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
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
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 I am aware that I could be well out of date and many of you might of already discussed these issues.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

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
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 (Idle past 106 days)
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

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
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

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
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

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
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

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 303 (100741)
04-18-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
04-17-2004 11:14 PM


Conclusion
I am now satisfied that this is a geological formation. As you say Ned, Bill has shown other "canoo" features of similar formations. I brought the topic here to almost arrive at a conclusion with help so to speak. Because it is the first investigation I have done on the ark.
One thing to note{ I never myself, decideded this was the ark - at any time, I have found supposed "evidences" on websites before and I did think it a bit dubious that this guy seems to have "found" every artifact in the Old Testament. The evaluation of the geological formation satisfies me that it is natural, and it looks natural also on the upclose photogragh. It is an oddity, but I don't think I can say "it is the ark". I suppose it is a similar thing to the face on mars, which is also just a formation probably.
BTW Ned, I am not really a person to return to or rely on one specific source, I mean - Wyatt is just another person to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2004 11:14 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-18-2004 4:34 PM mike the wiz 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