Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 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: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 303 (101761)
04-22-2004 2:50 AM


I did a thread on Wyatt and the ark site a year or so ago. I met Wyatt a couple of years before he died when he did a lecture near me with slide photos of his 17 expeditions to the region as well as the Aqaba crossing where the chariot wheels are. I have read Wyatt's book on his work and have viewed David Fassold's excellent video on the ark site. David Fassold accompanied Wyatt on some of his expeditions but I believe they had a falling out somewhere along the way.
As for Baumgartner's reversal on the authenticy of the site, it is my belief that he too, like Wyatt was looking for something fossilized, but fossils don't form on the surface. The ark was not suddenly burried so as to make it petrify or fossilize.
It is my understanding that Wyatt was the first to figure out the Aqaba route for the Exodus crossing and to discover the chariot wheels as well as the interesting split rock, the blackened mountain top and other evidences of Mt Sinai being in the Biblical land of Midian which is now Saudi Arabia.
I believe scientist Lenart Moller who did the underwater photography for THE EXODUS REVEALED (see my thread on that) video got his cue for checking out this site from what he had heard from Wyatt's work. It appears from the video that Mollar, a Swedish scientist from Stockholm
University operated from a secularist position and just went in to photograph what he had heard about so the viewer of the evidence could decide for themselves.
Now, I offered the above to say that Wyatt is no kook. No, he was not a bonafide scientist, but part time archeologist. He didn't need to get a degree to find stuff, but the will and energy to study, travel, dig and explore. He has more evidence, imo, for his claims than Darwin ever had, but because his support the Bible, he's the kook and Darwin's the one secularists listen to.
I am convinced, after delving into this quite extensively for several years that Wyatt's site is not a petrified fossilized ark, but that it is the impression the large craft left in the landscape as it deteriorated and eventually rotted away. It is the exact Biblical length of the Biblical ark, given that Moses would have used Egyption figures since he was raised and taught in Egypt. Someone said it's too wide. That's a no brainer. It should be too wide to be authentic, because as it deteriorated the sides of the ship would most certainly splay out making the impression wider but the ends would not splay so they should be fairly accurate. I am convinced in my own mind that the stones are balast stones for the ark. The fact that one has old inscriptions of 8 people and a boat carved in likely by locals a long time ago says something. Some of Wyatt's approach was to interview the local herdsmen and others to hear the legends handed down over the centuries to them and they tended to believe there was a flood and this was where the boat landed.
I exchanged some correspondence with John Morris at ICR several years ago about this and he rejects Wyatts claims both for the ark site and for the Exodus crossing at Aqaba. I was not satisfied at all with his arguments against Wyatt. For one thing, Henry Morris, John's dad and founder of ICR has made several expeditions up the big Mt Aarat and still believes it's suppose to have landed up there. That's nuts, imo, because of the rough steep terrain and so forth. Morris and ICR would have to retool all their books and data in order to go with Wyatt. Things like cows, horses, etc would not be able to get off way up there and survive the descent. The landing would need to be where they could be with the ship until they got things built and so forth.
Yes, Wyatt has claimed to have found so much, but he did his homework on where things should be found and went after them. As for the blood on the Ark Of The Covenant mercy seat, I dono. He claims the ark was found directly below where Jesus would'v been crucified and Israel is keeping the wraps on it. I dono. God knows. I do believe the ark has to be somwhere and to have hidden it in an obscure cave makes sense. It seems to me though, that by now all the caves would've been discovered. Wyatt claims that God led him to the hidden cave. Maybe, maybe not. Again, I don't know and neither does anyone else I guess. I'm not saying Wyatt was honest or not because I just don't know, but I do know what I've seen that I do believe concerning his work.
{NOTE from Adminnemooseus: My best guess is that the topic Buz mentions in paragraph 1, is Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Going Back up!!. It went 247 messages, and is now closed.}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-22-2004]

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 303 (101851)
04-22-2004 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
04-22-2004 12:31 PM


Doesn't it make more sense that Noah and his family would have dismantled the ark and used all of that wood for new construction?
1. It makes more sense that they used it for home, storage and shelter until rebuilding done.
2. Likely they built from logs, stone, mud brick, etc.
3. I believe the whole ark was coated with pitch for sealing as God instructed which would make it very hard to dismantle and unsuitable for reuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 04-22-2004 12:31 PM nator has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 303 (102463)
04-24-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by JonF
04-24-2004 4:04 PM


Re:
I know the Ark would sink with or without a moon pool; all a moon pool would do is speed things up.
Wooden ships leak. Caulked with pitch, calked with silicone, caulked with anything; they leak.
You're underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of the pre-flood folks, Jon. They had brass and iron workers and artificers according to the account.
1. According to the length of time the flood lasted and considering that the ark landed not all that distant from where it started it appears that the weather was not stormy.
2. After the rain subsided there would have been no rain or storms during the evaporation because the atmospheric water had all fell to the earth and part was now to evaporate back up.
3. There is indication in scriptures that the flood had something to do with the lowering of the ocean floors and the rising of the mountains.
I'm saying the above to say that the ark would not have endured the storms and the high waves modern ocean vessels encounter and thus would not be so apt to leak if well sealed by the pitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 04-24-2004 4:04 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2004 7:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 303 (102487)
04-24-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
04-24-2004 4:52 PM


JonF, Face it they lied to you, I've explained over and over to you, its simply not possible to to date fossils imprints accurately by the sediments, but that doesn't stop the paleontologists from teaching its possible. I've explained if your assumptions are off by just a little bit, because of the great half life, makes the fossil imprint age off by not by hundreds of years, but millions of years because of the great scale used for the various isotope methods. Its no wonder fossil imprints will date millions, not thousands of years old. Its like placing a fly on a truck scale. When you factor in leaching, mineralization, anerobic and aerobic soil bacteria, capillary solute movements within micro-pores, and water solvent movement in macro-pores all seeking to equalize solute concentration's, earth worm's and other soil micro-organisms, and the great amounts of time of at least 4,350 years since the biblical deluge, where all the sediments were saturated (covered) by water. The age of the sediments is just a reflection of all the things that happened in the last 4,350 years, and not actually the sediments true age.
Good post, Whatever. I contended with a similar argument about a year ago and got heck for it. I wonder what the scientifically calculated difference between a tree and the Mt St Helens sediment that it was burried in would be using the same method used in measuring the age of a petrified tree assuming the St Helens sediment was unknown??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 4:52 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2004 5:23 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 84 by Randy, posted 04-25-2004 12:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 303 (102490)
04-24-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
04-24-2004 7:58 PM


Re: Big Waves
And you are overestimating the ability of boats to float with openings into the interior, with ventilations for thousands of animals, and in a nearly submarine attitude, on a boat oriented so that whatever waves are there will more readily wash over the boat than have the boat ride up and over. The concept is poppycock hokum happyweed delirium.
Raz, I don't think you would consider the possibility of Pharoah's 600 chariots being scattered in the Gulf of Aqaba all the way across from the Sinai Peninsula to Saudi Arabia to be poppycock if you could see the actual photography of them in the video, THE EXODUS REVEALED. There's even one wheel without corral encrustation which is gold, silver and lead overlaid. The metal prevented the coral to encrust that one.
By the same token, nobody knows how the ark was designed to do the job it did, how the animals survived, and how it all came about, but like the parting of the gulf waters, it most likely happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2004 7:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 04-24-2004 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2004 12:39 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 303 (102632)
04-25-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
04-25-2004 12:39 AM


Re: Big Waves
Perhaps you would like to start a topic on the chariot wheels. It is off topic here.
I already have a thread going on them, THE EXODUS REVEALED VIDEO. Note how I used the reference to them before charging that they're off topic, i.e. "by the same token." My point was that the supernatural has been established by them and by that same token, the credibility of the ark story is enhanced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2004 12:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2004 8:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 303 (102634)
04-25-2004 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
04-25-2004 5:23 AM


Tell me Buz have you actually READ this thread ?
I don't believe this question was addressed. Please correct if I'm mistaken. My point in this is to possibly lend support to Whatever's arguments.
I wonder what the scientifically calculated difference between a tree and the Mt St Helens sediment that it was buried in would be using the same method used in measuring the age of a petrified tree assuming the St Helens sediment was unknown??
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-25-2004]

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2004 5:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 04-25-2004 7:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 97 by JonF, posted 04-25-2004 8:08 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 303 (102670)
04-25-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
04-25-2004 8:58 PM


Re: Big Waves
Note that my post does not refute {a noah ark}, but that the Wyatt version is pure hokum.
Do you mean Wyatt's ark design or Wyatt's archeological ark site impression?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2004 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2004 12:36 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 303 (102671)
04-25-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by JonF
04-25-2004 8:08 PM


Re: OT: How we date sedimentary layers (mostly)
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jon. Someone gave the scientific data for the calculated age of Wyatt's site, but I forgot where.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by JonF, posted 04-25-2004 8:08 PM JonF has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 303 (103240)
04-27-2004 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by JonF
04-27-2004 9:19 AM


Re: moving the goal posts --- again.
Nope. the Bible doesn't say anyting about the age of fossils. Your interpretation of the Bible is incorect.
It does say something about how old man, the animals and man made things are so the fossils of these would have a Biblical time frame.
.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JonF, posted 04-27-2004 9:19 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by JonF, posted 04-28-2004 8:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 303 (317415)
06-03-2006 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Tennessee R
06-03-2006 3:28 PM


Re: Backwards
Hi TR and a hearty welcome to EvC. I met Wyatt a number of years ago and heard him lecture. I have his ark book and in it if I remember correctly he says that likely Moses, being Egyptian educated, used Egyptian measurements rather than Hebrew. According to him, they are different and the Egyptian length comes out right, but the sides would be splayed out from deterioriation, showing wider than would be when the craft were intact.
I believe his site is the real thing, but likely there would be little if any petrification, the form being more of an impression in the area caused by the rotted craft being so massive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Tennessee R, posted 06-03-2006 3:28 PM Tennessee R has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Tennessee R, posted 06-04-2006 2:09 AM Buzsaw 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