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's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 303 (100568)
04-17-2004 10:36 AM


I don't know how old or how "checked out" Ron Wyatt and his biblical evidences are. But I was reading this site concerning Mt Sinai, which leads me to believe he's genuine. Concerning that "shape" which is touted as Noah's Ark, just how acceptable do you think this is? His site seems to cover a lot of things. Some stuff is interesting, and the Mt Sinai site seems to agree with everything in the book of Moses.
Here is the site Wyatt Archaeological Research. I am aware that I could be well out of date and many of you might of already discussed these issues.
Excerpt:
At 7,000 feet, in the midst of crevasses and landslide debris, the explorers found a clear, grassy area shaped like a ship and rimmed with steep, packed-earth sides. Its dimensions are close to those given in Genesis: 'The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits,' that is, 450x75x45 feet. A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in nature could create such a symmetrical shape
Okay - I can hear you screaming, "Mike, it's been done to death!". But I want to know about the above claim stating that nothing in nature can create such symmetry.
Is it just a marvelous coincidence that this shape is there and that it fits tha Ark's description?
There are further details in the link, and Wyatt also claimed to have found an anker as well as some wood from the ark. If this wasn't the Ark, what is/was it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2004 5:43 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 6:06 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 18 by kofh2u, posted 04-18-2004 4:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 303 (100607)
04-17-2004 5:16 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 3 of 303 (100610)
04-17-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 10:36 AM


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 Ararat
Plenty 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
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...........FALSE
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
My own geologic survey, coupled with microscopic analysis of all the rocks gathered and the thoughts of Baumbardner and others, has led to the conclusion that the formation, which rests between two hills on the side of a larger hillside, was formed as soil and mud slid downhill around a stable area, leaving a streamlined shape. Suffice it to say that there is a perfectly straightforward geologic explanation for the formation, and absolutely no indication that it is of archaeological significance.
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 Ararat
This section comes from an email reproduced within the letter written by Baumgardner answering questions about Wyatt.
1. Did you witness evidence of the metal rivets in this "igneous rock?"
--none whatsoever.
I have seen pictures of these rivets and wonder, based on what you state above, if they're from another site or from that location. Do you have any comments on that?
--I am almost 100% certain that Ron 'planted' them.
These sources are all Christian and most if not all are written by YEC's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 6:35 PM PaulK has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 303 (100611)
04-17-2004 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 10:36 AM


Read you post, Mike
A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in nature could create such a symmetrical shape
Your own sources says that there was no reason to think it was man-made. Then there is the "a scientist" saying nature can't create such a symmetrical shape. Obviously wrong. All you have to do is look around you - rocks in a stream for example or how about:
That is a lenticular cloud. This is also a souce of flying saucer siteings.
It doesn't take much to realize that this is not particularly meaningful even just staying within your post.
There are times to cut your loses, Mike. Wyatt is not an honest source. If he does happen to get something right it would be a fluke.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 10:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 6:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 303 (100612)
04-17-2004 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
04-17-2004 6:06 PM


I'm undecided personally
Well, I already knew what my post said. I am undecided about what this "shape" is. Yes - it is my source, but I brought it here to see what others will think. If you think nature did make it then fair enough, all I want to do is get the lowdown of what people think of the claim that this is the ark.
Wyatt is not an honest source. If he does happen to get something right it would be a fluke.
Well, I'll have no view on his honesty for now. I did find the part about Mt Sinai was interesting though. Paul provided some links, I will read them shortly. As I said though (I think), this is the first I have heard of this Wyatt chap and I myself am undecided about many of his claims. I didn't think automatically that everything he said is 100% true. I also know what the excerpt says.
Don't get me wrong, I am not going to think this is the ark like if I seen a picture in the clouds, I wouldn't think it was a ufo, that is why I am asking about his "evidences". What about the anchor though?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 6:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Bill Birkeland, posted 04-17-2004 10:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 6 of 303 (100614)
04-17-2004 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
04-17-2004 5:43 PM


your link writes:
In our opinion Ron is either fraudulent or delusional.
I don't think such things are necessary, even if he was way off with his claims. But at the moment it just seems like the usual disbelievers insulting and belittling attitude at play, which usually fills me with scepticism. I will read your links but I do hope they actually argue the information and no the person in such an insulting manner, further. It's like at the YEC site AIG, they usually attack Darwin which is unacceptable and makes me sceptical.
On the "upclose" photograph, it did look more like a natural rock formation.
your link writes:
Ron Wyatt is a person with above average intelligence. He has read all the previous accounts of Ark sightings and rejected the thesis that the Ark must be high on Mt. Ararat. To him the accounts were too contradictory and unreliable. Too many accounts were hoaxes, and after many years of searching on the mountain not a shred of evidence was uncovered.
Actually his site says that because the bible says it came to rest on the "mountains of Ararat" - not Mt Ararat, that the ark has nothing to do with Mt Ararat.
your link writes:
However, he did manage to turn up a good number of artifacts that he associates with Noah.
Among these are: (1) stone sea anchors that he believes were used by Noah to steer the vessel into the wind, (2) petrified timbers from the Ark that were used as memorials in an Armenian graveyard, (3) a house that Noah built, and (4) on this house stones containing inscriptions which recorded details about the Deluge, (5) a pictograph depicting eight people leaving a large wave of water with a boat perched above it, (6) and the burial place of Noah.
Your first link also says that they themselves are no experts and so the link is just opinionated.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2004 5:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2004 6:56 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 19 by Sylas, posted 04-18-2004 9:46 PM mike the wiz has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 7 of 303 (100618)
04-17-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 6:35 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 6:35 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 7:02 PM PaulK has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 303 (100619)
04-17-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-17-2004 6:56 PM


Yes - but they dis-believe the claim.
Do realize though Paul, I cannot see someone as untrustworthy on people's say so. I am not going to judge the person like they did, I am interested in the claims. Was he correct about Mt Sinai and the areas marked out beneath it that seem to match with the book of Moses?
P.S. Thanks for the links, I am reading them at the moment.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2004 6:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2004 7:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 04-17-2004 8:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 9 of 303 (100621)
04-17-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 7:02 PM


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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 7:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 303 (100626)
04-17-2004 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 7:02 PM


Thanks for the links, I am reading them at the moment
I think he didn't supply one of the classic links, BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK" FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE; one of the authors was with Wyatt on the Ark expedition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 7:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 9:42 PM JonF has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 303 (100631)
04-17-2004 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by JonF
04-17-2004 8:15 PM


I suppose it is strange though, I mean, what would cause such a geologic structure, that would match the measurements of the Ark. I have to ask God in prayer, "God, are you playin' with us by making this thing?" He must have a sense of humor - It's gotta be a joke right? It being in the mountains of Ararat aswell, where the bible said it came to rest. I mean - if only it was somewhere else and it didn't match the measurements.
You see, this coincidence is frustrating for me. You start to wonder if there is the slightest possibility that it is the Ark - even the slightest. Even if all of it is seemingly gone. it's gotta be a joke right! Someone is teasing me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by JonF, posted 04-17-2004 8:15 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 10:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 303 (100634)
04-17-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 9:42 PM


Backwards
That last link (the "bogus" one) offers a speculation. The locals may have in the past treated the formation as a "ship" of the deluge. It is just, ever so slightly, a teeny bit, possible that the formation does not match the ark but rather that the ark matches the formation. It may be that it is the ark. But it was never a ship.
However, we don't know how many formations of this type are anywhere in the general area. If there are a bunch then there is a chance that one of them is sort of the ark's size. I'm not sure what the exact measurements of this thing are though or, more importantly, how they were taken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 9:42 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 10:31 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 264 by Tennessee R, posted 06-03-2006 3:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 303 (100640)
04-17-2004 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
04-17-2004 10:07 PM


Re: Backwards
How long would you figure a formation like this, would take to happen?
It would be fascinating if that speculation held truth. I never thought of it the other way around, as I was too snake fascinated with the "Ark" possibilities. Aw shucks, let me have my icle bible fantasies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 10:07 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 11:14 PM mike the wiz has replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2609 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 14 of 303 (100643)
04-17-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 6:16 PM


Re: I'm undecided personally
mike the wiz wrote:
"Don't get me wrong, I am not going to think this
is the ark like if I seen a picture in the clouds, I
wouldn't think it was a ufo, that is why I am
asking about his "evidences". What about the
anchor though?
Go look at "Claim CH503.1: Giant Anchor Stones" at:
CH503.1: Anchor Stones of Noah's ark
"The rock which the anchor stones are made of is a volcanic
rock found around Mt. Ararat where the anchor stones were
found, but not found in Mesopotamia (Iraq) where Noah is
alleged to have departed from [Collins and Fasold 1996]"
The reference he cites is:
Collins, L. G. and D. F. Fasold, 1996. Bogus "Noah's Ark"
from Turkey exposed as a common geologic structure.
Journal of Geological Education. vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 439-444.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
The feature, which Ron Wyatt indentified as the remains of Noah's Ark is actually a common geologic struture called a syncline. For example, a figure, which illustrates the interpretation Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark as a doubly plunging syncline, can be found at:
Forbidden
Some other illustrations of other synclines can be found at:
1. "Cf. Figure 6.3 Blockdiagram of two plunging anticlines and a
syncline, mentioning some elementary parts of the folds, and
showing the surficial expression and the cross section of the
structure." at:
http://www.geo.vu.nl/...Geology/6-structural-forms/fold1.jpg
Source page of this figure is "Chapter 6 - image overview".
2. Folds: Monocline, Syncline, Anticline.
3a. Plunging fold
b. Paper model
4a. Folds in 3-Dimensions
b. Satellite Images of Plunging Folds
c. Lecture 3: How do Rocks Deform?
In fact, there are other smaller structures, like it to be found within the area around it. Go look at:
1. "Durupinar or canoe-shaped/boat-shaped mound site"
Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat
This site provides a rather detailed discussion of the feature, its history, and what has been said about it. It also provides a multitude of links to articles and pictures. This web page stated:
"ArcImaging's B.J. Corbin visited the Durupinar site in 1989, 1990,
and 1998, and does not believe that it is the remains of Noah's
Ark. Corbin viewed similar boat/canoe-shaped formations near
Mt. Ararat during helicopter flights, and the formation appears
natural and similar to the surroundings and mudflow."
"Other Canoe/Boat Shapes Around Little Ararat Across Valley:
Photo Courtesy of Charles Willis, M.D. via Robin Simmons:"
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/SimmonsRobin/02.jpg
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/SimmonsRobin/02a.jpg
2. Snelling, Andrew, n.d., Has Noah's Ark been found?
Has Noah's Ark Been Found? Part I
"The truth is that the Durupinar site is about 50 per cent too wide to be the ark."
3. Letter from Lorence G. Collins, Ph.D., Professor of Geology
(emeritus) at California State University Northridge
A Letter from Lorence G. Collins regarding Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark Location on Mount Ararat.
4. Collins, L. G. and D. F. Fasold, 1996. Bogus "Noah's Ark"
from Turkey exposed as a common geologic structure.
Journal of Geological Education. vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 439-444.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
Yours,
Bill Birkeland
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 04-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 6:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 303 (100657)
04-17-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 10:31 PM


Re: Backwards
I think Bill has answered the questions we might have had. There are, in fact, lots of these formations. It does not match the ark.
There is not fun in it but that's the way it is.
Mike, once a used car salesman has sold you a lemon you should be a bit more leary about getting another car form him. I'd put Wyatt in that box if I were you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 10:31 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2004 4:21 PM NosyNed has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024