A) does not equal a deer (B)  therefore A does not equal B.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Here I'll dumb it down for you even further. Just because a wolf eats a deer and a deer eats grass...you can't conclude that wolves eat grass...I can't make it more obvious or clear for you...it illogical to make this leap in logic that just because A=B and B=C that A would = C,  so when you say it must you're just flat wrong and you're beginning to embarrass yourself

 

The problem is using "=" here to stand for "eats".  "=" means that they are identical, they can reverse order so A=B and B=A.  A wolf eating a deer is not identical to a deer eating a wolf.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're making the same logical misstep  that JAHS made when he proposed that just because ancient Americans had toys with wheels they must have had larger wheeled vehicles. Is illogical. I pointed this out and your Running to his rescue? Why defend him when he's wrong

Why is he wrong?

If people have figured out the principles of wheels and axles, then it's a valid inference (although not a logical necessity) to at least suspect that they would have put them to some practical use.

Did JAHS say that it was a practical necessity? If so, I must have missed it.

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

sorry but you're just plain wrong.

Here I'll dumb it down for you even further. Just because a wolf eats a deer and a deer eats grass...you can't conclude that wolves eat grass...

You're right.

But your analogy is irrelevant. "Eats" != "equals."

Just like a daughter != her mother.

As everyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can figure out without straining themselves.

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can't make it more obvious or clear for you...it illogical to make this leap in logic that just because A=B and B=C that A would = C,  so when you say it must you're just flat wrong and you're beginning to embarrass yourself

No, I'm flat out right, and you're just refusing to see it.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree.  If you can provide a reference to support your assertion I'll happily change my mind.

 

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Again, saying something eats something else is NOT the same as saying something equals something else. 

A wolf (A) does not equal a deer (B)  therefore A does not equal B.

Sorry I can't make it any easier for you,  if you can't grasp this concept of intransitive relations even after 2 examples I really have nothing else to offer you. 

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The problem is using "=" here to stand for "eats".  "=" means that they are identical, they can reverse order so A=B and B=A.  A wolf eating a deer is not identical to a deer eating a wolf.

Another way to look at is to replace the = with "is".  I don't think that Johnny is getting that. 

So if "wolf eats deer" really is the same as the equation "A = B" then he would be able to say "wolf is deer" and have it be accurate. 

A wolf is not a deer though. 

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

The problem is using "=" here to stand for "eats".  "=" means that they are identical, they can reverse order so A=B and B=A.  A wolf eating a deer is not identical to a deer eating a wolf.

I know you're a smart guy....so I'm going to cut you some slack.  The mistake you are making is in thinking that = means identical or the same, when writing the intransitive relations in a mathematical equation = denotes relationship. So no = does not always mean equal or the same...there you learned something new tonight

 

study up on transitive and intransitive logic maybe it'll make more sense

 

again were talking of the logical fallacy 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Sorry I can't make it any easier for you,  if you can't grasp this concept of intransitive relations even after 2 examples I really have nothing else to offer you. 

 

Cal has given you a good example showing the fault in your logic. 

If A = B then B = A. 

Go back to your examples and reverse the orders and see if they still work. You'll see that they don't. 

 

[SeekerB]

On 2/19/2016 at 9:35 AM, JAHS said:

Wheeled toys have been found in the pre-columbian Americas. Although nothing has been found on a larger scale it seems to me if they put them on their toys they would have known they could use them for other practical purposes.

THE WHEEL IN ANCIENT AMERICA

Having seen these pictures before, I completely agree with you. It is the height of stupidity to think that it was only on toys.

[Johnnie Cake]

Again were talking about the logical fallacy JAHS made when he asserted that just because ancient American toys had wheels that you could therefore conclude that ancient Americans had wheeled vehicles you can't make this leap, it's illogical