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

I am now satisfied that this is a geological formation. As you say Ned, Bill has shown other "canoo" features of similar formations. I brought the topic here to almost arrive at a conclusion with help so to speak. Because it is the first investigation I have done on the ark.One thing to note{ I never myself, decideded this was the ark - at any time, I have found supposed "evidences" on websites before and I did think it a bit dubious that this guy seems to have "found" every artifact in the Old Testament. The evaluation of the geological formation satisfies me that it is natural, and it looks natural also on the upclose photogragh. It is an oddity, but I don't think I can say "it is the ark". I suppose it is a similar thing to the face on mars, which is also just a formation probably.BTW Ned, I am not really a person to return to or rely on one specific source, I mean - Wyatt is just another person to me.

And that is one reason why I have hope for you Mike That is exactly the kind of quick thought that someone with an once of sense would have and be quickly inclinded to then throw out the source as very probably full of crap.That others can not make that kind of analysis is a sad testimony. To what I will leave you to figure out for yourself.It is just slightly encouraging that AIG, ICR etc. can manage the same kind of thinking. There is an upper limit on what nonsense they can stand to support. I used to think it was unbounded.I could tell from the start that you didn't think it was necessarily the ark. I think I can also understand how much it would mean to you if the ark was found. It is a bit like when the first pulsars were found. I was in a physics lab at the time. BIG excitment! They were dubbed LGM's at first (little green men). This was purely joking but I'm sure we all had a tiny hope that they were signs of someone else. It is just in those situations that your skeptical shield must be raised highest. When you really really, want one answer you must be very careful about fooling yourself. Sadly the LGM "hypothosis" didn't last many days even.

Thw beautiful tale of Noah's Ark has demonstrated the effectiveness of the literary contrivance of an ark in finding acceptablity in the minds of men for millennia, now.That the story had to pass through many generation of humanity, and needed to find meaning in each and everyone of them, and from us, too, to the generations following us. This certain calls for applaud of that tricky metaphor, an Ark.Certainly, way too much in logical thinking alone tells us that the whole story is a metaphor. The "flood" is about us, Modern Homo Sapiens, emerging suddenly in an enormous population explosion, exactly 40,000 years ago. Genesis 6 even tells us of the lower forms of Humanoid we left behind, replaced, exterminated, and survived.Yes, in the "ark" of the Homo Sapiens skull, there is a brain which knows all the animlals of a former day and time, but in the words of our language, a capability unknown ever before. Neanderthals could NOT speak! Only us. We, the descendents of some one, first, Homo Sapiens creature, are now divided into the three races with analogy to Ham, Japeth, and Shem.That this is not the literal tale, though once honestly believed by men, like us, who thought it was literal, is not anti-scriptural.It IS anti-ancient interpretation.But, it is not disparaging of those men who lived before us. We have collected the knowledge, and we, today, understand and recognize the rationality of this as a metaphor (Genesis 6 through 9). It is praiseworthy of the literary foresight and creativity, not a disparagement of scripture. The poetic analogy of flood waters, compared to immense population increases and the spreading across all Asia and Western Europe, is both true and fitting artistic license.Consider these verses from The Freudian Bible Translation and Interpreation:Gen. 6:8 But Noah, (the predecessor of the Modern Homo Sapiens which were to emerge), found grace in the eyes of the LORD, (the Universe and that is therein).Gen. 6:9 These are the generations (of humanity) that followed Noah, the three racial stocks of Homo Sapiens that followed):
Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked, (he experienced
the Reality of the nature of the universe into which he had been evolved, he thought rationally and realistically, compatibily with the Creative Power), his God, (The First Cause, being Absolute Total Energy).Gen. 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, (three Homo Sapiens members from his racial
stock; Shem, the Mongoloid Stock; Ham, the Negroid Stock; and Japheth, the
Caucasian Stock).[This message has been edited by kofh2u, 04-18-2004]

I think such things are necessary. This is not a blanket claim made about creationists or creationism, but about one specific individual (since deceased); whom I think was mostly likely a cynically deliberate career huxster.Frauds, hoaxers, and conmen exist; and it is right and proper that they be exposed.It is not a good idea to respond to stuff like what Ron Wyatt provided as if it is worthy of serious examination or as if this is about an honest disagreement on evidence.Cheers -- Sylas

Here's a video, on Noah's Ark. I don't see him anymore of a huckster than Darwin and his origin of the species. They both had something to offer. Ron giving us them anchor stones, just an awesome video, and Darwin the creatures micro-evolved. Perhaps given Darwin doesn't have evidence for the origin of the species, and Ron evidence is questioned too, you could consider them both hucksters, but its quite interesting both are supporting the biblical truths in genesis. Darwin by genetics supporting no common ancestors support his origin of the species, and Ron Wyatt supporting a common creator in his evidences of Noah, his altar stones, anchor stones, the imprinted fossil of the ark itself, preserved in his pictures, etc...P.S. Its quite interesting how evolutionists date rocks to date fossil imprints, and consider this good science. Its obvious you have rock sediments from the biblical deluge that could of flowed around the ark, and into the ark, over time, preserving the ark as a grassy meadow. The surrounding sediment surrounding Rons Ark fossil imprint, that fell away with the earthquake, exposing this fossil imprint to the elements. I suppose your sedimentary sediments in the ark have fell outward and all we really have today, is the video, & the pictures. Ron also found other evidences that Noah landed in this area. Its all quite interesting in that it might quite easily have been the ark that Noah built, (4,350 years is a long time for mineralization, decomposition, sediments filling the ark itself, etc...).Noah's Ark Overview, Part IIWatch short video on Noah's Ark 56kWatch pt. 1 of 2 hour video on Noah's Ark 56kWatch pt. 2 of 2 hour video on Noah's Ark 56k

Remember though that the deluge was over when Noah's ark came to rest. What you consider flood sediments would have largely solidified by the time the ark sat down to disgorge its manifest.So, no. The flood sediments wouldn't have done any flowing, as near as I can tell.

Hey crash; you've missed the true charm of this bit of lunacy. Whatever's post was supported by a reference to Noah's Ark Overview, Pt. II at a site dedicated to Wyatt's "discoveries". And yet, that site says: So which is it, whatever? Did Ron get this bit wrong?Cheers -- Sylas

Whatever happened, we have the video's, though its not uncommon for mudflows in volcanic areas, liquefacation, where an object would sink into the earth a bit, happens all the time, whats the problem, etc...P.S. When the earth re-opened up in the 1970's though, it exposed the decaying imprinted image filled with the mud sediments to the ravages of erosion, the ark would of filled with mud flows sediments when it sunk into the earth thousands of years ago, so why would it not allude to be a pile of sediments today, the shell had fully 4,350 years to decay. So primarely all you have is the pictures and the video's. But then thats no less than what evolutionists (those hucksters) have when they date their fossil imprints today. Because they have no evidence, they will date the sediments to date the fossil imprint's, and get upset when we don't believe their hooey.[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-19-2004]

Actually, just so you know - the vast, vast majority of biologists couldn't care less what you believe, because, quite frankly, there's absolutely no danger of people like you ever getting involved in science.

you say there is no evidence to date fossils?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A fossil imprint is where all the organics have decomposed, but your left with an imprint image of the fossil in the sediment. Without any C-14 the paleontologists can not date to fossil imprint. So to create the illusion that the fossil is old. The sediments that buried this fossil imprint's are dated to determine the age of the imprint. The evolutionist need this bias, to lift up their theory (origin of the species) that has no legs to stand without these fossil imprints being dated old. The alternative to truthfully say these imprints can not be dated by the sediments, because it could be inferred that the fossil imprints are young. If this were true, then toe is a dead theory in respect to the origin of the species, which is what the controversy is all about, etc...P.S. I realize Ron Wyatt's video's have much more than just his imprinted images(sea anchors). I just find it interesting that evolutionists who place such faith in the dating of imprinted fossils by the sediments would have a problem with Ron Wyatt's integrity. If Ron has a thorn in his eye(bias), then the evolutionists have a log in their eye's (bias). It seems the evolutionists have such faith, that without any fossil organic evidences (no C-14 organics to date) they can actually date these imprinted fossils by the old rocks that buried them, etc...The rocks would of dated old even before they erupted out from within the earth, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-21-2004]

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.

Rarely, and only recently - by using methods to date the calcite cement in some sediments. Much more common is the dating of lava flows or ash beds above and below the sediment with the fossil. Tell me, whatever, how to get a young clamshell into a layer of silt beneath a lava flow. How?

Coragyps, I thought Ron Wyatt suggested in his video, that the lava's acts as an insulator, to protect the organics in the ark, if basalt forms a crust thats acts like a ceramic insulator, then it would protect the organics beneath (young clams in silt layer), kinda reminds me of the excuse inventors used why they couldn't increase gas mileage was the pollution gas additives scale that developes on the evaporators that prevents vaporization carburators from cracking the gas molecule on demand, though with basaltic crusts (excellent heat insulator), would divert the heat upward, protecting the young clam's organics, from being destroyed by the lava's cooling overhead, etc...PaulK, Its obvious that the fossil imprints formed when the sediments were laid down, but its not obvious that the dates assumed for the sediments are the age the fossil.[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-21-2004]

But you have no problem, whatever, with the lava or ash on top of the sediment being older than tha sediment itself? Give me a scenario make this happen - don't forget to include how the sediment nearest the lava got baked, if it got there after the lava.