Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark

Wyatt claims a lot of thing. He's also on AiG's list of arguments creationists shouldn't use, and there is evidence of fraud on his part.Try these links:Noah's Ark Search - Mount AraratPlenty there on Wyatt's incredible claims. It also states that the formation is not the right shape - it is almost twice as wide as it should be. Special Report: Amazing Ark Expos | Answers in Genesis Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research Ron Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation (WAR, W.A.R.)
Has evidence of Fraud on Wyatt's part - don't just stick to the main page - follow the links. For instance this sub-page
Letter from John Baumgardner regarding Noah's Ark on Mount AraratThis section comes from an email reproduced within the letter written by Baumgardner answering questions about Wyatt. These sources are all Christian and most if not all are written by YEC's.

In case you haven't noticed Mike a good number of my links were written by people who quite firmly believe in a literal interpretation of the Noah story. Baumgardner for instance - and he believes that Wyatt planted evidence even at the "Ark" site. It's not a case of "unbelievers" scoffing - even the believers don't find Wyatt to be credible or trustworthy. The author of the first link is "President and Founder" of Christian Information Ministries and the site is devoted to *lookign* for the Ark (as the domain should tell you).You also misrepresent what my first link says. The list of finds is what Wyatt claimed to have found "according to his written account" the author of the page did not endorse those claims. As would be clear if you went on to read the following sections where it gives reasons for rejecting the idea that the "anchor stones" cmae from the ark or indeed were ever used as anchors.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-17-2004]

I don't know for sure about Mount Sion - but do you seriously believe that Ron Wyatt found a sample of Jesus' blood and found that it had only 23 chromosomes ?And don't you think that the Ark hunters would have been delighted if Wyatt's site had turned out to be real ?

Well just to point out some things that seem to have escaped you.1) Even from your description it is clear that the fossil must date from the time the sediments were laid down. So dating the rock DOES date the fossil.2) We already knew fossils were old BEFORE Darwin published.3) Creationists - Young Earth Creationists associated with the ICR and AiG reject Ron Wyatt's claims. And at least one of them (Baumgardner) beleives that Wyatt planted evidence.

In other words you are NOW claiming that the basic idea is correct but the methods used to determine the dates give the wrong results.Well there's a forum for discussing that. If you can provide real evidence that that is the case for *all* relevant rocks - which none of the major creationist organisations have - managed then set up a topic there to discuss it.On the other hand if you're simply asserting that the dates are wrong because they contradict your religious beliefs then I suggest you consider the possiblity that *you* could be wrong.

Well since you mention Snelling and Wyatt here's what Snelling thinks of Wyatt and his "Ark" again Special Report: Amazing Ark Expos | Answers in Genesis The Main Claims at a Glance True/False?Radar shows man-made (boat) structure..........FALSE
There is a regular metallic pattern............FALSE
Lab tests show petrified laminated wood........FALSE
Turkish scientists found metal rods............FALSE
Metal artefacts have been proved by lab........FALSE
There are 'ship's ribs' showing................FALSE
There is lots of petrified wood................FALSE
Turkish Commission says 'it's a boat...........FALSEAccording to Snelling EVERY MAJOR claim Wyatt made about the "Ark" site is FALSE. Well if you trust Snelling there's plenting of grounds for suspecting Wyatt of fraud - how could all those claims be honest mistakes ?The dating of fossils by the tiem the sediemnts were laid down is entirely valid - and paleontologsts know enough to look for things like intrusive burials. Your argument is based on false assumptions through-and-through. But then you've already been told how the datign works and you still ignore it.Oh., and until Humphreys publishes his full calculations for professiosnal scientists to look at his assertions of excess helium are worth nothing. Peer review is the *first* stage of scientific review and last I heard Humphreys hadn't even got to that.As for your accusatiosn against paleonotologists they are absurd. Grand conspiracies don't work. Any attempt to rig the results would have been exposed by now. You have no basis for your accusation other than ego - or perhaps a desire to slander those who reveal truths you wish were left concealed. I don't know which is the worse motive.

I don't have a high opinion of Snelling - I quoted him because YOU raised his name in a context that suggested that you trusted him. And because I think he's being honest on this subject.And since you obviously haven't read what Snelling said I'll quote his comments on a few other points.Here's what Snelling say about the "anchor stones": (others have checked this out as discussed in other links already provided - the "anchor stones" are cut from local rcok - which according to Snelling rules out Wyatt's claim). Baumgardner, Morris, Snelling all say that Wyatt's "Ark" is a natural geological formation. Baumgardner and Morris have actually visited the site.Snelling again:

Even swollen rope is still going have to handle the same weight - and cause erosion as well - and a geologist should have a reasonable grasp of the mechanical strength of rock. So Snelling's objections stand.We can only peculate about the holes - perhaps they were decoration or perhpas they were somehow used to help move the stones.But it's quite obvious that there's no point in Snelling doing any investigation. When he came back with the answer that it's just a natural geological formation you'd just ignore it like you ignore what he's already said on the subject. You're not going to accept any result but the one you want.If you accept that Snelling is honest then you have to accept that Wyatt said many things that simnpy were not true. You can't beleive in both of them - one of them is very seriously wrong.

Well thanks for proving me right. You have a closed mind. And no regard for the truth.Paleontologists get results you don't like - you call them liars.A shady con-artist tells a lie you like and you start ignoring the evidence and praising him for "integrity".There's no point in testing most fossils by C14 (any carbon in them says nothing about the age of the specimen) so we need to know the age of the rock it is buried in to find the age. But you insist on doing it the other way around. If C14 was used almost all fossils would get one of two results - undatable due to a lack of C14 or a date near the limit of the method due to contamination.

Tell me Buz have you actually READ this thread ? Did you even read the post you replied to ? Did you actually understand that from "whatever" is saying that you CAN'T tell that any trees buried by the Mouint St. Jelens eruption WERE buried by the Mt St. Helens eruption ?The simple question is what is actually GOOD about "whatever's" post. It's just a pile of ludicrous assertions that "whatever" keeps repeating despite the fact that he can offer no support for them whatsoever.You know what I think - you don't care whether it is really true or not - you just want what "whatever" says to be true. Just as you and "whatever" would like what Ron Wyatt says to be true. The real truth - that this is just one of many similar natural formations - goes against your wants and deres and must be rejected.Wekm if that's what you want then I suggest you go to some extreme creationist board where the truth is censored and you never have to confront reality. It's the best thing for everyone - especially you.

THe claims made by "whatever" were addressed. By determining when the sediment - especially the cvering sediment was laid down you can date the fossil. The date may have a low degree of precision but it isn't going to give a dramatically older age. A younger age perhaps - especially in cases of reworking, but that's not really any good to you.Your question doesn't have anything to do with "whatever"'s claims - he says that even if you know how old the sediment is you can't date the fossil. Now I can't think of a single datign method that properly applied would give a date that is badly wrong for Mt. St. Helens. It's too young for most radiometric dating methods (and that will show by giving a date at the bottom of the range) but Carbon Dating should give a reasonable range which might well be fixed by dendrochronology.

I realise that the date the sediment was laid down can't usually be determined directly - and that igneous rocks can often be directly dated by radiometric methods. However the principle of the thing is that the date the sediments were lain down DOES relate to the age of the fossil except in cases of intrusion which can usually be identified by examination. "Whatever" seems unable to understand this - presumably believing that time-traavellers teleport fosssils directly into solid rock.