Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 20 of 303 (100817)
04-19-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Sylas
04-18-2004 9:46 PM


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 II
Watch short video on Noah's Ark 56k
Watch pt. 1 of 2 hour video on Noah's Ark 56k
Watch pt. 2 of 2 hour video on Noah's Ark 56k

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Sylas, posted 04-18-2004 9:46 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2004 1:53 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 23 of 303 (100902)
04-19-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Sylas
04-19-2004 6:21 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Sylas, posted 04-19-2004 6:21 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2004 11:00 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 25 by jar, posted 04-21-2004 3:39 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 26 of 303 (101627)
04-21-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
04-21-2004 3:39 PM


Re: just curious why
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 04-21-2004 3:39 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2004 5:55 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 04-21-2004 6:17 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 29 of 303 (101671)
04-21-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coragyps
04-21-2004 6:17 PM


Re: just curious why
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 04-21-2004 6:17 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 04-21-2004 8:12 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2004 3:49 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 32 of 303 (101695)
04-21-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Coragyps
04-21-2004 8:12 PM


Re: just curious why
I think your example of silt being covered by basalt lava's, ash, with the clams being found in the silt, supports that basalts in fact are acting as an insulator to prevent the clams from being destroyed, though would think it would crisp the clam a bit, until the (crust basalt silt interface) acted like making "baked alaska", shielding the silts below from the lava's, etc...
P.S. Silts would have organics meaning younger via C-14 than the basalts above. Not that the basalts were not deposited after, but would date older than the clams, C-14 organics in the silts below. Andrew Snelling showed how petrified mineralized wood fossils in fact dated younger that the above and below basalts, though people are trying to say C-14 generates in the earth to get around this abnormal reading questioning the basis of the dating fossils by the sediments that entombed them. Steve Austin brought out leaching, and a whole host of problems with all the various dating methods, and Snelling brought out how Argon is rising up out of the off gases in oil well's. This is all questioning the constant states needed for the other dating methods to date accurately. You also have the oil itself dating younger than the sediments that contain them, suspect your el capitan corals would date younger by C-14 in the oil they produce, than the sediments that covered them. The el capitan formed before the earth rose before man was created on the 3rd creation day. Then after the biblical flood and man being created on the 6th day, God lifting these massive coral fields that were growing for over 5,000 years, covered by thousands of feet of flood sediments washing off the continent, thousands of feet above sea level (kjv psalm 104), so the waters would not again turn back and recover the earth, etc...
jar, Drive your car on some wet sand, do you see the tire imprint in the sand, according to the evolutionists, that imprint is the age of the sand its found, for how else are you going to date your tire imprint, but by the sediments, and apparently in some cases calcium glues, is all thats left behind with all the other organics mineralized out of the fossil imprint. The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old, without actally dating the imprint fossil. If you can explain how you can date the tire thread imprint age by the sediments, by the various isotope dating methods, to most people it doesn't hold water, but to the evolutionists, they believe the fossil imprint is as old as the sediments that molded the imprint. The whole point though in Ron Wyatt, is that he documented his image imprint by a video, wanted to do an archeology dig, but wasn't allowed, so he tried to use magnetics, and other surface sciences to see deeper into the ark, and if they are so sure its not the ark, why not let it become an archeology dig (whats the problem), to see if the basaltic rock has preserved lower levels of the ark, was not this why Ron wanted to dig into the lower levels of the image cast in rock, as the basalts cooled preserving this image to mineralization, over the last 4,350 years.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 04-21-2004 8:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2004 11:55 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 8:01 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 37 of 303 (101823)
04-22-2004 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by JonF
04-22-2004 8:01 AM


Re: just curious why
JonF, To date not the imprint but the sediments to determine imprint age, is like dating the tire imprint by the sediments you drive over, the paleontologist know all rocks sediments will date old, no wonder you have problems with the C-14 being found in fossils (coal, oil,& ancient bones dated by more sensitive C-14 instrumentation to be no older than 5,000 years old) between layers you've determined old, how else does the paleontolgists determine ancient bones are millions of years old. Do they not date the sediments surrounding the fossil and say it belongs to one of their biased layers ages, etc...It all doesn't make much sense, it makes more sense that these isotope dating methods are not accurate to when the sediments were laid down(meaning these sediments would of dated old even before they were laid down), meaning the Paleontologists have created a senerio where all fossil imprints will date old, not that the fossil imprints are old, or that the sediments would ever date young, etc...I'm not sure the paleontologists are liars, in that they probably actually believe they are able to date the sediments to determine the age of the tire imprints, foot imprints, but don't believe you can determine the age of Ron Wyatts ark by the sediments that preserved the ark's imprinted image, for the sediments would date older, just as the sediments preserving a tire imprint, or any fossil imprint, expressed in the sediments of the earth.
Like I suppose because rocks lift upward by frost, this supports a young earths biblical deluge. If frost is only lifting (pressing upward) rocks approximately 4 feet deep. Then all rocks this deep should of already been pressed upward onto the earths surface. However this curse of the farmers, expressed in stone fences along their fields is still happening in the now. How is this not another thorn in the paleontologists dating rocks to be the age of the fossils, these rocks are still rising, supporting these massive layerings were laid down thousands not millions of years ago. etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 8:01 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 11:20 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 40 of 303 (101833)
04-22-2004 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by JonF
04-22-2004 11:20 AM


Re: just curious why
JonF, If not the paleontologists, then who rigged the unscientific principle of dating the image, by the sediments, etc...
P.S. Would it not be more correct to say its not possible to accurately date the image by the sediments, and that the fossil imprint could of happened recently, like a tire imprint. How is dating a tire imprint image any different than dating any imprint image by the sediments, would not all sediments that the organism grew from date older than the organism that grew from it, etc...
Andrew Snelling finding the mineralized petrified wood fossil having excess C-14. Walt Brown mentioning that coal, oil in the earth also having excess C-14, suggesting they are thousands not millions of years old.
Andrew Snelling finding excess argon released from off gases in coal mines and oil wells
Leaching of parent daughter elements associated in dating methods dating the sediments believed by Steve Austin to affect the accuracy of the isotope dating methodologies. I realize your going to say they factor all this in, but how can you factor millions of unknown, over time, you have to assume that the tire imprint is the same age as the sediments its cast, so you come up with all these different sediment layers as not happening suddenly, perhaps its time to rewrite geology 101, no need to throw away the fossil record, just the inflated age thereof, etc...
Walt Brown mentioning that ancient human bones believed millions of years old have been tested by more accurate C-14 dating, which determines these ancient bones no older than 5,000 years old.
Andrew Snelling sending young rock samples, that dated old not young, because of excess argon, the diamond found with excess argon quite deep below the surface, dating older than the suspect age of the earth(you have excess argon expressed above and below the earth and excess argon in the off gases of oil wells, coal mines, etc...
Jon the problem isn't that the sediments don't date old, its that the fossils don't date old by dating the fossils themselves, and were supposed to believe they are old because of suspect isotope dating methodologies that is like dating a fly on a truck scale, meaning they are all calibrated to millions of years to date rocks, not even in the ball park of the age of the fossils (C-14 5,000 year half life), making the fossil like a fly on a truck scale.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 11:20 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coragyps, posted 04-22-2004 12:08 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 1:40 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 46 of 303 (101892)
04-22-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by JonF
04-22-2004 1:40 PM


Re: just curious why
JonF, I see you have no problem calling Snelling, Austin, Brown liars, perhaps you even consider Ron Wyatt a liar, but have a problem where someone sees a problem in dating an imprint's age by the sediments, or a decomposed imprint image of insects, bird, fish, by the sediments, I'm not a YEC so too me a problem exists with the age of the fossil imprints matching up with the age of the sediments.
You probably discount Humpheys excess helium because there is other age factors in the granites, however, the excess helium supports the biblical genesis molding of the earth in Genesis day 2, and other factors therein, perhaps the gap theory, too. Think there is truth in both camps, but to say the fossil record is too old by dating the sediments of the earth sounds like the complicated math that Enron Accountants created to make what was not, as if it was. We all realize I'm at a disadvantage not being a scientists, but if you can call Ron Wyatt a liar, you should be offended if your own people are not being truthful to you. But shouldn't be offended that I feel your own, has rigged the interpretativeness of the sediment record age, to include the fossil therein. And that these fossils are dated by the sediments in respect to age, when in the natural as in a tire print, you will cry foul, that its obvious its not the age of the sediments.
You can not have it both ways, and if the fossil imprint is all thats left, you have to factor in leaching for all the different methods to date the sediments, making their date bogus too (how much leaching could of happened over millions of years), affecting the different isotope dating methods proporotionally, etc...
P.S. Ron Wyatt might very well have found the biblical ark, perhaps archeologists should try to get a federal grant, and check it all out more closely, like didn't Noah also carry Adams bones to rebury after the deluge, kinda like Moses in the carrying of Joesph's bones through the Exodus. With the anchor stones, the altar, so many archeological things to check out, not being checked out, and that should be checked out. It wasn't like Ron had a million dollar grant to check this out as an archeological tell should be excavated, or that the natives were all that friendly to an archeological dig in this part of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 1:40 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2004 5:17 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 51 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 8:56 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 48 of 303 (101924)
04-22-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by PaulK
04-22-2004 5:17 PM


Re: just curious why
PaulK, I'm pleased you think so highly of Andrew Snelling, though I'd think you'd agree an archeological tell of the area, is needed given the anchor stones in the area (how could Ron Wyatt plant these stones)(what other reason would the holes bored in the stones be), on the other side of the coin, what does the paleontologist have as evidence of a fossil imprint, but the imprinted image itself, likely if they would of been allowed to dig an archeolgical tell of the arked shaped imprinted image, they would of found imprinted images of wood ribs, etc... within the sediments of the imprinted image, if not petrified wood, or some other images stained in the sediments, like metal nails oxidized in the sediments, that would show clear patterns, if local basalt irons, or a pattern as suggested by Ron, or if the site had been tampered by the Turkish archeologists, like what was the reason for not allowing Ron to conduct an archeological tell. It might just be they were concerned that it was in fact proof of the biblical deluge. etc...
P.S. Perhaps its good no one is digging the tell, so the evidence can be preserved until such time someone of Ron Wyatts integrity could conduct the tell. I'd have no problem if Andrew Snelling be allowed to conduct the tell, as I believe he's an honest man, though wouldn't trust this tell to someone biased in respect to toe. With all this technology we have today, Andrew Snelling could checkout the anchor stones, too, though Ron did an exceptional job with the limited resources he had at his disposal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2004 5:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2004 6:55 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 50 of 303 (101962)
04-22-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
04-22-2004 6:55 PM


Re: just curious why
I'm not a engineer or anything, but wouldn't rope swell, and not erode the stone holes in water. What other purpose is there for stones this large with holes on the top. In water these holes would of supported the lesser weight of the stone's in water. In survival rafts, they have sea anchors that are just a line to a sock that fills with water, that anchors the raft below the wave base.
P.S. I suppose Snelling will need some people qualified in mechanical engineering, to consult in respect to the mechanics of the ark if he doesn't understand the principle of sea anchors. And some people that will keep bias from all sides in context, some archeologists not sceptical, to get to the truth if the anchor stone found above the ark is the same as the others found elsewhere. Lots of questions fear will never be answered. Andrew Snelling is honest, and evolutionists wouldn't want someone thats not a bit sceptical of Rons deductions to run the Tell, but someone that would be honest, using grant moneys looking for imprinted images, in the Tell, and get to the truth of any imprinted image. Compare stones rock structures of different sea anchors, though I agree he is a bit too biased in your favor, but because of his integrity, I'd give him my ok to run the Tell, with other qualified archeologists. All looking for imprinted images within the image, and documenting everything found, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2004 6:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2004 3:54 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 52 of 303 (102027)
04-22-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by JonF
04-22-2004 8:56 PM


Re: just curious why
JonF, Walt Brown said this, on his site, (type C-14 on his google search engine), if so then, you can not date sediments to date carbon based life, in any carbon based life even those evolutionist say is millions of years old, is coming back thousands of years old, etc...
P.S. C-14 has a half life of about 5,000 years, not believed detectable after 100,000 years, though ancient bones believed old came back 5,000 years or less, with the new atomic acelerator techniques, etc...
Walt Says:
This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimeneven materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10
Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those radiocarbon years correspond to a much younger true age.
You also have problems with the frost still lifting sediment to the surface, this only shows the sediments were laid down recently (less than 5,000 years ago), like how deep do you need to go to date sediments that were not laid out by the glaciation in the northern hemisphere in the world biblical flood, etc...These biblical sediments don't need to date young, if they were laid out in the biblical flood, via liquefacation, but makes total sense in that salt evaporated pre-flood lakes deposits formed pre-flood were covered by the sediments of the biblical flood all over the earth, it all depends on how you interprete the sediments, but the rocks being pressed up by the frost, if the sediments were laid down millions of years ago, the rocks affected by the frost would of already pressed to the surface, meaning all the rocks are shouting out, they are in support the sediment record is quite young, as to when it was laid down, because these rocks are still being pressed up each year on the farmers field, this only supports that the sediments are not old as to when they were laid down, even if they date older by isotope dating, given the mountains and plateaus pressed up, the waters are not able to reflood the entire earth, this all supports the biblical deluge, and that the sediment layers were formed via liquefaction, and quite recently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by JonF, posted 04-22-2004 8:56 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by JonF, posted 04-23-2004 10:49 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 54 of 303 (102155)
04-23-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
04-23-2004 3:54 AM


PaulK, The rope would not of eroded the rock, but the rock could of eroded the rope. If the rope expanded it should be like a flexible pressure fit that wouldn't rub the rope. So the fit would of survived through the biblical deluge. Is not this why the hole was on the top of the rock, so the rope wouldn't rub against the anchor stones, and sever the anchor's from the ark.
Snelling didn't actually see the site, see first hand what Ron saw. The site probably now has eroded since the earthquake of the 70's opened the earth. If the anchor stone wasn't up above the ark, and if the site wasn't the exact dimensions of the ark, too much evidence it is the ark. Though don't feel either is being untruthful, but agree the site should become an archeological tell. To see if we can determine if its the ark that Noah built. Just find it interesting how they wouldn't allow Ron to make an archeological tell of the site, if they don't believe its the ark. Ron had not the grant money's paleontolgists recieve but did a remarkable job with what resources at his disposal, had much more integrity in his little pinky than the paleontologists telling us they can accurately date an imprint by the sediments. We all know how quickly bones deteriorate, and they still tell us some bones are millions of years old. All bones should be tested by the advanced C-14 dating if any carbon exists. If this was done we likely then could rewrite paleontology 101, and bring these deluted scientists into the 21st century, toe had its day, now its time for it to be replaced with ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2004 3:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2004 10:50 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 04-23-2004 10:54 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 12:10 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 59 of 303 (102176)
04-23-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by JonF
04-23-2004 10:54 AM


JonF, I've explained how your dating a fossil imprint on a zeroed istope scale, that's based on millions of years. The problem is Snelling found a petrified mineralized wood fossil with C-14 present between geologic layers dating millions of years by your truck scale, the fossil scale for the mineralized petrified wood, showed it wasn't old. Brown says this is not an uncommon phenomenom, coal also exibits this same phenomenom, and some ancient bones that were assumed to be too old to date, not surprisingly dated only 5,000 years or less, you also know that frost wouldn't be still pressing rocks to the surface if the sediment record was laid down millions of years in the past, though agree these rocks rising up through the sediments would date old. Another controversy to dating sediments as to the age of the fossil, you know that tree rings can be only dated back approximately 11,000 years, all supporting the fossil records young, not old, etc...
P.S. It does take a lot of faith to see your tire imprint, in the sand, and make this leap of faith that its millions of years old, because its imprinted in the sediments. Nothing different than a dinosaur's imprint in the sediments. Perhaps we should rewrite paleontology 101, and have a footnote, that its not conclusive that the fossil imprints are actually old as the sediments, and that imprinted fossil could be quite young. It no different that dating a tire imprint by the sediments, but the paleontologists need to keep this illusion alive, and require faith to believe it, as it doesn't make sense, without faith, that by the sediments you can date a decomposed fossil imprint. etc...
RADZ, I thought the reason for sea anchors have nothing to do with ballast, but to anchor the boat below the wave base so the boat would always point into the wave, like Ron Wyatt implied, and the ark was designed with fluid dynamics in design, by being an ark, so waters would of flowed around the arked design, with it ridding a bit low in the waves, it would of been extremely stable, God didn't say to build a floating box for good reason. A floating box would of been pounded by the wave, and ark would of cut through the waves, always self aligning because of the sea anchors. The sea anchors found in the immediate area, is more supporting evidence that this is in fact the decomposed remains of the biblical ark, as the weak ropes were ripped out of the anchor stones distributing them over the immediate area, as they snagged the surrounding terrain, just before resting on them mountains of Ararat.
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 04-23-2004 10:54 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 04-23-2004 12:41 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 12:51 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 62 by AdminNosy, posted 04-23-2004 12:55 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 63 of 303 (102306)
04-23-2004 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
04-23-2004 12:51 PM


Part Submarine ?
RAZD, I like it, you might be on to something, the ark might of been designed to be part submarine. It was pitched without and within. With lower compartmentalized water ballasts could of been adjusted by simple RAM pumps, check valves and level adjustment valves, to allow adjusting forward ballasts and tail ballast. It would be kinda like adjusting your air shocks on your car to adjust ride. You do realize that Barges carrying heavy ores, some have moon pools, thought that Ron believed the ark likely had these advanced moon pools (would of been perfect way for the creatures to of entered the different levels of the ark), for enclosed air ventilation off wave pulses. It would be simple to of increased the air pressure in the ark so the moon pool level could of dropped to the bottom of the hull. So if the ark crashed into a wave no water would pulse through hinged weighted intake vents, as the ark came out of the wave it would suck air in through the air intake, and with sea anchors positioning the ark into the waves because the sea anchors would of been anchored in the waters below the wave base, and the waves themselves continually aligning the ark into the waves. etc... It all kinda makes sense, for trout fishermen know that trout uses little energies to face into the stream cause of vortex energies(fluid dynamics), of their arked shape. Fishermen always let the baits flow to the trout, as all kinds of food is pressed downstream, something about fluid dynamics, why the trout isn't pressed downstream, like they are defying gravity, though its believed the parting waters creates a vacuum (vortex energies) in front of the fish, and the laminal waters closing in around the fish, why they are not pressed downstream, as long as they face into the streams currents, likely the entire basis of God requesting Noah to build an arked shaped boat. etc...
P.S. I don't know if Ron subscribed to any of this, just liked your thinking that the ark might of been part submarine (that's thinking outside the box). It really is too bad that Ron died, he would of been the perfect man to of run the excavation, now we will likely never know in this life, if the ark had a large moon pool, water ballasts, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 12:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 10:50 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 66 by wmscott, posted 04-24-2004 9:22 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5703 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 68 of 303 (102393)
04-24-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by JonF
04-24-2004 10:42 AM


JonF's making one of his little fibs, he knows the ark wouldn't sink with a moon pool (we've discussed this before), as long as its sheltered from the inside of the vessel, and that its feasible with weighted hinged intake and outlet vents to raise the air pressure in the ark so the moon pool level drops.
P.S. The anchor stones would of only aligned the ark, its rudder so to speak, the ballast would be responsible for how deeply the ark rode in the waters, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by JonF, posted 04-24-2004 10:42 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2004 11:56 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 70 by JonF, posted 04-24-2004 2:44 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 04-24-2004 4:04 PM johnfolton 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