Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 62 (317474)
06-04-2006 3:06 AM


Hello, I am new.
We were right in the middle of discussing Noah's Ark and I guess it got over the number of posts allowed.
I want to continue the discussion.
How do I go about it, and is there any way for the replies to somehow drift over into the new topic?
Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-04-2006 3:58 AM Tennessee R has replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 8:24 AM Tennessee R has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 62 (317486)
06-04-2006 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 3:06 AM


Adding to the OP to make it complete
To get this promoted you should add references to the to-be-continued thread.
Use [.msg] commands. (see dbCodes On (help) to the left when you are editing. In this case the x, y and z should be the f=, t= and msg numbers from the posts you want to refer too. See the http URL address in the address line of your browser when you are looking at the old thread to get those numbers.
Here is an example: use the peek button on the lower right to see how I did it:
[msg7,138,303]
You probably should but a -II on the end of the title to point out that it is a continuation thread too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:06 AM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 4:13 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 62 (317488)
06-04-2006 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
06-04-2006 3:58 AM


Re: Adding to the OP to make it complete
http://EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark -->EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
is the forum that went over 300. That is what I would love to see continued.
It had interesting questions like
Is the informations about rivets true or not?
What about the petrified wood, would Noah's Ark still be intact?
Would it be practical to have a moonpool on a ship?
I just found it on google today and bumped it, and it caught on quickly, showing it is popular. Just tonight, maybe more than five members were discussing all manner of facts, scepticisms, etc.
Important Notice:
I am not a scientist. I am not even close to being as scientific as many of you are. I AM however trying at my best ability.
I don't have a degree in archaeology, geology, paleontology, or anything for that matter. I am simply someone wanting to discuss this, and WANTING everyone here to double-check me, because, I CAN very much be wrong. But, I very much want to be right.
So, please bear with me, and I'll try to be more careful in the way I word my points.
Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 06-04-2006 3:58 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 9:07 AM Tennessee R has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 62 (317491)
06-04-2006 4:16 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 4:19 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 62 (317492)
06-04-2006 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
06-04-2006 4:16 AM


Thank you.
Well, where were we?
Tennessee R writes:
sidelined writes:
"Since the Egyptian Royal Cubit was not a precise measure there is no way to determine an EXACT measuremnt no matter what you say. Even laser measurements are not exact TR and every measurement has a degree of uncertainty."
I was responding to a quote from someone who thought I couldn't make up my mind on how long it was, and I was trying to convey the idea that Ron measured it (Sorry, should I say SAID he measured it) to the closest possible degree. I don't believe he was ever quoted with all of the exactly's in there, they were to make a point that wouldn't have gotten across to Ringo any other way.
I know. Ive tried.
And please excuse me, Ringo, that's just my experience with you so far.
I'm sure that my way of putting things mixes things up. I'm sorry.
Tennessee R writes:
Ringo writes:
"Approximately 515 feet can not be exactly 300 cubits. Is the measurement approximate or exact? It can not be both. I'm trying to tell you that your language is sloppy, not necessarily that your point is wrong."
Everything I said was accurate. It is 300 cubits long.
If you want to, you can do the math, and figure out exactly how many feet that is. All I know offhand is that 300 cubits equals around 515 feet.
I really do have trouble expressing my thoughts sometimes, so please forgive me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 06-04-2006 4:16 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 06-04-2006 4:39 AM Tennessee R has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5036 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 62 (317493)
06-04-2006 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 4:19 AM


Welcome T R
Welcome T R, nice to have you aboard EvC.
I have a quick query.
I know this is a geology forum, and I am not a scientist, but, as universities nowadays seem to favour a cross disciplinary approach, I thought I'd look at this from an archaeological/historical angle.
Now, Wyatt says he found Noah's Ark, how did he know it was Noah's Ark and not another 'ark'?
Thanks.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 4:19 AM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 12:49 PM Brian has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 7 of 62 (317533)
06-04-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 3:06 AM


On the Flood and the Ark
In Message 289 TR said:
Now you are calling the Bible a liar. Call man a liar (even falsely) and I can still give you some respect.
But call the Bible a liar? I draw the line.
But, here, perhaps I should clarify your statement one more time.
Based on your previous statement, I can reasonably assume that you don't believe the Bible.
Is that true?
Do I believe the Bible? Yes.
Do I believe the Bible is literally correct as a history? Mostly no.
Was there a world-wide flood? No, of course not. Atleast not in the last 600,000 years or so.
And I don't call the Bible a liar but I do know that much of it is fable, myth.
Here is the problem. As a Christian I find the material that Ron Wyatt has accummulated and presented to be an embarassment. His idea of evidence and proof is about what you would expect to see at a 5th. or 6th. grade science fair, but certainly would not be accepted at the middle school level. In addition, he has falsified evidence, withheld evidence that refutes his position, and misrepresented what he found.
So far not one piece of evidence that has ever been presented here or in the film I saw about the Exodus has stood up to critical examination. If you have evidence which you would like considered then by all means present it to us, but as I said, so far nothing that has ever been presented here in support of one of Ron's "discoveries" has stood up to examination.
It is possible that Ron found something. It was not the Ark since there was not a Flood, but he may have found something. Please present what evidence you do have and it is possible that someone here may be able to help you determine what it is.
Edited by jar, : added requisite spalling arrers
Edited by jar, : Fix wording
Edited by jar, : yet more spalling and wording corrections

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:06 AM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:00 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 62 (317543)
06-04-2006 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 4:13 AM


More Wyatt?
If no one explained, all threads are cut off at 300 posts. This serves several purposes, not the least of which is whether anything new can be said after 300 posts (and for a lot of threads that happens much sooner). It also cuts off any off-topic discussions, so it tends to re-focus thoughts, and if there is still need to continue, then a new thread can start clean.
I only got one post in before it was closed, and did not reply directly to you in that one, so I will take the opportunity now to say "welcome to the fray".
I understand you work in some capacity for the "Wyatt Museum" -- good, then you can verify things with the "Museum" eh? You will forgive me for using the quotes, but anyone can call any kind of collection a "museum" these days.
... alloys ... Aluminum. Titanium. Magnesium.
I took this to mean alloys made up of these materials, but that your wording was a little sloppy.
The first thing I thought of even before I saw the picture was a marine nodule, well known for concentrating certain materials into round objects, see Wikipedia Article on Marine Nodules (quote captured 6/4/06):
The chemical composition of nodules varies according to the kind of manganese minerals and the size and characteristics of the core. Those of greatest economic interest contain manganese (27-30 %), nickel (1.25-1.5 %), copper (1-1.4 %) and cobalt (0.2-0.25 %). Other constituents include iron (6 %), silicon (5%) and aluminum (3%), with lesser amounts of calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, titanium and barium, along with hydrogen and oxygen.
Round, concentrates manganese, makes formations like the ones in the pictures that you don't want to disturb ... perhaps NOT because they will fall apart but because something else will - the riveting theory? Kind of hard to say that round balls are rivets eh?
museum site writes:
but he could not disturb them by cleaning them off.
Archeologists are experienced at removing debris from much more delicate objects, so he could have called in an expert to do the work for him ... if he wanted to know. Whenever I see an excuse like this my first impression is (thanks jar):
TennesseeR, old thread, msg 281 writes:
"And of course these were excavated under conrolled conditions so that we would know the age and stratum they were found in ... oh wait, it's Wyatt, the guy who ties big rocks on ropes to hang from cantelevered beams extending off one end of a boat to make it float better"
Actually, had you known the story, you would have known that certain parts of the boat shaped object was uncovered. This was found extremely close to the surface according to Ron. Stratum doesn't really help when you find a man-made rivet close to the surface on a boat-shaped object.
On the side, I've been looking at your R.A.Z.D. signature and could you tell me what it means?
My signature actually means what it says.
Actually I've actually been through the actual "story" before, so I actually might actually know more actually than you actually think I actually do. I've seen pictures from the air of the site showing the "boat shaped object" ... and several others (was there a fleet?), and I've seen pictures from ground level. None of them impress me as either being remains of a bonafide boat or of any special significance. Significance comes from doing real science on the artifacts, and so far this is missing.
Fossils are found on the surface all the time and they are still related to the stratum on which they are found. Relationships between objects are more important than the objects themselves in most of archaeology, and removing stuff to put in museums is doesn't accomplish that. It's poor science, done like the early dinosaur hunters that possibly destroyed more information than they collected.
"Lucy" is one example of such a surface find, and so are the resently discovered Tiktaalik rosea fossils, so making this claim as an excuse for lack of strata information is BOGUS.
you, msg 3 writes:
I just found it on google today and bumped it,
Presumably you mean the "Wyatt Museum" topic, and not the questions about rivets, petrified wood and moon pools.
It had interesting questions like
Would it be practical to have a moonpool on a ship?
Nope. It, especially combined with the rocks on the cantelevered beams, would tend to help the vessel sink.
Of course, with the information you have on hand of the actual remains of the actual vessel that was actually afloat (according to the actual theory here), it should be pretty easy to confirm or refute the existence of large opennings in the bottom of the hull eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 4:13 AM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 2:21 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 62 (317594)
06-04-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
06-04-2006 4:39 AM


Re: Welcome T R
Thank you for the welcome, Brian.
Now, Wyatt says he found Noah's Ark, how did he know it was Noah's Ark and not another 'ark'?
Ron Wyatt determined that it was most likely the Biblical Noah's Ark probably because of:
It's location. (The mountains of Urartu, where the Bible states)
It's size. A boat-shaped object as big as that, (more than 170 metres) and not on water, not underwater, but on mountainous terrain.
It's lenght. 300 cubits (what the Bible states).
Two tombstones found very near the site, with engravings of 8 people and a boat and rainbow.
Drogue stones with 8 primary byzantine-stlye crosses (Indicating that the crusaders knew it was Noah's Ark)
The willage nearby known as "The Village of the Eight".
and many others that I'm probably forgetting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 06-04-2006 4:39 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 2:37 PM Tennessee R has replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 2:51 PM Tennessee R has replied
 Message 24 by Brian, posted 06-04-2006 3:48 PM Tennessee R has replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 62 (317610)
06-04-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
06-04-2006 9:07 AM


Re: More Wyatt?
No-one explained, but I did figure that out.
We were right in the middle of discussion, so obviously, either we were enjoying repeating subjects, or we had some new content going on.
Thank you for the welcome.
Yes, I was referring to the Wyatt Museum topic, which I browsed through, and I posted the question of the moonpools, (which of course has already been discussed before I got here) as well as others, in an attempt to show the worth-while-ness of this topic.
I must state this for everyone (and I have posted it in my opening post), so that I am perfectly clear:
I am not a scientist. I am not even close to being as scientific as many of you are. I AM however trying at my best ability.
I don't have a degree in archaeology, geology, paleontology, or anything for that matter. I am simply someone wanting to discuss this, and WANTING everyone here to double-check me, because, I CAN very much be wrong. But, I very much want to be right.
So, please bear with me, and I'll try to be more careful in the way I word my points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 9:07 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 62 (317614)
06-04-2006 2:35 PM


Rivet Analysis Finally
Sorry for the delay. Here is the quantitative elemental analysis of the 'rivet':
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe9.gif
Location one refers to the material surrounding the 'rivet',
Location two is the 'rivet'.
Also I understand that this was also on the 'rivet':
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpeB.gif
Hope you enjoy, and please respond, telling me what you think.
Furthermore, RAZD, the marine nodules that you refer to, they don't have anywhere near the same quantity, do they? (mainly referring to iron, silicon, aluminum, etc.) And, these marine nodules are just that, marine, correct? Found primarily on the ocean floor?
Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 3:12 PM Tennessee R has replied
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 06-04-2006 5:46 PM Tennessee R has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 62 (317615)
06-04-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 12:49 PM


Tennesse R writes:
Two tombstones found very near the site, with engravings of 8 people and a boat and rainbow.
Drogue stones with 8 primary byzantine-stlye crosses (Indicating that the crusaders knew it was Noah's Ark)
The willage nearby known as "The Village of the Eight".
That's evidence that somebody believed that that was the resting place of Noah's ark - not evidence at all that it is the ark.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 12:49 PM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 2:51 PM ringo has replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 62 (317620)
06-04-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
06-04-2006 2:37 PM


Ringo writes:
That's evidence that somebody believed that that was the resting place of Noah's ark - not evidence at all that it is the ark.
True. If I may speak for Ron, I think that he believed that if it walks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it pecks like a duck, it's neck is the same lenght as a duck, it's feathers have been analyzed and appear to be duck's feathers, local tradition says that they think it is a duck,
Then it just MIGHT BE a duck.
True, it could be another animal that greatly resembles a duck.
But it VERY WELL COULD BE a duck.
I will be quick to say that Ron Wyatt didn't document things very well. He wasn't very scientific. But he did have some common sense.
And I am sorry for the accusations last night.
I was in such a bombarded state last night that I stupidly thought you were one of those slandering Ron Wyatt. Indeed, you never said anything about Ron Wyatt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 2:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 3:05 PM Tennessee R has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 62 (317621)
06-04-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tennessee R
06-04-2006 12:49 PM


evidence of ??? what?
My, what a compilation of anecdotal "evidence"
It's location. (The mountains of Urartu, where the Bible states)
It's size. A boat-shaped object as big as that, (more than 170 metres) and not on water, not underwater, but on mountainous terrain.
It's lenght. 300 cubits (what the Bible states).
Or just pick the one geological artifact that you think you can sell the easiest out of all the possiblities:

(click to see full size)

from Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat
Was there a fleet?
Two tombstones found very near the site, with engravings of 8 people and a boat and rainbow.
Drogue stones with 8 primary byzantine-stlye crosses (Indicating that the crusaders knew it was Noah's Ark)
Tombstones of what age? If the images are clearly discernable they can't be that old eh? Or is it much more likely that the "tombstones" and the "byzantine style crosses" were ADDED at the same time?
"Drogue stones" must of course appear in the bible too, right (I must have missed it, but then I am no scholar on that book: enlighten me)?
Otherwise they cannot be evidence of a biblical connection eh? Just of Wyatts imagination.
The willage nearby known as "The Village of the Eight".
Oh gosh, that really settles it.
None of these have anything to do with verifying that we are really talking about a boat and not a common geological formation that looks enough like one to fool the gullible.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 12:49 PM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 3:14 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 62 (317623)
06-04-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
06-04-2006 8:24 AM


Re: On the Flood and the Ark
jar writes:
And I don't call the Bible a liar but I do know that much of it is fable, myth.
But this is like saying you believe Huckleberry Finn, it's not lying, even though you know that it is a fictional book.
You know that it is fables, yet it yet you won't call it fictional.
Please clarify. Is that not a contradictory statement?
In my very simple opinion (and without going into complicated analytical theories), either the Bible is true or not.
he has falsified evidence, withheld evidence that refutes his position, and misrepresented what he found.
Please give sources, evidence, at least tell us what you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 8:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CK, posted 06-04-2006 3:05 PM Tennessee R has replied
 Message 21 by jar, posted 06-04-2006 3:28 PM Tennessee R has not replied
 Message 40 by nator, posted 06-05-2006 9:19 AM Tennessee R has not replied
 Message 48 by deerbreh, posted 06-09-2006 12:05 PM Tennessee R has not replied
 Message 49 by deerbreh, posted 06-09-2006 12:13 PM Tennessee R has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024