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
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 27 of 303 (101635)
04-21-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by johnfolton
04-21-2004 5:38 PM


Re: just curious why
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by johnfolton, posted 04-21-2004 5:38 PM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 35 of 303 (101790)
04-22-2004 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by johnfolton
04-21-2004 7:41 PM


Re: just curious why
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 04-21-2004 7:41 PM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 47 of 303 (101904)
04-22-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 4:25 PM


Re: just curious why
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...........FALSE
According 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 4:25 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 6:29 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 49 of 303 (101932)
04-22-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 6:29 PM


Re: just curious why
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":
Noah would scarcely have used as anchor stones slabs of rock indigenous to the area where the Ark came to rest after the Flood. If we are to believe that these could have been Noah’s anchor stones, then the onus is on Wyatt and his colleagues to prove by scientific means (chemical and isotopic analyses and mineralogical determinations) that these rocks are entirely exotic to this area, which consists of late Flood and post-Flood strata.
(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).
Now it is claimed that between eight and ten of these stones have been found in an area 10—14 miles (16—22 kilometres) from the boat-shape formation, although one was reportedly found in a gully 100—200 metres up slope from it. One would think that the considerable distance of these claimed anchor stones from the boat-shape itself must diminish somewhat their significance.
Besides, if these were anchor stones, the holes were carved too near the edges of the rocks. Because of their sheer weight the rock around the holes would have too easily broken off. Indeed, there is no sign of any wear of the rock surface around the top side of these holes, which one would expect if ropes had been tied through them to drag these heavy stones around in the water for up to a year.
Baumgardner, Morris, Snelling all say that Wyatt's "Ark" is a natural geological formation. Baumgardner and Morris have actually visited the site.
Snelling again:
The data from this drilling, and from these and other surveys, combined with geological mapping and sampling by these and other scientists, enables the conclusion to be made that this site has a perfectly reasonable natural geological explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 6:29 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 7:54 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 53 of 303 (102114)
04-23-2004 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 7:54 PM


Re: just curious why
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 7:54 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 56 of 303 (102162)
04-23-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
04-23-2004 10:16 AM


Re:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM johnfolton has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 82 of 303 (102560)
04-25-2004 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Buzsaw
04-24-2004 10:14 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2004 10:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2004 7:19 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 95 of 303 (102637)
04-25-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
04-25-2004 7:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2004 7:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 04-25-2004 8:10 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 113 of 303 (102747)
04-26-2004 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by JonF
04-25-2004 8:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 04-25-2004 8:10 PM JonF 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