Jump to content


Photo

Noah's Ark - Thinking Outside The Box


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 April 2009 - 03:02 PM

Yes, but you are an evolutionist worshipper, so how are we supposed to trust you, or your sources???  Evolutionist are known for lying, and being untrustworthy... about 99.9% of the time, simply because atheist are evil, and they hate God.  Again you need to provide sufficient proof, and evidence for your claims, which such you have not provided, only bias.

Also it is extremely easy like you said to test petrified wood to see if it is wood.  Anyways some petrified wood I have in my home state is half fossilized, and half non-fossilized.  Petrified wood is easily discernable.

In all reality all evolutionist across the globe, to protect the atheist faith, have to claim all creationist as frauds, so you see, there is only one right, one wrong... I choose creationism, you choose evolutionism.  So basically both view each other the same way, so claiming your bias gets us nowhere, when we see each other as frauds anyways... you must show the evidence against the evidence presented... understand??? Good.

View Post


Hi scott.

I am not an evolution worshipper, nor an atheist, nor evil, nor a God hater. These terms you have used are purely prejudicial, having nothing to do with the subject Bex and I were discussing, and nothing to do with me. Please do not misrepresent my position in such a horrible way.

scott, I have not made any claims. It is Ron Wyatt who made claims, and I am merely pointing out their credibility is sorely lacking (John 4:1-6).

I agree it is easy to identify petrified wood. Why, then, do Wyatt's supporters not submit their samples to such tests? There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this reluctance.

Lets say, for the sake of this discussion, that all evolutionists across the globe are wrong, wrong, wrong about everything. Would this therefore make Ron Wyatt's claims correct? No, it would not. The reason Ron Wyatt's claims are dubious has nothing to do with evolution or atheism, and everything to do with eyewitness testimony against Ron Wyatt's truthfulness, and failure to submit his claims to reasonable testing.

Kind regards--SeeJay

#22 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 06 April 2009 - 05:19 PM

Hi again Bex.

I visited Wyatt's website, as you recommended. Just the page on laboratory analysis (here) contains obvious mischaracterisations of the evidence:

- Carbon is abundant in all sorts of soils and rocks. The "inside" vs "outside" measurements of carbon fall well within the normal range of carbon for soil and rock, and thus tell us absolutely nothing about whether there was once wood or any other organic material there.

- Similarly, the measurement of 0.7% organic carbon is completely meaningless. There are hundreds of possible ways for a sample of soil or rock to contain organic carbon without it being a sample of decayed or fossilised wood -- for example, it may contain fragments of organic soil.

The only way to be sure the sample is wood (fossilised or otherwise) is to take a thin slice of the sample, stick it under a microscope, and look for the cellular structure of wood. This is a very simple, very cheap procedure.
I did investigate both sides. It was very clear to me that Ron Wyatt's claims did not have the weight of observed, factual evidence on their side.

It is up to those supporting Wyatt to make their case. Why not submit the samples for proper testing? There is only one reasonable explanation for this, and that is that the people who have the samples do not want to risk having their claims disproven.

Add to this the fact that many of Wyatt's previously close colleagues, who participated in research with him on the suspected Ark, have since clearly and publicly announced that there is no merit to any of Wyatt's claims in this area. In fact several of them have accused Wyatt of outright fraud (Note: I in no way endorse this, I am merely reporting their statements).

My point is not about whether Wyatt is right or wrong, or whether that is the real Ark. Instead, my point is that you undermine your own argument by appealing to claims that are widely regarded as discredited, even within the evangelical community. First the claims should be established using proper scientific methods, then they can be used legitimately to support your position. But not the other way round.

Thanks and regards--SeeJay

View Post


Hi SeeJay,

I thank you for taking the time to view both sides. However, I have to say that you have been rather premature in your "conclusions" based upon some important ommissions, which indicates that you may not have researched the findings thoroughly enough. In the face of this, you have also misrepresented my reasons for defending Ron Wyatt and his findings, based upon a very one-sided negative press and the failure to mention (or find out) about the thorough and legitimate testing that has already been done.

It seems you have overlooked what I told you in my previous post. So I will try again.

Everything that Ron Wyatt has claimed has been backed by legitimate lab testing. In fact, the readings of the tested wood samples were I repeat, not only documented, but read out by LAB TECHNICIANS and recorded on video.

You said this:

The only way to be sure the sample is wood (fossilised or otherwise) is to take a thin slice of the sample, stick it under a microscope, and look for the cellular structure of wood. This is a very simple, very cheap procedure.


PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. I have also bolded one part below that directly responds to your quote.

Deck Timber:

During one of the earlier radar scans, the governor of the Truksih province of Agri asked Ron Wyatt to scan the overlying rubble, to locate a piece of loose timber, which they could dig out to verify that it was timber.  A sample was located by radar three feet below the surface.  The governor had one of the soldiers dig it up and presented it to Ron for testing.

At Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee, tests proved that it was indeed once living matter.

It was later sectioned and microscopic tests done, indicated that it was wood.  Three separate layers of wood pressed together, with an adhesive material between the layers.


Chemical tests -
One of the first things Ron did was to take samples from around, as well as inside the boat-shaped object.  The results were confirmed by Galbraith Laboratories of Knoxville, Tennessee:

Carbon content: 
"The soil from the formation tested at 4.95%, while the soil from the field around the formation tested at 1.88%.  This degree of difference is consistent with the prior presence of some organic matter (like wood) in the formation" (Dr. William Shea, Professor of Archeology, in Archaeology and Biblical Research, Will Grove, PA"  Associates for Biblical Research, Winter 1988)

Metallic content:
August, 1984:  Although a metal detector gave no reading at all in the field surrounding the object, there were positive indications over the formation.  The metal appeared to be in a pattern.

Repeated chemical tests of different samples, taken at different times by different people and analyzed at different laboratories, gave similar results.

Metal Detector Tests:

Several times, scientists visited the site.

The metal detector scans showed a very distinct organised pattern of metal beneath the surface, consistent with the shape of a ship.  These scans were done numerous times, using three separate types of emtal detector, all of which confirmed the same results.

There are iron nodules in about 5,400 places, located in lineal patterns, consistent with a shaped hull.

The pattern found by the metal detectors was recorded by laying yellow and pink tape along the lines of metal.

The object is impaled by a large rock on one side.  Around this rock the metal lines are bent and distorted - similar to what occurs in a collision when a car gets wrapped around a lamp post.

The rock appears to be an intrusion, which has damaged the boat shaped object.  The two do not belong together.  The rock is a foreign body.

Angle Bracket:

In May, 1985, Dr. John Baumgardner walked down the top of the wall with the metal detector going beep.....beep every two or three steps.  With the trained eye of a scientist he suddenly shouted, "Undecomposed iron"!

Fasold ran in close with the video recorder.  There in the wall, surround by mud, was a perfectly rectangular beam end and from it projected what appeared to be iron flakes which had given the signals.

Earlier he had held in his hand a piece of wrought iron.  It was stretched an dhammered angle bracket, with the grain clearly visible.  The angle bracket was tested by the Los Alamos National Laboratory.  It showed 91.84% FE203.


There are many more to add. If I feel the need to, I will.

The Noah's Ark site was thoroughly scanned by subsurface interface radar at various depths by world acredited makers of that machine. We have the director of that Lab on video before witnesses CLEARLY emphasizing the presence throughout the site of manmade structures. He specifically dismisses the possibility of these manmade structures being mere natural formations. Ron Wyatt was from the beginning of his discoveries the object of intense academic jealousy and consequent bitter attacks which are embedded and collected on a former AIG (now CMI) website to which they invariably refer those inquiring about Ron Wyatt. If you wish to see each and every one of their denunciations of Wyatt's discoveries refuted by thorough documentation, I refer you to Jonathan Gray's book 'DISCOVERIES: QUESTIONS ANSWERED'. It maybe reproduced on Gray's or Wyatt's websites. I recommend you access it. If you do and are still in doubt then I, like Jonathon Gray, rest my case and leave you to form your own conclusions. My Father, a highly educated man with a master's degree, was initially disturbed by the CMI website, but when Gray's book, crammed with photocopies of key documents came out shortly after, his doubts were removed, except regarding the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant which has some question marks, but strong circumstantial credibility.

Several leading figures who turned against Ron, nevertheless are on record as having made damaging admissions in writing which clearly contradict their later verbal criticism and self distancing from these discoveries - not wanting to fall out of step with the academic community which had turned viciously against Ron Wyatt for various reasons, none of which included the truth. Most of which included half truths, gross exaggerations and sometimes straight out lies. My Father, an academic himself, remains ashamed of their behaviour and like Dr Kent H*vind, and a growing number of other academics are convinced of the truth of his discoveries. My Father knows of two highly intelligent young Christian men who worked closely with Ron Wyatt for many years. After my Father's experiencing severe doubt about Wyatt's discoveries, he played the Devil's advocate and subjected all his discoveries to rigorous skeptical investigation which left him a convinced believer satisfied by compelling, collective evidence surrounding each discovery, except the one mentioned earlier.

We can put you in in direct contact with Jonathon Gray, should you wish or send you a set of my Father's own thoroughly researched notes should you also wish to receive them. I highly recommend them. Pictures/documentation etc are presented throughout the book verifying and backing up claims.

I am convinced that Ron Wyatt's star is yet to shine in its fullness.

I leave you to your own opinion and conclusions.

#23 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 06 April 2009 - 08:40 PM

I present these free video links to anybody who is interested - Please simply click on the title's below to view. Enjoy!



STARTLING EVIDENCE THAT NOAH'S FLOOD REALLY HAPPENED




WORLDWIDE GEOLOGIC EVIDENCE OF THE GENESIS FLOOD




MOUNT ST HELEN'S (explosive evidence for worldwide catastrophy)




IN THE BEGINNING: Catastrophic plate tectonics and the Genesis Flood




RAGING WATERS: Evidence of the Genesis Flood in Australia



Note:
Even if you are on dial-up, these are surprisingly rapid and easy! Some may not turn out however. These video links are either "real player" or "media player" compatible. You will need either to view some, or both to view all. You have the choice to view these videos on the page itself, or you can click on "dial-up" or "broadband" to view them straight on your windows media player - whatever works better. You also have the option of viewing them as a file and can download them.


#24 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 06 April 2009 - 09:30 PM

scott, I have not made any claims. It is Ron Wyatt who made claims, and I am merely pointing out their credibility is sorely lacking (John 4:1-6).


Their credibility is backed up by lab testing, documentation, witnesses, pictures, etc. Hardly lacking!

I agree it is easy to identify petrified wood. Why, then, do Wyatt's supporters not submit their samples to such tests? There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this reluctance.


They have submitted such samples to testing by various reputable labs. I pointed this out to you earlier. Is it reasonable to come to a negative conclusion based upon a lack of thorough research and fair hearing into his findings/testing?

Lets say, for the sake of this discussion, that all evolutionists across the globe are wrong, wrong, wrong about everything. Would this therefore make Ron Wyatt's claims correct? No, it would not. The reason Ron Wyatt's claims are dubious has nothing to do with evolution or atheism, and everything to do with eyewitness testimony against Ron Wyatt's truthfulness, and failure to submit his claims to reasonable testing.


You have stated that Ron Wyatt's claims are "dubious", based upon AIG postings/claims ..... condemnation without proper examination is a very premature and unwise position to take. We can all be accused of this from time to time (perhaps often). I am not asking you to toss aside a healthy and necessary skepticism, but I encourage you to keep an open mind about Wyatt and the findings without being too premature in waving them aside.

#25 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:56 AM

Dear Bex

I am not trying to trash Ron Wyatt. My point is, and remains, that Ron Wyatt's claims have failed to convince the majority of people in the evangelical creationist community, let alone the skeptical, evolutionist community. This is simply the fact of the matter. Even if Ron Wyatt's claims about the Ark happened to be perfectly correct, my point still stands: virtually nobody takes those claims seriously.

However, you have gone to some trouble to state your case, so I have done some more reading and digging to understand where you are coming from. I won't bore you with all the details, but virtually every piece of information I could find on Ron Wyatt, Christian, creationist or skeptic, was extremely critical.

You also cited some evidence regarding the suspected Ark at Ararat, which I comment on here.

1. Carbon content measurements, by Galbraith lab, read out on camera.

As I explained earlier, these measurements are completely inconclusive on the question of whether the samples were petrified wood or other organic (or even inorganic) matter. The fact that a lab technician read the results out on camera does not change this.

2. A sample was sectioned and microscopically examined, and determined to be wood.

This is just a statement, not evidence. For this to count as evidence, we would need to see two things: (1) reliable evidence of the provenance of the sample (e.g. photographs of it in situ, being removed and being sectioned etc) and (2) the photomicrographs of the sample showing its cellular structure. Ideally, also, other scientists should be able to take their own samples and reproduce the results.

Does Gray include these things in his book? Let me know: better yet, scan it and post it, if possible.

3. Metal detector scans showing a subsurface boat structure

Again, you have posted statements, not evidence. I understand three expeditions have visited the site since Wyatt's survey, with professional geologists (who were also creationists) and conducted detailed surveys using the latest equipment, such as ground penetrating radar and sonar. They found absolutely nothing indicating a subsurface boat, nor any iron fittings, nor any evidence the boat-shape consisted of petrified wood. What this means is, the onus is upon Wyatt's supporters to show the evidence that Ron Wyatt's original survey was correct. This would include, like any other professional geological survey, photographs of the site being surveyed and original readouts from the equipment showing the subsurface boat and the metallic objects.

Does Gray include these things in his book? Let me know: better yet, scan it and post it, if possible.

I leave you to your own opinion and conclusions.

View Post


Thank you. Please do let me know if Gray's book has answers to my questions under (2) and (3) above.

Regards--SeeJay

#26 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:33 PM

Dear Bex

I am not trying to trash Ron Wyatt. My point is, and remains, that Ron Wyatt's claims have failed to convince the majority of people in the evangelical creationist community, let alone the skeptical, evolutionist community. This is simply the fact of the matter. Even if Ron Wyatt's claims about the Ark happened to be perfectly correct, my point still stands: virtually nobody takes those claims seriously.

However, you have gone to some trouble to state your case, so I have done some more reading and digging to understand where you are coming from. I won't bore you with all the details, but virtually every piece of information I could find on Ron Wyatt, Christian, creationist or skeptic, was extremely critical.

You also cited some evidence regarding the suspected Ark at Ararat, which I comment on here.

1. Carbon content measurements, by Galbraith lab, read out on camera.

As I explained earlier, these measurements are completely inconclusive on the question of whether the samples were petrified wood or other organic (or even inorganic) matter. The fact that a lab technician read the results out on camera does not change this.

2. A sample was sectioned and microscopically examined, and determined to be wood.

This is just a statement, not evidence. For this to count as evidence, we would need to see two things: (1) reliable evidence of the provenance of the sample (e.g. photographs of it in situ, being removed and being sectioned etc) and (2) the photomicrographs of the sample showing its cellular structure. Ideally, also, other scientists should be able to take their own samples and reproduce the results.

Does Gray include these things in his book? Let me know: better yet, scan it and post it, if possible.

3. Metal detector scans showing a subsurface boat structure

Again, you have posted statements, not evidence. I understand three expeditions have visited the site since Wyatt's survey, with professional geologists (who were also creationists) and conducted detailed surveys using the latest equipment, such as ground penetrating radar and sonar. They found absolutely nothing indicating a subsurface boat, nor any iron fittings, nor any evidence the boat-shape consisted of petrified wood. What this means is, the onus is upon Wyatt's supporters to show the evidence that Ron Wyatt's original survey was correct. This would include, like any other professional geological survey, photographs of the site being surveyed and original readouts from the equipment showing the subsurface boat and the metallic objects.

Does Gray include these things in his book? Let me know: better yet, scan it and post it, if possible.
Thank you. Please do let me know if Gray's book has answers to my questions under (2) and (3) above.

Regards--SeeJay

View Post


Dr. Lennart Moller reconfirmed Wyatt's findings. And did a video on this.

Attached File  QD3214.jpg   9.33KB   5 downloads

Which included a much better picture of the golden chariot wheel.

Attached File  PDVD_040.jpg   26.47KB   31 downloads

Lies cannot be confirmed can they?

#27 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 07 April 2009 - 11:21 PM

Dr. Lennart Moller reconfirmed Wyatt's findings. And did a video on this.

Attached File  QD3214.jpg   9.33KB   5 downloads

Which included a much better picture of the golden chariot wheel.

Attached File  PDVD_040.jpg   26.47KB   31 downloads

Lies cannot be confirmed can they?

View Post


Hi ikester7579.

Sorry, I don't know anything about chariot wheels; Bex and I were discussing Wyatt's Ark research.

But to answer your question, yes, lies can be "confirmed", but only by other lies. Where there is doubt, we should be relying upon actual evidence.

Cheers--SeeJay

#28 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 April 2009 - 04:12 AM

Dear Bex

I am not trying to trash Ron Wyatt. My point is, and remains, that Ron Wyatt's claims have failed to convince the majority of people in the evangelical creationist community, let alone the skeptical, evolutionist community. This is simply the fact of the matter. Even if Ron Wyatt's claims about the Ark happened to be perfectly correct, my point still stands: virtually nobody takes those claims seriously.

However, you have gone to some trouble to state your case, so I have done some more reading and digging to understand where you are coming from. I won't bore you with all the details, but virtually every piece of information I could find on Ron Wyatt, Christian, creationist or skeptic, was extremely critical.

You also cited some evidence regarding the suspected Ark at Ararat, which I comment on here.

1. Carbon content measurements, by Galbraith lab, read out on camera.

As I explained earlier, these measurements are completely inconclusive on the question of whether the samples were petrified wood or other organic (or even inorganic) matter. The fact that a lab technician read the results out on camera does not change this.

2. A sample was sectioned and microscopically examined, and determined to be wood.

This is just a statement, not evidence. For this to count as evidence, we would need to see two things: (1) reliable evidence of the provenance of the sample (e.g. photographs of it in situ, being removed and being sectioned etc) and (2) the photomicrographs of the sample showing its cellular structure. Ideally, also, other scientists should be able to take their own samples and reproduce the results.

Does Gray include these things in his book? Let me know: better yet, scan it and post it, if possible.

3. Metal detector scans showing a subsurface boat structure

Again, you have posted statements, not evidence. I understand three expeditions have visited the site since Wyatt's survey, with professional geologists (who were also creationists) and conducted detailed surveys using the latest equipment, such as ground penetrating radar and sonar. They found absolutely nothing indicating a subsurface boat, nor any iron fittings, nor any evidence the boat-shape consisted of petrified wood. What this means is, the onus is upon Wyatt's supporters to show the evidence that Ron Wyatt's original survey was correct. This would include, like any other professional geological survey, photographs of the site being surveyed and original readouts from the equipment showing the subsurface boat and the metallic objects.

Does Gray include these things in his book? Let me know: better yet, scan it and post it, if possible.
Thank you. Please do let me know if Gray's book has answers to my questions under (2) and (3) above.

Regards--SeeJay

View Post


Hi SeeJay,

Forgive the delay in responding. I have been busy (with family etc). I read your post and am still trying to decide the best way of getting the information that you have asked for up here on the forum. I have a scanner, but it isn't set up and all this time I"ve not bothered to do anything about it. So perhaps I should start with that!

To answer your questions - YES, the evidence is included in the book in pictures/documented/signings etc. If I can scan it I will. If you can find it on the net? Great, but I haven't had much luck so far. You maybe interested in getting yourself a copy - http://www.surprisin...&products_id=13

Or I can message you and give you details of Jonathon Gray's contact/address information and you can order one from him from Australia. Or you can order one from New Zealand:

Surprising Discoveries
PO Box 785
THAMES
Tel +64 7 866 7525

In the book, the evidence as far as confirming the wood goes is contained on page 100 - 101 and probably more. I still haven't gone through it all as yet - but so far am very impressed. It explains much of what you have asked for and addresses the concerns you have also expressed in detail and much more. Bravo to Jonathon and Josephine Gray for putting so much work into it. It shows!

#29 Guest_loveslife_*

Guest_loveslife_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2009 - 01:56 AM

Has anyone looked at Ron Wyatt's history? That guy could pretty much buy stuff from Wal Mart and claim it was an ancient holy relic. He claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, blood of Jesus, Tower of Babel, the 'true' site of Mount Sinai, and many more. Even the leaders of his own church didn't take him seriously. His claims are refuted by biblical scholars, historians, and just about everyone else with an interest in the matter. If he told me that blue birds were blue I'd be skeptical until I found out for sure from more credible sources.

As for the Noah's Ark story, it makes sense when taken metaphorically but if you take it literally it makes no sense at all.
Even if you set aside the numerous ways it makes no sense that have already been mentioned in this thread, imagine the following scenario:

Lets think about the Koala bear, which eats only eucalyptus leaves. Did it bring its tree? When it reached the ocean did it catch a plane to the middle east? How about the sloth - which has a top land speed of about 1.2mph - can you imagine how long its journey would be across the continents and oceans. How does it cross the ocean btw? Surfboard perhaps? Because that would be really cool.

I've looked at the story literally and metaphorically - it only makes sense metaphorically.

#30 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:13 AM

As for the Noah's Ark story, it makes sense when taken metaphorically but if you take it literally it makes no sense at all.

Since Jesus and the apostles took it literally, I think it is you who need to change your ideas.

Lets think about the Koala bear, which eats only eucalyptus leaves. Did it bring its tree? When it reached the ocean did it catch a plane to the middle east? How about the sloth - which has a top land speed of about 1.2mph - can you imagine how long its journey would be across the continents and oceans. How does it cross the ocean btw? Surfboard perhaps? Because that would be really cool.

View Post

We know that the sea level was a lot lower in the fairly recent past, presumably because a huge amount of water was locked up in ice in the post-flood ice age. There are settlements in Malta and Japan that are now a long way under water, but obviously were not when they were built. There was a land path to all the continents for quite a while, so there is no need to imagine strange scenarios for creatures to swim or float to America.

Koalas have clearly specialised since arriving in Australia. In a mixed forest, a limited diet would be a disadvantage, but there is no selective pressure against it when there are huge forests of gum trees.

#31 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:59 AM

Has anyone looked at Ron Wyatt's history? That guy could pretty much buy stuff from Wal Mart and claim it was an ancient holy relic. He claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, blood of Jesus, Tower of Babel, the 'true' site of Mount Sinai, and many more. Even the leaders of his own church didn't take him seriously. His claims are refuted by biblical scholars, historians, and just about everyone else with an interest in the matter. If he told me that blue birds were blue I'd be skeptical until I found out for sure from more credible sources.

As for the Noah's Ark story, it makes sense when taken metaphorically but if you take it literally it makes no sense at all.
Even if you set aside the numerous ways it makes no sense that have already been mentioned in this thread, imagine the following scenario:

Lets think about the Koala bear, which eats only eucalyptus leaves. Did it bring its tree? When it reached the ocean did it catch a plane to the middle east? How about the sloth - which has a top land speed of about 1.2mph - can you imagine how long its journey would be across the continents and oceans. How does it cross the ocean btw? Surfboard perhaps? Because that would be really cool.

I've looked at the story literally and metaphorically - it only makes sense metaphorically.

View Post


The Flood story only makes sense literally seeing as how almost all the fossils around the world require a Global Flood. I'm not going to believe for one second that there were huge giant local floods everywhere all over the earth... which is what the evidence shows.

Connect the dots and you get Global Flood. The Global Flood, it happened. Animals moving??? Tisk Tisk, with God anything is possible, and if anything is possible for God, please don't cry.

Why be of such little faith in God??? You put your faith in evolution, a quite false theory that has never been proven beyond textbook lies and pretty drawings.

#32 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:14 AM

You put your faith in evolution, a quite false theory that has never been proven beyond textbook lies and pretty drawings.

View Post

That's a good question, Scott. I heard William Lane Craig once put it this way. For the sake of argument say the evidence was perfectly equal, there was just as much evidence for God as there was against God. Remember this is just a mental exercise, both arguments have identical strength. Why would anyone want to side with this evidence against God? People who reject God, and all the evidence He laid before us to show that He is faithful, is rejecting Him because they want to, not because of the evidence.

#33 Starfighterace

Starfighterace

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Shenandoah Valley, VA

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:30 AM

Ron Wyatt is very bad news. Funded by (mostly) the LDS church , most of his claims have been debunked by respected christian researchers to include Answers In Genesis, Associates For Biblical Research, CRAM, and ICR to name a few. The program "The Exodus Revealed" is refuted point by point, claim by claim by an article on ABR, along with the companion program based in the same research "Exodus Decoded".

I watched both of these programs, and others on Ron's claims about Noah's Ark, and was sucked in as well to these claims. When I followed up on the research, asked questions, and talked to folks who have first hand knowledge, it was quickly obvious he was a fraud. Hear is a good place to start to look for yourselves:

http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html

http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html

Please, avoid anything by Mr. Wyatt and his so called ministries (WAR, Michael Rood, A.K.A. "Rood Awakenings" TV Program, Arkdiscovery web site, and Anchorstone.com) . Very Bad news.
Sorry Ikester7579

#34 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2009 - 01:53 PM

Ron Wyatt is very bad news. Funded by (mostly) the LDS church , most of his claims have been debunked by respected christian researchers to include Answers In Genesis, Associates For Biblical Research, CRAM, and ICR to name a few. The program "The Exodus Revealed" is refuted point by point, claim by claim by an article on ABR, along with the companion program based in the same research "Exodus Decoded".

I watched both of these programs, and others on Ron's claims about Noah's Ark, and was sucked in as well to these claims. When I followed up on the research, asked questions, and talked to folks who have first hand knowledge, it was quickly obvious he was a fraud.  Hear is a good place to start to look for yourselves:

http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html

http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html

Please, avoid anything by Mr. Wyatt and his so called ministries (WAR, Michael Rood, A.K.A. "Rood Awakenings" TV Program, Arkdiscovery web site, and Anchorstone.com) . Very Bad news.
Sorry Ikester7579

View Post


Hi Starfighter Ace,

I am assuming that you have read "DISCOVERIES: Questions answered"? If not, then I advise you do. I am not convinced he's a fraud. I have had my doubts yes, but it starts getting a little hard to hold onto those doubts once you read the book..... I'm beginning to think this argument against Ron is more political than anything. Because so much of this has been clearly refuted and defended in the book and as I have said, the documentation/certification etc is there for all to see.

Perhaps I'm just a naive poor little hopeful Christian eh? Well, maybe. But whether Ron proves to be a fraud or proves to be genuine won't impact or remove the biblical truth either way, nor will it remove my faith. However, it would be a great pity if this man really has been involved in such serious fraud and those that stand by him and certainly if that is so, he will have answered to God. But I have my doubts that it's so cut and dry.

I do not have a functioning scanner at this time. But I think his side needs also to be presented and hopefully with the pictures and documentation. I"m not so certain that we should dust our hands of him just yet!

#35 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:39 PM

If Ron Wyatt were genuine. Would you expect this man not to receive strong opposition? Let us consider how much opposition Jesus had and the awful bearing of false witness against him by many who would have convinced plenty of others in the process and no doubt partly because they were highly intelligent and qualified men. The same continues to this day.

Who did Jesus pick to be His disciples? Most were ordinary fishermen, not scholars with letters after their names. And is that so surprising?

"Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to fonfound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen....  That no flesh should (boast) in his presence" (1 Cor. 1:26-29)


Where and by whom did this opposition to Wyatt and the discoveries come?

IDENTIFYING THE OPPOSITION:

It is appropriate to state here that opposition to Wyatt began with one John Morris of the Institute of Creation research in California, followed by Morris' Australian colleagues "Creation Science" ("Answers in Genesis").

I shall be the first to say that the efforts of these people in this field of Creation have been a source of help to many.  It is a wonderful work, greatly needed in the community.  And in this we support them.

Unfortunately, in more recent times they have lost their goal and become obsessed with attacking other Christian ministries far and near.

Oh, if only these men would listen to our appeals!  How we would love to support them!

The reason we must mention them is that a good number of questions we shall answer in this book are based on allegations made by these people.  Although evidence has been sent to them, they continue to ignore it, bandying around an old anti-DISCOVERIES article they issed in 1992. (Creation Ex Nihilo, Sept-Nov, 1992).

Some who have been taken in by this, recite the same untruths and "half truths" parrot fashion.

One example is archeological writer David Down (see question 16).  This dear man publicly refers to "Creation Science" as his source of information against the DISCOVERIES.

At the sametime "Creation Science" lifts up Down as an argument against the DISCOVERIES, because he "does not support the Wyatt/Gray claims".

What gobble-de-gook:  each appealing to the other as an authority, when NEITHER has done any personal on-site excarvation to prove the DISCOVERIES false!

It can be said that most of the hostility emanates from this "Creation group and its disciples David Down and the Standish-Pennington brothers.  We mention them here because a number of their "objections" will be dealt with in this present book.

Some of their allegation are quite damning.  They cast doubt on the integrity of Wyatt and Gray, as well as the DISCOVERIES.

I hope you'll pardon me saying this.  No matter how honest you are, if you believe their spiel concerning the DISCOVERIES, you've really been had!

SKEPTIC CONVINCED:

The Standish-Pennington brothers admit that their skepticism was fueled by "Creation Science" and they think that the "Creation Science" allegations are new to us.

They're not new.  In 1992 (seven years ago as I write this), Jonathan Gray had their article with those same arguments in his bag, when he went to confront Wyatt.  The "Creation Science" attack against Ron Wyatt had biased Jonathon against the man.  But he commited the matter to the Lord, claiming the promise that if he was willing to obey, the Lord would make known where the truth lay.  Nevertheless, Jonathan set out with a briefcase full of objections against Wyatt's claims.  He would confront the man, interrogating him mercilessly.  He would also communicate with a number of Wyatt's opponents.  And, finally, he would lead his own expeditions, with a wide range of crews, including scientists.  Jonathan came away convinced.

On the other hand, despite all appeals to them, the Standish-Pennington brothers did not go to check it out - they simply repeated publicly the untruths they had read.  In using the "Creation Science" article against Ron, they even got the date wrong - writing that it was published in 1994 (D Pennington, The Archaeological and Other claims of Ron Wyatt, 1999).  This is symptomatic of the sloppy research undertaken by the opponents of the DISCOVERIES.

Nevertheless, numerous people are honest enough to change their position after they dig deeper for a more complete picture.



#36 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:15 PM

Ron Wyatt is very bad news. Funded by (mostly) the LDS church , most of his claims have been debunked by respected christian researchers to include Answers In Genesis, Associates For Biblical Research, CRAM, and ICR to name a few. The program "The Exodus Revealed" is refuted point by point, claim by claim by an article on ABR, along with the companion program based in the same research "Exodus Decoded".

I watched both of these programs, and others on Ron's claims about Noah's Ark, and was sucked in as well to these claims. When I followed up on the research, asked questions, and talked to folks who have first hand knowledge, it was quickly obvious he was a fraud.  Hear is a good place to start to look for yourselves:

http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html

http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html

Please, avoid anything by Mr. Wyatt and his so called ministries (WAR, Michael Rood, A.K.A. "Rood Awakenings" TV Program, Arkdiscovery web site, and Anchorstone.com) . Very Bad news.
Sorry Ikester7579

View Post


If you really have SPECIFIC evidence that focusses on The Noah's Ark discovery being fake, then please present it as it is and then I can address each one. This will save time.

Noah's Ark is the topic of this thread. Let's try and stick with that for now ok? As I simply do not have all day to start going into every other discovery/character analysis or controversy.

Here is a quote I found that actually directly addressed the topic. This is from the first link you gave in regards to the Noah's Ark discovery:

His Noah's Ark site had been examined and long abandoned by Ark hunters and geologists as a natural formation before Wyatt and others came to the spot, and it has continued to be proven to be such (even though the Turks gave it credibility for the sake of tourism). There are eight other smaller formations like it in the area, so if this is Noah's Ark there must have been a fleet of them!


I believe it is a rather unfair and likely dishonest portrayal of the Turks to claim that the only reason they gave it credibility was for the sake of tourism. Where is their evidence for this outside of mere speculation? I believe this maybe deliberate, so that any acceptance of the site by its very own people will thus be connected to finance and nothing more. Is this the aim I wonder?

I guess this would then cancel out the leading Turkish archaeologist, Dr. Ekrem Akurgal's opinion?!

He has definitely said regarding Ron's discovery that it was Noah's Ark.


97. TURKISH SUPPORT

What do real archaeologists say about the Noah's Ark site?

In our video, Discovered- Noah's Ark, Ron is seen discussing the evidence with Dr. Ekrem Akurgal in March of 1985.  Dr Akurgal states, "At any rate, it is a ship, an ancient ship....it must be preserved...."

A professed atheist, he would later state in an interview that it was Noah's Ark.  When asked why, he simply replied,  "Because there is no other explanation."

who is this "Dr. Akurgal"?

In almost every university library I have been to I have found at least one book written by Dr. Akurgal.  (He has written at least 16.)  On the back cover of his booked entittled, Ancient Ruins of Turkey (first published in 1969, fifth edition in 1983, published by HASET KITABEVI), we are told a little bit about the author:

"Professor Dr. Ekrem Akurgal studied from 1932 to 1940 in Berlin, where he received his PH.D.  In 1941 he became a lecturer at the Univesity of Ankara and was elected professor in 1949.  During the last twenty five years, he has conducted excavations at Smyrna, Sinope, Phokaia, Daskyleion, Pitane and Erythrai.

"Since 1967 he has again been excavating in Ancient Izmir.  Professor Akurgal is a member of the Turkish High Commission for Ancient Monuments.  He is also an ordinary member of the Austrian and German Archaeological Institutes.  The author ws elected an honorary member of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies in London and the American Institute of Archaeology.  He is a foreign member of the British, Austrian, Swedish, Danish and French Academies (Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres).  He was visiting Professor at the University of Princeton 1961-1962, at the university of Berlin (West) in 1971-1972, at the Scuola Normale Superiore at Pisa in 1976 and at the University of Vienna in 1980-1981.  He has lectured since 1951 in severeal universities on the Continent, in the USA, and in Great Britain as well as in the USSR.  He received an honorary doctorate (Dr. h.c.) from the University of Bordeaux in 1961.  Holder of the Goethe Medal (1979), he was awarded the "Grand Prize" of the Turksih Ministry of culture (1981)."


Ron first met with Dr. Akurgal in 1984 when the Turksih government sent their own team of scientists to independently investigate the "boat-shaped object".  Dr. Akurgal, considered "The Dean of Turkish Archaeologists", was provided the results of Ron's research as well as that of the Turkish team.

Dr. Akurgal is extremely well respected, not only in Turkey, but throughout the entire world.  His credentials and accomplishments are remarkable.  Yet most people in this country are not familiar with his work and reputation.

We were very pleased when, on a more recent trip to Turkey, Ron read the following article in the August 1996 Turkish Airlines 'SKYLIFE Magazine.  Now, our readers can learn about the "real archaeolgoist" who played a major role in the official decision of the Turkish government that the "boat-shaped site" does indeed contain the remains of "Noah's Ark".  It is written in both Turkish and English, and to save space, we have cut out the Turksih-language portion of most of it. 

(Shows actual prints of pictures of Ron Wyatt with Dr. Ekrem Akurgal in video stills of March 1985 meeting).  And print of the autographed page of the copy of Dr Akurgal's book which he gave to Ron).

98. TURKISH SUPPORT

HAVE THE TURKISH AUTHORITIES MERELY BACKED THE NOAH'S ARK FIND TO GAIN MONEY FROM TOURISM OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON?

As you have seen under the previous question, Dr. Akurgal is a "real archaeologist".  It would be difficult to believe he is the type of man who would declare a site to be Noah's Ark simply for the sake of tourism.  Yet, that is essentially the claim that has been made by some who were unhappy with the official Turkish decision, of which Dr. Akurgal had a part.  I would find it hard to believe that a man who presented then President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, with an honorary Doctorate at the Faculty of Plitical Science in 1958 would jeopardize his reputation by taking a position he did not believe to be accurate.

The same scurrilous charge was levelled by atheist (and anti-Ark campaigner) Ian Plimer, against Dr. Salih Bayraktutan, geologist, of the Ataturk University in Urzurum, Turkey.  Dr Bayraktutan is also a member of the Turksih Noah's Ark Commission.

On a three-nation radio link-up, Dr Bayraktutan laid that notion to rest.  (Remember, Salih Bayraktutan is not a tourist promoter, he is a respected geologist of the Ataturk University).  In that interview, taped in June, 1997, Dr. Bayraktutan pointed out(and we have a copy of the tape)

"....everyone in Turkey knows that this site (Noah's Ark excavation site) has been a military area for the last 7 or 8 years.  So any certain people can partake permission to visit that site.  So the real situation around the site is not convenient for making some money."


TO RESPOND TO THIS ALLEGATION OF OTHER SIMILAR BOAT-SHAPES IN THE AREA,  part of the research done by Ron Wyatt and his associates was a careful examination of other areas which had a superficially similar appearance.  Between August 20 and 27 of 1985, Christian Broadcast Network did a series of daily broadcasts on the site.  This was at the same time that ABC's "20/20" did their filming.  These broadcasts were intiated by Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysist with Los Alamos National Laboratories in New Mexico and centred on interviews with him, on the work he was participating in with Ron and David Fasold at that time in investigating the "boat-shaped" object.

In one newscast they report:

"....Using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals."

In a live interview on the same programe, from Ankara, Turkey, Dr.Baumgardner stated:

"We feel the formation is quite unique.  There's severeal formations that have a superficially similar shape and we've investigated severeal of them.  And they, uh, as we investigate them, we find they do not have the special characteristics we find in the site we've been focusing on."

So here, on nationwide television, Dr.Baumgardner clearly states that the site he, Ron, David and the others in the team were working on was unique.

David Fasold sums up the situation:

"There is a forged photograph continually being published by creationist groups purposting to show boat formations on the slopes of little Ararat.  This too is phoney Ark-aeology.  They appear clearer and clearer as time progresses and I expect them to grow bowspirits in a year or two....

As to the perpetrator of this hoax artistically retouching photographs, we know who you are and you're next on my list.  Baumgardner himself claims to have investigated these boat-shapes when interviewed by the 700 club.  He said they were not the same.  These shapes can only be viewed as boat shapes at an angle.  If they were truly boat shapes, they would be seen as boat shapes from above and straight down just as at our site.  They do not.  These are optical allusions.  The Ararat group is famous for optical allusions with their fellt of Arks.  Bill Crouse exposed these sightings in his Ararat Report issue 24 with the 'Phantom Arks of Ararat'.  (The Noahide Society Ark-update 13, 1993).[/B]


Now, if you have any further arguments/concerns as to the discovery of the Noah's ark itself, and that which surrounds it, please present them specifically - instead of linking me to websites with personal or otherwise putdowns of the other discoveries, the reputation/character/religion/credentials of Ron Wyatt. It is tiring, frustrating and time consuming to wade through such to find the relevant parts regarding Noah's Ark, which is the subject of this thread. Feel free to go through the links yourself and get the specifics on the Noah's Ark arguments and present them up here.

#37 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:50 PM

Bex... Noah's Ark is on the mountain... The turkish use the supposed ark site as a tourist attraction to distract people from actually going on Mt. Ararat to actually find the ark. It's a claim to dismiss further investagation of the actual mountain itself. The tourist site really isn't all that convincing.

The U.S. Government has been taking pictures of Mt. Ararat to find traces of the ark since the Turkish government is too turkish to let anyone on the mountain, because deep down inside they know the ark is up there.

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:09 PM

As I understand things, there are some things which aren't disputed; place names & such. There's no rush. Perhaps this investigation would be more organized if the focus started with that which is agreed upon, and then moved on to the disputed elements.

#39 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:49 PM

Bex... Noah's Ark is on the mountain... The turkish use the supposed ark site as a tourist attraction to distract people from actually going on Mt. Ararat to actually find the ark.  It's a claim to dismiss further investagation of the actual mountain itself.  The tourist site really isn't all that convincing.

The U.S.  Government has been taking pictures of Mt. Ararat to find traces of the ark since the Turkish government is too turkish to let anyone on the mountain, because deep down inside they know the ark is up there.

View Post


Hi Scott,

You are are mistaken. It is the other way around. The Mount Ararat/Noah's Ark gravy train continues with not a shred of solid evidence, except some notorious swindles involving the covert smuggling of timber up Mt Ararat to be "discovered" and brought back and claimed as "evidence" of Noah's Ark. Only then to be disproved in all cases by scientific carbon dating and other tests. So you are right, this tourist attraction is far from convincing, but is the most popularalised idea of the Ark's landing site. The Mt Ararat Ark exploration gravy train continues to contribute to the needy revenue coffers of a grateful, but quietly skeptical Turkish government which knows where the true Ark is! If the ark was anywhere on Mt Ararat, you can bet Dr. Ekrem Akurgal and his team of Turkish scientists would have been the first to know and proclaim it.

Coupled with this. The bible does NOT state that the Ark landed on Mt Ararat, but specifies that it came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. ("And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat" Gen. 8:4)

Mt Ararat itself is volcanic and has a history of eruptions. The slopes of Mt Ararat are so precipitous and dangerous that Noah would have had to establish an A and E human and veterinary hospital to treat the thousands of broken limbs that would have resulted from a Mt Ararat embarkation of animals and humans. Go see for yourself! It is becoming more than a bit of a quiet joke among Turkish academics.

Could we expect to find an intact Ark, or even any remains at all?  Certainly not in the ever moving glaciers on Mt. Ararat, which continually flow and grind everything in their path into minut epieces.  Even if an object survived in the glaciers, could it survive the incredible blasts of the past eruptions, the most recent of which blew out an entire section of the mountain?

This volcano has experienced several eruptions, the most recent in the mid 1800s - which was very similar to the Mount St. Helens eruption which blew out an entire portion of the moutain.  Go to the library and reearch "volcanoes" and "glaciers".  Read up on Mount St. Helens.

Such a volcanic upheaval would in all likelihood have destroyed the Ark, had it been there.

Dr M Salih Bayraktutan, Turkish geologist, was reported in 1987 and 1988 as saying that "Mt. Big Ararat is volcanic and if the Ark landed there it would be under four to five thousand feet of lava.  Furthermore, the hydrodynamics of a cone shaped volcanic mountain would push the Ark away from it." 

(The Institute of Judaic-Christian Research, Inc.  Research Letter, Vendyl Jones Ministries, Nov., 1987, p.1, and Sept., 1988, p.1)


This book also lists each of the claims about Noah's Ark being on Mt Ararat. And goes through them and how they have been discounted at best, hoaxed at worst. I listed them earlier here, but lost all that I had typed and at this time am in no mood to type them out again. Perhaps I may feel like it later.

The Turkish government has officially confirmed and declared, after investigations by its scientists (led by one of the world's leading archaeologists, Dr. Ekrem Akurgal), that the formation that Ron discovered is indeed a ship. We have on video him declaring to Ron Wyatt that the formation is a ship. I have repeated this already in my earlier post.

Turkish archaeologists have also uplifted evidences of their own in addition to those of Ron Wyatt. But have not revealed or promoted all of these because Turkey is a Mahommaden country and therefore sensitive to confirming the Hebrew old testament book of Genesis in which they nevertheless believe as they themselves are descendents of Abraham.

Turkey is not a rich developed country. Poverty is widespread, hence the endless lucrative, numerous expeditions by gullable overseas tourists are possibly tolerated and even humoured by the Turkish government.

#40 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:34 PM

As I understand things, there are some things which aren't disputed; place names & such. There's no rush. Perhaps this investigation would be more organized if the focus started with that which is agreed upon, and then moved on to the disputed elements.

View Post


Yes, I take your point. But easier said than done. The argument/evidence re the place names were ignored and instead the focus and interest was on the source at the bottom, rather than the information I had presented.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users