Wyatt's Ark of the Covenent

Well, why wouldn't they put up fences and such at these places. There is a lot of history in that part of the world and if a particular location was identified by an archaeologist as being a worthwhile archaeological site, why wouldn't fences be put up to protect it? Makes perfect sense to me. There was an archaeological site in Sydney (probably still there, haven't been down that way in a while) in an area called The Rocks. It's basically foundations of early settlement in Sydney from maybe 200 years ago. Surprisingly enough, there was a fence around it. Sites that are a THOUSANDS of years old are worth protecting I'd say.As for the visitors centre at "Noahs Ark", I don't doubt for a second that it is there. Let me tell you, if I dug up some kind of holy relic in my backyard, I wouldn't hesitate too long in putting up a viewing platform and charging people money to come and look at it. The Turks aren't silly, they see a good way to make an extra few bucks.The point is, none of this could even remotely be considered as valid evidence that that any of this stuff is true. I don't doubt that it may be interesting archaeology, but to see it as evidence of the Bible is quite a stretch of the imagination. All it does prove is that there are people around who believe in it.

That makes sense. For those thousands of years there probably weren't very many visitors either. So, if you can speak on behalf of the Turkish Government like that, i guess there must be some official record of this decision that they made. Governments tend to keep records of things like that. Can you possibly provide some evidence of the Turkish Government making this decision? I will keep this in mind if I ever feel the need to score "points" with you and those you keep company with.I do not see anyone whining here. People are making intelligent arguments and making reasonable requests for evidence of the assertions you are making. Calling everyone "children" because they don't blindly accept what you say is the closest thing I can see here to whining.The only fact here is that those "facts" you have presented have nothing substantial to back them up. Back on topic, that photo of the Ark of the Covenant is ridiculous. it doesn't look like anything to me. I am not stating that it is definitely not the Ark, I'm simply saying that the photo does not even remotely measure up to sufficient evidence, it's as clear as mud. You'll need to do a lot better than that.

It doesn't surprise me that much. I've seen creationists get their information from some very questionable sources. TV looks like an almost credible alternative when compared to these. TV networks need people to watch them, so if they identify a market they will cater for it. As long as there are people silly enough to sit in the audience or watch that psychic guy on tv, it doesn't actually matter whether he really can talk to the dead or not. Same thing in the case of Wyatt. It doesn't matter whether it's true or if the guy was a complete nutter, there are a lot of people who would watch it. Believers would because, to their way of thinking, it backs up their beliefs. Non-believers also, for amusement value.Basically, you're right. It's best not to put too much faith in what you see on the TV.

---

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

Sounds like an idea. Some of this stuff made about as much sense as the "5 minute argument" sketch