Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark

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.

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...........FALSEAccording 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.

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.

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": (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). Baumgardner, Morris, Snelling all say that Wyatt's "Ark" is a natural geological formation. Baumgardner and Morris have actually visited the site.Snelling again:

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...

Yes, and I have posted evidence that they are liars and explained in detail exactly why they are liars, many times. You have ignored this evidence. Yes, and I have posted evidence that he was a liar and explained in detail exactly why he was a liar, many times. You have ignored this evidence. You are posting gibberish.I have a problem with you repeating a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the third time, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW! I discount Humphreys' "excess helium" because he made elementary errors in his anlysis, especially when he calculated the diffusion rate assuming zero helium outside the crystal.

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! 10Radiocarbon 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.

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.

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.

Your posts are irrelevant. Respond to my point as required in the forum guidelines.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old", which you have made before and not supported. For the fourth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!

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.

As usual, you are making stuff up, and, as usual, it's total hooey.Your scenario doesn't work. There is a thing called "fretting". Things that fit together tightly but are not attached so as to prevent movement do move relative to each other, very tiny and often un-noticable amounts, and the wear caused by this motion is as bad as and often worse than the wear caused by larger relatvie motions. Your tightly fitting rope would wear. Not necessary. The information we have is sufficient to evaluate Wyatt's claims.{Added in edit} Almost all of the bones that we find that do have carbon are tested. Fossil bones don't have carbon.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-23-2004]

This whole concept of "anchor" stones being used to ballast a ship from external "keelsons" that extend beyond the ends of the ship is the best laugh I have had in some time.This system has not been used on any ship that I know of ... ever.The benefit to minimize rolling is minimal compared to the same amount of stones inside the hull (the normal historical method) or tied to the beam amidships (best location). The position shown off the ends is totally ludicrous, as this will tend to minimize pitch forcing the ends of the boat to smash into and be submerged by waves. Normal ballast is centered to allow a boat to pitch in reaction to the waves, while being distributed towards the beam of the boat to minimize rolling. This has to do with the moment of inertia of the boat in the relevant directions. In other words this position minimizes good effect and maximizes bad effect on the normal roll and pitch behavior of a ship in turbulaent waves. Releasing them before landing would mean that the ship would then be rolling like a log if they actually were needed before, OR that they were not really needed in the first place.The only valid conclusion is that this concept is a total fantasy.btw -- sea anchors are used to minimize drift and have nothing to do with stability.Thanks for the full body laugh, it's a floor pounder. Enjoy.

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]

You have yet to establish that anybody is rigging anything, or that any dating methods are unscientific.From the M-W dictionary:

quote:

---

Rig: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means

---

Your unsupported (and, as has been pointed out many times before with references, almost all false) claims about dating are irrelevant. Listing a few errors in or occasional problems with dating, especially in tests performed by dishonest creationists (and the evidence for this has been pointed out to you many times), is not support for your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". Similarly, your refusal or inability to understand dating methods is not evidence for your claim. You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Provide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the fifth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!{Added in edit} No, we don't put deliberate and foolish lies in paleontology books. The imprints could not have been made after the sediments turned to stone, and the date we have is the date that it turned to stone or later. The imprints are as old as or older than the date we obtain for the rock.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-23-2004]