Jump to content


Photo

Noah's Ark - Thinking Outside The Box


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:40 PM

Mt. Ararat was likely not as high up in Noah's days.besides,under a glacier is the perfect spot for God to hide it.Jesus said that no proof shall be given except for the prophet Jonah,so God has already said that he will make sure to hide anything that would prove it.

#42 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 10 April 2009 - 12:10 AM

Mt. Ararat was likely not as high up in Noah's days.besides,under a glacier is the perfect spot for God to hide it.Jesus said that no proof shall be given except for the prophet Jonah,so God has already said that he will make sure to hide anything that would prove it.

View Post


During the flood there were upthrusts (that's why there are marine fossils on mountain tops). It is not called Mount Ararat for nothing! Besides which, the bible does not state the Ark came to rest there. And I am repeating myself again -the bible says it came to rest on the mountains (not the MOUNTAIN itself). And for good reason.

You have stated that the bible says that no proof shall be given to us - I'd like to see the quote and verse to this please, so I can view this in full context to gain proper understanding.

Surely as a Creationist you can appreciate how God has revealed to us the physical evidence of His creation and a worldwide flood? Then it's only natural that other evidences may also be revealed. Should the ark, or indeed any other evidence of the flood be any different?

He gives evidence not only of what has passed, but also what is to come. Physical evidence and prophecy are apart of this. We know by faith, but our faith is also confirmed. Jesus told us to look for the signs of the times. They would be evident!

Why would God talk about sarcastic scoffers in the end times who would deny both the creation and the flood, if He had left no evidence for either? He even states that they are CLEARLY SEEN, so they are WITHOUT EXCUSE:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20)



First of all, do not forget that in the final days there will come sarcastic scoffers whose life is ruled by their passions.  What has happened to the promise of his coming?’ they will say, ‘Since our Fathers died everything has gone on just as it has since the beginning of creation!’  They deliberately ignore the fact that long ago there were the heavens and the earth, formed out of water and through water by the Word of God, and that it was through these same factors that the world of those days was destroyed by the floodwaters.  It is the same Word which is reserving the present heavens and earth for fire, keeping them till the Day of Judgment and the destruction of sinners (2 Pt 3:3-7).


So those who deny the flood? Have already been predicted as doing so and not in favourable terms. We are warned of a future judgement in fire also. And much like the people in the time of Noah who scoffed at the warnings then, we will have the same thing occur.

Jesus Himself confirmed the truth of Noah and the flood:

Matt. 24:37-38: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,” (Gen.6-7).


Indeed, God does reveal the truth of our history to us. But are our eyes and our heart opened to receive it? We receive it by faith yes, but there are those who come to God through examination of the physical evidences also.

"At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."" (Matthew 11:25)


This does not cancel out using ones knowledge/intelligence, but to those who are stubborn, proud and consider themselves "wise", God will confound them. It appears He allows such to remain blind. We are all asked to become as little children if we are to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

More evidence from the bible that God hides and reveals based upon His own perfect knowledge and timing:

Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him." (Luke 24:13-16)

"When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." (Luke 24:30-31)


There is no reason why God should not decide to bring things to light in our times if He wishes. Particularly in our times. If, how, when and by whom is up to Him alone. If God chooses to reveal discoveries through the ordinary, simple and not overly qualified individual/s? That is His decision. We only have to look at the disciples!

God has indeed revealed Himself in His handiwork. There is no reason or excuse therefore, for anybody to remain an atheist, or to deny the Creation or the flood.
Yet it has already been prophecised that there would be those that would do both.

#43 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 07:35 AM

I saw the site on the discovery channel... It just didn't look that convincing. At the time, the U.S. Government was still taking pictures of Mt.Ararat.

The ark could be anywhere on the mountain wrange...

The Turkish site looks like a big indention of a boat, I do admit, but don't you think there would be more to it than just a big valley with an indention. I mean the petrified wood could have come from anywhere on the mountain wrange.

This still doesn't answer the question as to why the Turkish government will not let anyone on the mountain itself. The ark could be somewhere up there... Why would the Turkish be so... scarred of actual research.

Being a Muslim country, the addition of the Ark could possibly render the fake religion of Islam useless, and let all the poor people realize... oh no... Islam... its a scam!!!! Therefore the government has to make this site, so gullible people will be satisfied. That's just what I see.

But, who knows, maybe the indention is the ark.

#44 Starfighterace

Starfighterace

    Junior Member

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:44 AM

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!

View Post


HI Bex,

No, I have not read that book. So I do what I do best, reseach the author and check out what they believe.

Jonathan Gray penned that book. His web site told me everything I needed to know about him. He makes even more extrodinary claims than Ron Wyatt. I didn't bother to pay to see the "proof". It's pretty obvious it's a scam to catch unknowing believers and part them from their hard earned money.

Ron Wyatt and ilk is what makes it so hard for those who believe in Creation to make any progress. I do not know how many times when engaged in conversations or debates these charlatans's antics are used to show Creation is a farce, not to be believed. There are very good reasons why the folks at AIG, ICR, CRAM, ABR and other highly respected Creation and Apologictcs orginizations do not associate in any way with the folks.

I know many believe these folks claims. May I humbly suggest they you investigate the person, and their claims before embracing them. You will find, as did I, they are not worth your time.

As for the "Political" angle, I see no evidence for that. Many good Creation and Apologetic orginizations have investigated Ron Wyatt's, Kevin H*vind's, Michael Rood's, Jonathan Gray's and others cliams. They wanted to believe what they discovered. Unfortunatly, almost every single time, these claims came up way short. So many times the so called" evidence" was either manufactured, taken out of context, or manipulated in such a way to make it look like something it wasn't. The very same tricks used by Darwinist all the time to support ToE.

#45 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 April 2009 - 11:15 AM

You have stated that the bible says that no proof shall be given to us - I'd like to see the quote and verse to this please, so I can view this in full context to gain proper understanding.


"Then some of the scribes and pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." He said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the Sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matthew 12: 38-40).

The scribes and pharisees did not believe that the miracles Jesus performed was proof of His being sent from heaven. Some of the scribes and pharisees thought Jesus performed these miracles by the power of satan. So they demanded a sign from Jesus. In essence they said to Jesus; Look Jesus, the people are believing in you, but we are too smart, so give us a sign, but make it a good one, a real good one, so there can be no doubt, and then we too will believe in you. Jesus did not point to any prior miracles; the healings, the exorcisms as proof of his being sent from heaven. Jesus told them "No sign shall be given, except, the Sign of Jonah". So a sign will be given, only one sign, as proof to an unfaithful generation.

From that passage i think it's clear that God's will is to save those who believe and have faith without proof,rather than trying to prove things to the unbelieving.As you quoted from the bible,the unbelieving will still scoff even when the evidence is obvious.




Enjoy.

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:12 PM

The scribes and pharisees did not believe that the miracles Jesus performed was proof of His being sent from heaven. Some of the scribes and pharisees thought Jesus performed these miracles by the power of satan. So they demanded a sign from Jesus. In essence they said to Jesus; Look Jesus, the people are believing in you, but we are too smart, so give us a sign, but make it a good one, a real good one, so there can be no doubt, and then we too will believe in you. Jesus did not point to any prior miracles; the healings, the exorcisms as proof of his being sent from heaven. Jesus told them "No sign shall be given, except, the Sign of Jonah". So a sign will be given, only one sign, as proof to an unfaithful generation.

View Post

This is just another case of dishonesty. "207 signs & miracles don't convince us, but 208 will". Sound familiar?

#47 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 April 2009 - 12:27 PM

Sorry but flood waters covering the whole world isn't proven. Mt Ararat is not the highest mountain of the world but is the highest in the Ararat chain. Since the ark supposedly came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, when the tops of the mountains were still underwater, it could have only come to rest on the highest mountain or Ararat. However if it came to rest on Ararat, the other taller mountains in the world would not be underwater since some are many thousands of feet taller than Ararat.

Yes I know about the rise of 6 inches per year of the mountains so they were lower back then but still Mt Ararat would have been over 14,000 feet high and the mountains taller than Ararat would still have been taller.

So here is the conundrum.

If the ark did come to rest on Ararat, then the higher mountains would not have been under flood water and sea creatures could not have been deposited on the tops of those mountains during the flood which basically throws out the argument of the fossils on the mountain tops proving there was a flood.

If the flood waters did cover all the mountains, the ark could not have come to rest on Ararat as it would have been thousands of feet above Ararat at the time the flood waters started to recede. That throws out that part of the Biblical story of the flood and casting doubt on the rest.

#48 oliver

oliver

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 01:11 PM

"Then some of the scribes and pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." He said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the Sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."  (Matthew 12: 38-40).

      The scribes and pharisees did not believe that the miracles Jesus performed was proof of His being sent from heaven. Some of the scribes and pharisees thought Jesus performed these miracles by the power of satan. So they demanded a sign from Jesus. In essence they said to Jesus; Look Jesus, the people are believing in you, but we are too smart, so give us a sign, but make it a good one, a real good one, so there can be no doubt, and then we too will believe in you. Jesus did not point to any prior miracles; the healings, the exorcisms as proof of his being sent from heaven. Jesus told them "No sign shall be given, except, the Sign of Jonah". So a sign will be given, only one sign, as proof to an unfaithful generation.

One thing that is helpful in understanding what was going on here is that the Pharisees taught that there were certain miracles that only the Messiah would do.

Although the law of Moses provided a procedure for ritually noting the cleansing of a leper, no Israelite had ever been healed of leprosy. (The leprosy healings in the Old Testament were of Gentiles.) So the Pharisees said that the procedure must be there for a reason -- when the Messiah came he would be able to heal leprosy. Therefore a healing of leprosy was specifically recognised a s a Messianic miracle.

Similarly, although blindness had been cured, no one had ever healed a man born blind. The Pharisees taught that this was also a Messianic miracle.

The Pharisees had a procedure for casting out demons, but the procedure depended on getting the demon to reveal its name. They had to use its name to cast it out. A dumb demon, in the nature of things, did not talk so they were unable to use their procedure. They taught that Messiah would be able to cast out dumb demons.

They had a procedure for investigating alleged Messianic miracles. The first stage involved merely watching, without comment. This is what is going on when the paralysed man was let down through the roof. Jesus said to him, "Your sins are forgiven." The scribes and Pharisees did not comment but said to themselves that this was blasphemy. They said nothing because they were in the investigation stage of their inquiry. Later the enquiry moved to questioning. Further on we see them questioning Jesus' disciples about his actions and him about his disciples actions.

Since Jesus kept on doing Messianic miracles, they were continually forced to investigate him and were therefore in close attendance and seeing all he was doing and teaching. The fact that these miracles were Messianic explains the great interest of the crowds and the reaction of the man born blind whom Jesus had healed to the Pharisees' questioning.

It is particularly because he had already proved over and over again by their own criteria that he was Messiah that he disdained their request for a new sign. You might compare their attitude to that of an obstinate evolutionist in the face of all the evidence against evolution! But their sin was worse, because they should have been expecting the Messiah and they had all the proof they needed. Yet because Jesus did not do what they wanted, they rejected him.

From that passage i think it's clear that God's will is to save those who believe and have faith without proof,rather than trying to prove things to the unbelieving.As you quoted from the bible,the unbelieving will still scoff even when the evidence is obvious.
Enjoy.

View Post

Indeed, those who refuse to believe will be condemned to believe a lie. Just think how many atheists and false religionists are superstitious. Whereas true Christians are not. An atheist will swallow all kind of New Age guff, but he absolutely refuses to consider the true God.

#49 oliver

oliver

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 01:40 PM

Sorry but flood waters covering the whole world isn't proven.

That's what the scripture says. But it does not say whether that refers to the pre-flood mountains -- that does seem more likely. The flood involved a lot of tectonic movement and mountain building, so whereas all the mountains were covered, new ones may well have risen out of the flood water at a later stage.

Mt Ararat is not the highest mountain of the world but is the highest in the Ararat chain.  Since the ark supposedly came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, when the tops of the mountains were still underwater, it could have only come to rest on the highest mountain or Ararat.  However if it came to rest on Ararat, the other taller mountains in the world would not be underwater since some are many thousands of feet taller than Ararat.

Yes I know about the rise of 6 inches per year of the mountains so they were lower back then but still Mt Ararat would have been over 14,000 feet high and the mountains taller than Ararat would still have been taller.

So here is the conundrum. 

If the ark did come to rest on Ararat, then the higher mountains would not have been under flood water and sea creatures could not have been deposited on the tops of those mountains during the flood which basically throws out the argument of the fossils on the mountain tops proving there was a flood.

If the flood waters did cover all the mountains, the ark could not have come to rest on Ararat as it would have been thousands of feet above Ararat at the time the flood waters started to recede.  That throws out that part of the Biblical story of the flood and casting doubt on the rest.

View Post

Progress of the flood:
17/2/600 (day/month -- months are 30 days/year of Noah's life) Noah enters the ark and the rain starts and the fountains of the great deep are broken up. It rains for 40 days; at the end of that time all the mountains are covered to a depth of at least 20 feet (15 cubits).
(27/3/600) After 40 days the rain stopped. From that point on the waster starts to recede. This is most likely due to rising continents and falling ocean basins rather than by evaporation.
17/7/600 After 150 days, the ark came to rest on one of the mountains of Ararat. The ark grounds but apparently there is still water everywhere. The ark's draft was probably at least 15 cubits, which would explain why that depth of covering of the mountains is specifically mentioned.
1/10/600 The tops of the mountains become visible.
(11/11/600) After 40 days, Noah sends out a raven.
(??/??/600) Noah sends out a dove, which returns, having found nowhere to land.
(??+7/??/600) He sends it out again; this time it returns with an olive leaf.
(??+14/??/600) He sends it out again; it does not return.
1/1/601 Noah opens the ark; the waters had dried up from the earth and the surface of the ground was dry.
27/2/601 The earth was dry. Noah leaves the ark.

Now the Ararat range covers a large area; it is quite conceivable that the ark might ground out of sight of Mount Ararat. Or the weather may have been appalling, with very poor visibility. Noah's witness can deal only with what was within his own horizon and field of view. The dove found nowhere to land the first time, but the second time found an olive sapling. (That suggests to me that God miraculously hastened the growth of plants, since a week or a fortnight from germination seems too short a time to produce a recognisable olive leaf by normal processes.)

We also do not know whether all the geological changes had been completed. I suspect they had been, since an earth which was still heaving mountains up at a rapid rate would be most uncomfortable and dangerous to live in. Genesis suggests, I think, that the uplift occurred between day 40 and day 150.

#50 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 10 April 2009 - 02:01 PM

HI Bex,

No, I have not read that book. So I do what I do best, reseach the author and check out what they believe.

Jonathan Gray penned that book. His web site told me everything I needed to know about him. He makes even more extrodinary claims than Ron Wyatt. I didn't bother to pay to see the "proof". It's pretty obvious it's a scam to catch unknowing believers and part them from their hard earned money.


Clearly what you believe you "do best" in research seems to be coming up short in regards to examining the evidences and corresponding documentation. If Jonathon's document packed book contains one forged document, why hasn't he been taken to court for fraud and fakery? I think it's time to quit the specious objections and accusations and start addressing the substance. It's not exactly convincing when a document packed book you haven't read is subject to mere hand waving. You have instead made unfounded personal accusations against the character of Jonathon Gray, which would also include his wife and those who worked towards making this book.

If any of those were faked, he would be in court several hundred times over. You have completely ignored the statements of Dr Ekrhem Akurgal. Are you also calling him a fraud/liar and the other scientists along with him? The evidence is available. The documents are available. To me this is irrational denial. If you call yourself a Christian, it's time you took serious notice of one of the commandments called "Bearing false witness against your neighbour".

You have made a serious and personal accusation against Jonathon Gray here by referring to his book as a mere attempt to scam people for money. This is against a man who has taken great pains to assemble a formidible and UNDENIABLE collection of documentry proofs and has addressed many of the accusastions and cynicism against Ron Wyatt. It is only natural and right that such a book would have been produced. The claims are indeed extraordinary, which is why they have been backed up. There is no way they could get all such information simply on a "website". The book contains all the evidences in documentation, pictures, witnesses, signatures etc. Hundreds of pages.

As you are not interested in examining their "proofs" you are in no position then to state there isn't any.

Ron Wyatt and ilk is what makes it so hard for those who believe in Creation to make any progress. I do not know how many times when engaged in conversations or debates these charlatans's antics are used to show Creation is a farce, not to be believed. There are very good reasons why the folks at AIG, ICR, CRAM, ABR and other highly respected Creation and Apologictcs orginizations do not associate in any way with the folks.


You have decided to buy into any negative press, without even addressing the evidences. In fact, Jonathon Gray has praised these Creation websites for all the good work they are doing in every other area. I have already pointed out clearly to you where, how and by whom this negative press started and why so many others took it onboard also. You ignored that too.

I know many believe these folks claims. May I humbly suggest they you investigate the person, and their claims before embracing them. You will find, as did I, they are not worth your time.


We have. We have also been in touch with Jonathon Gray himself and viewed his materials. We personally know two Christian young men that have travelled with Ron Wyatt and know him personally and have witnessed many of the findings first hand. My father has spent years working on a programme, which includes some of their evidences, to which he painstakingly went through to make sure they were legitimate, after having doubts from the "negative press".

As for the "Political" angle, I see no evidence for that. Many good Creation and Apologetic orginizations have investigated Ron Wyatt's, Kevin H*vind's, Michael Rood's, Jonathan Gray's and others cliams. They wanted to believe what they discovered. Unfortunatly, almost every single time, these claims came up way short. So many times the so called" evidence" was either manufactured, taken out of context, or manipulated in such a way to make it look like something it wasn't. The very same tricks used by Darwinist all the time to support ToE.


Ok, can you give me "ONE" example? ONE false document from the hundreds from Jonathon's book? Time to deliver specifics and stop the hand waving. If they are indeed lies, let's examine each one, bring it out in the open. The book is available on websites as I have shown to you. My Father had serious doubts about Ron Wyatt as I have already told you. He re-investigated ALL his findings as well as the documentation in Jonathon Gray's book. I think he's interested to find out from you which of these documents is fake? He awaits your specific response with interest. He can get in touch with Jonathon Gray, who resides in New Zealand if you wish. Let's have no more rash generalisations.

I am not interested in hand waving or smear campaigns. I am interested in specifics in the interests of truth.

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 03:15 PM

Sorry but flood waters covering the whole world isn't proven.  Mt Ararat is not the highest mountain of the world but is the highest in the Ararat chain.  Since the ark supposedly came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, when the tops of the mountains were still underwater, it could have only come to rest on the highest mountain or Ararat.  However if it came to rest on Ararat, the other taller mountains in the world would not be underwater since some are many thousands of feet taller than Ararat.

Yes I know about the rise of 6 inches per year of the mountains so they were lower back then but still Mt Ararat would have been over 14,000 feet high and the mountains taller than Ararat would still have been taller.

So here is the conundrum. 

If the ark did come to rest on Ararat, then the higher mountains would not have been under flood water and sea creatures could not have been deposited on the tops of those mountains during the flood which basically throws out the argument of the fossils on the mountain tops proving there was a flood.

If the flood waters did cover all the mountains, the ark could not have come to rest on Ararat as it would have been thousands of feet above Ararat at the time the flood waters started to recede.  That throws out that part of the Biblical story of the flood and casting doubt on the rest.

View Post


Your concept insists that all the mountains then were as they are now. Why is that?

#52 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 10 April 2009 - 04:43 PM

scott,Apr 11 2009, 03:35 AM]
I saw the site on the discovery channel... It just didn't look that convincing.  At the time, the U.S. Government was still taking pictures of Mt.Ararat.

The ark could be anywhere on the mountain wrange... 


The evidence has been examined and Wyatt's discovery has been verified through testing/documents and even Turkish scientists. Pointed out in previous posts.

The Turkish site looks like a big indention of a boat, I do admit, but don't you think there would be more to it than just a big valley with an indention.  I mean the petrified wood could have come from anywhere on the mountain wrange.


I have given other reasons aside from the petrified wood, that lends towards this being a genuine discovery. You might want to go back and read. At any rate, here is a list of findings that add to the findings of petrified wood:

The gradual accummulation of evidence over some 34 visits to the site has included these finds:

Ship's anchor stones in the vicinity
Metal nowhere in the ground around the boat-shape, but only inside the formation.
Inside, an organised pattern of iron at regular intervals
Radar evidence of man-made structure (walls, cavities, tank shapes, passage ways, side doorways, ramp, etc)
Regular vertical structure around the sides - crossed by horizontal formation, to form a "lattice work"
Petrified, laminated wood
Fossilized rivets containing a sophisticated alloy
4-foot-long metal rods
Iron angle bracket
Slag (waste product) from some type of metal production, coming out of the boat-shape from a location which suggests it could have been ballast
The formation is the correct size (both length and breadth) to be Noah's Ark.
It is the correct location (the biblical "mountains" - plural - of Ararat).


This still doesn't answer the question as to why the Turkish government will not let anyone on the mountain itself.  The ark could be somewhere up there... Why would the Turkish be so... scarred of actual research.


The mountain itself borders on several countries. So there are political tensions involved. These are carefully and regularly worked through and expeditions regularly take place. All of them, so far, futile. I could sit and work my way through each one and the claims made, and painstakingly type them out from this book. But would anybody seriously take the time to read? I've noted that so much gets overlooked as it is.

Being a Muslim country, the addition of the Ark could possibly render the fake religion of Islam useless, and let all the poor people realize... oh no... Islam... its a scam!!!! Therefore the government has to make this site, so gullible people will be satisfied.  That's just what I see.

But, who knows, maybe the indention is the ark.

View Post


It is gullible people who continue to insist that the Ark lies on Mt Ararat itself, despite the futile expeditions, yielding no evidence or even hoaxes.

On the contrary Scott. Islam dates back to Abraham, which came after the ark. They believe in Noah and the ark! Just as we do. This would simply be confirmation to their faith, not a threat! But more confirmation to the Jewish faith, hence the somewhat soft peddling of this discovery. But nevertheless, there is documentary evidence of the discovery of Noah's Ark being confirmed in Turkish Newspapers. Thanks to Turkish Scientists lead by Dr. Ekrem Akurgal (world renowned archaeologist).

#53 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 10 April 2009 - 07:25 PM

The evidence has been examined and Wyatt's discovery has been verified through testing/documents and even Turkish scientists.  Pointed out in previous posts. 
I have given other reasons aside from the petrified wood, that lends towards this being a genuine discovery.  You might want to go back and read.  At any rate, here is a list of findings that add to the findings of petrified wood:
The mountain itself borders on several countries.  So there are political tensions involved.  These are carefully and regularly worked through and expeditions regularly take place. All of them, so far, futile.  I could sit and work my way through each one and the claims made, and painstakingly type them out from this book.  But would anybody seriously take the time to read?  I've noted that so much gets overlooked as it is.

View Post


It is gullible people who continue to insist that the Ark lies on Mt Ararat itself, despite the futile expeditions, yielding no evidence or even hoaxes.

On the contrary Scott.  Islam dates back to Abraham, which came after the ark.  They believe in Noah and the ark!  Just as we do.  This would simply be confirmation to their faith, not a threat!  But more confirmation to the Jewish faith, hence the somewhat soft peddling of this discovery.  But nevertheless, there is documentary evidence of the discovery of Noah's Ark being confirmed in Turkish Newspapers.  Thanks to Turkish Scientists lead by  Dr. Ekrem Akurgal (world renowned archaeologist).

View Post



I've already read these articles, even before you presented them, I am very interested in them, but there really haven't been any expeditions into the mountains themselves. So no the expeditions could not be futile, if they haven't happened.

Again, I've seen this site, and maybe it is the ark, but there is basically nothing left of it. I had more hope that more parts existed for the ark. The reason I stated that the petrified wood could have come from anywhere on the mountain chain, is because the ark itself could be anywhere on the mountain chain.

I already knew the arks discovery would most likely strengthen the Islam faith, but unfortunately it too has other religions to contend with, which could lead to a continued strife.

If this site is the ark... Then Bravo!!! Creationism has therefore been verified, and evolution looses hands down... no questions asked.. And I'm actually being serious.

#54 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 10 April 2009 - 08:52 PM

Scott,Apr 11 2009, 03:25 PM] I've already read these articles, even before you presented them, I am very interested in them, but there really haven't been any expeditions into the mountains themselves.  So no the expeditions could not be futile, if they haven't happened.


I felt obliged to list the many other evidences pointing to Ron's discovery, because you failed to mention the other significant findings, apart from the "petrified wood", in relation to that particular site. I'm surprised to learn that you have already read these articles ... so why omit mentioning the rest? since even individually and certainly collectively they point strongly to Wyatt's site.

Regarding the expeditions? Well, you've gone from stating no expeditions have been allowed to Mt Ararat, to now stating no expeditions have been allowed to the mountains themselves. Either way Scott, I can't make sense of your statement.

If there have been no expeditions to the "mountains", how do you explain the wood findings and the rest of Ron Wyatt's discoveries, and the content of the articles you've read? How did he manage to use scanning equipment if he wasn't there? How did they get materials from the site tested if they weren't there? There's a video documentary showing him and others walking around the site and testing it. What about the Turks who were also on the video? They have certified documented proof of that which was tested on the site and stuff taken FROM the site. There have been revisits to the site. In fact, to the Ron Wyatt site, you can go there ANYTIME with a license/permission. A friend of ours "Ross Patterson" has been there 2 or 3 times in the last few years. He takes people over there. They have a visitors book there in the viewing building above the site.

Where are you getting this misinformation that says otherwise?

As for the mountain itself? There have indeed been expeditions and claims made. I hope you will read this, I have sat here and painstakingly typed this straight from the book:


a) RUSSIAN ARK SIGHTINGS

The story has long been told that, in 1017, Russian scouting parties went to Mount Ararat to follow up a Russian aviator's report that he had sighted the Ark from the air.  From a cliff high on Ararat, they looked down upon a small valley.  In a dense swamp lay what appeared to be a huge ship.  A detailed report was send to the Czar.  A few days later, the Russian government was overthrown, so the fate of the report was declared unknown.

As for this 1916-17 Roskovitsky (Russian) discovery story, it is an embarrassing reality that the original tale was a complete fabrication by one Benjamin Allen.  Its purpose:  to raise funds for the Sacred History Research expedition in the forties.

b  NAVARRA'S WOOD "DISCOVERY"

Another story had it that Frenchman Fernand Navarra climbed Ararat three times in the fifties.  After his first expedition, he claimed to have seen an unusual dark patch within the ice, which was a ship's hull.  The discovery was at approximately 14,000 feed altitude.  During a thrid climb, on July 6, 1955, Nvarra discovered hand-hewn timber on the slope.

However, information in the Turkish files showed that Navarra first took wood up Mount Ararat, and on the next visit in the company of witnesses "found" this wood "from the Ark".

c)  "I SAT ON NOAH'S ARK"

Another Ark story said that Georgie Hagopian was ten years old when he first saw the Ark.  That was way back in 1908; a very hot year it was, too.

Near the "top of the world", the Ark was resting on a massive rock.  Apparently his Armenian uncle knew exactly where it was, because he went straight to it.  The Ark was long and rectangular.  One side was on the edge of a cliff.  Georgie's childlike estimate of its size was 1,000 feet long, 600 feet wide and 40 feet high.

The structure looked like stone.  It was dark brown.  A green moss covered the Ark.  His uncle helped him to get on top of it.

In 1970, George told this story to Ark searcher Eryl Cummings and author Rene Noorbergen.

Georgie Hagopian lived near Van about ninety miles from Ararat.  Interviewed when he was an old man, he was "led with questions.  In truth, as a small child, he had been taken "up the mountain" (a mountain near Van - not Ararat) and while his uncle tended the flocks, he had sat Georgie on a big flat rock and said, "Here's Noah's Ark; you sit on it."  In imagination, the child was sitting on the Ark.  IN the interview many years later, the fantasy was relived.

d)  THE "ARK" MOVIE

And about that movie screened in the seventies which showed the Ark in a valley on Mount Ararat.

A gentleman named Elfred Lee PAINTED IN the boat-shape onto a photo of Ararat.  That's right.  And what is more, a gentleman named Sellier, who prepared a picture for the film In Search of Noah's Ark, took a tiny stone about an inch high, shaped it into a model of the Ark, and placed it against some soil in a little dry wash-out about a foot high, in Utah.  The film commentary stated:  "This is in a canyon on Mount Ararat."

They also placed it against some snow and photographed it close up in such a way you couldn't tell how big it was.  Talk about doing a snow job!

Some time later, Mr Lee told Mr Wyatt that "a Mr.... gave me $500 to paint it in".


Mistaken Identity

Almost any unusual feature of the mountain is likely to be associated with the Ark by observers from the air, the plain or the nearby hills.

One series of climbs up the Ahora trails toward Kup Lake has revealed that what many thought may have been the Ark was simply a large rock spur.  (charles Berlitz, The Lost Ark of Noah, p.90)

Of course, many of the reported sightings could have been of the other site - our site - twelve miles south of Mount Ararat.  Others would have misinterpreted such sighting as having been made on Mount Ararat.

e)  CBS TV SHOW ON NOAH'S ARK

With all the lies that are being told about our work, we have decided that it is necessary to show how unreliable the information is that was given in the 'Amazing Discovery of Noah's Ark', which was shown on CBS on February20, 1993.

Near the end of the program, a man from HOlland spoke of how he flew with Jim Irwin around Mt. Ararat and they saw an object that they knew was Noah's Ark.  They showed a photograph.  Earlier, the narrator told how Jim Irwin was sure he was able to mount a ground expedition to the site of the photograph.  Sadly, they explained, Jim died before he could accomplish this.

Well, in the book Noah's Ark and the Lost World, by John D. Morris, copyrighted in 1988, on page 31, you will see this same exact photograph that was shown as having been photographed by Jim Irwin's expedition.  The caption below this photograph reads:

".......A friend of mine took this photo by holding his camera out over the ledge of a cliff.  It was too dangerous for him to reach the edge and look over, but he was able to take several pictures of the hidden canyon below.  When the film was developed and the pictures examined, a strange object that looks like Noah's Ark could be seen, just as these enlargements show.  But because he didn't actually see the object himself, we don't know for certain what it really is.  In fact, the more we study the picture, the less we believe it to be the Ark - but we certainly plan to go back and take a closer look!  We call this picture the "mystery photo".

The book was published before Jim Irwin's last flight around the mountain.  Also, Morris claims a friend of his took the photo by hanging over the ledge???  The publisher of this book is Master Books, should you want to see the photo for yourself.

As a sequel to the same CBS show, another story emerged.

f)  NEW CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN INSIDE ARK ON BIG MOUNT ARARAT

Recently we were asked concerning a report that someone has been up big Mt. Ararat and seen Noah's Ark there - and that he took a wood sample out of it.  What is the truth about this?

I will now quote from Time magazine, july 5, 1993, p.51, under title, "Phoney Arkaeology":

"'This piece of wood is so precious - and a gift from God.'  These moving words were spoken reverently by George Jammal as he displayed the relic that he said had come from Noah's Ark.  His appearance was one of the highlights of The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, a two-hour prime-time special that aired on CBS in February.  What the network didn't know - and didn't bother to find out - was that Jammal was a hoaxer and that large segments of its program were based on blatant and ludicrous pseudo science.

"Jammal had obtained the wood, he unblinkingly told the network audience, during a 1984 search for NOah's Ark on snow-covered Mount Ararat in Turkey.  With his companion 'Vladimir', he had crawled through a hole in the ice into a wooden structure.  'We knew then that we have found the Ark!'  To prove he had been in the fabled vessel, Jammal hacked out a chunk of wood.

"Then, he went on, tragedy struck.  As Vladimir backed up taking photos of Jammal and the site, 'he fell, and that made some noise, and there was an avalanche... and that is where he died.'  The film was lost, and Jammal was so distraught, he had been unable to tell his story - until now."

In fact, Jammal was an actor from Long Beach, California.  he had Gerald Larue (a member of the Skeptics Society who had been interviewed for an earlier Sun International production, and felt he had been mis-used, and wanted revenge) decided to expose the shoddy research of Sun International.

So Larue coached Jammal, an acquaintance, to perpetrate the hoax.  Jammal took his video camera out to a train-switching yard.  He chopped a piece of contemporary pine from a railroad sleeper (cross-tie).  Taking it back to this apartment, Jammal soaked it in terlyaki sauce, win and other juices then boiled it until the wood was pickled and black.  Then, with tweezers, he lifted out the wood and directed his hairdryer onto it.

Finally, he took the wood to Sun International executive producer Charles E. Sellier.  he told Sellier, "I have been to Mount Ararat.  The Kurds took me right into the Ark."

Sellier smelt a rat.  He responded, "you need to go and talk to someone who's a recognised authority on Noah's Ark.  Get them to vouch for you - that your information is accurate - I'll include it in my TV special".

John Morris Stakes His Reputation On Jammal

Now Jammal had studied John Morri's books, maps and stories.  (Remember, he's an actor.  So he studies in order to play a role convincingly).  Now he went to John Morris, head of the Institute of Creation Research (and counterpart of "Creation Science" in Australia) and told his story to John Morris.

John Morris went with Jammal to Sellier and declared, "I will stake my reputation on the fact that this man has been inside Noah's Ark and that this is wood from Noah's Ark."

Sellier responded, "OK, I"ll put it in my 2-hour TV special."  Which he did.  And it went to air on CBS.

John Morris, in his Acts and Facts newsletter (April 1993) said the film was a positive presentation.

The Hoax Exposed

Immediately afterward, Jammal and Larue called a media conference.  They showed the journalist the video of the site from which the wood came.  And Jammal announced, "I have never been to Turky."

Shocked, the journalist asked him, "Why did you do all this?"

Then he turned to John Morris:  "How come you vouched for this guy"?

"I didn't think he'd lie to me," replied Morris.

The point is that Jammels' story was accepted at face value by a man who is supposed to be a "careful scientist", yet, he didn't even ask Jammal for any evidence that he'd ever been to Turkey.

Morris and his cohorts "Answers in Genesis" ("Creaton Science Foundation") in Australia have had some very unkind things to say about our work.  Would it not have been proper for Morris to ask Jammal to show him his passport with his Turkish visa in it, before laying his reputation on the line by guaranteeing the truthfulness of Jammal's story?  It seems to us, that should have been the minimum that John should have done.

Time, in their story exposing the hoax, noted that the special was "a mixture of fact, conjecture, fantasy and arrant nonsense, while offering no clues as to which was which."

It is appropriate to point out here that the "Creation Science" ("Answers in Genesis") propaganda against the DISCOVERIES is based largely on John Morris' say so!



If this site is the ark... Then Bravo!!!  Creationism has therefore been verified, and evolution looses hands down... no questions asked.. And I'm actually being serious.


Bravo if indeed it is! :lol: I'm having a hard time denying it, based upon the findings/certified documentation and pictures and those involved. Either I buy into anti Wyatt propaganda and smear campaigns and ignore the evidences, or I do the wise thing and give it a proper viewing/hearing. Many of us have doubted because of the negative press, but we pressed on to find out more and so glad we did!

However, my faith and I'm sure yours too, does not depend upon a discovery being true or false. We have the rest of creation that is all around us daily as evidence of God's majesty! If a discovery should come to light, then all investigation/examination should be done, or we maybe faced with a case of premature condemnation.....

#55 Starfighterace

Starfighterace

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 April 2009 - 11:51 AM

Hello Again, Bex.

I am afraid all your bluster is not going to convince many people. Cutting and pasting comments from Ron Wyatt's supporters web sites is not helping your cause either. Extraordinary facts demand extraordinary evidence, and it is not forthcoming. Just ad-hommin attacks from those who discredit Mr Wyatt and his followers.

If Jonathan Gray wants to take me to court, let's go. It will take about 10min to conduct the hearing. When Mr. Gray is asked to provide the proof of the claims made on the web site, such as:

"What about old Egypt’s mysterious moving walls, automatically flashing lights and lamps that shone century after century, non-stop?

or

"That 2,500 years ago "mirrors" were invented which, set up in pairs, could transmit messages, like television?"

and

"Did you know that a Chinese expedition surveyed all of North America in 2200 BC. They saw a sunrise over the Grand Canyon, black opals and gold nuggests in Nevada, and seals frolicking in San Francisco Bay!"

he will be made to look like the charlatan he is. All taken from the front page of his web site. Of course if you want to see the details of these claims, you pay $27 with a money back guarantee!

Now, you are asking for information that conradicts Mr. Wyatt and his followers claims. I already provided links to sites that pretty much discredits him. Since you want this information posted hear, I will ablige. I will also gladly start another thread if you like to discuss other claims made by these folks and a bio on Mr. Wyatt that will expose his chicanery even more.

Since the topic is Noah's Ark, lets begin!

#56 Starfighterace

Starfighterace

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 April 2009 - 12:32 PM

The first site I refer to that disects Mr. Wyatt's claims is:

http://www.answersin...4/i4/report.asp

It starts out this way:

First published:
Creation 14(4):26–38
September 1992

by Andrew Snelling

No matter where you live, if you haven’t already heard about it, the promoters and the media have been making sure you will. What then is the massive boat-shaped formation which rests at 6,300 feet above sea level in Eastern Turkey, about 12–15 miles (15–24 kilometres) from the summit of Greater Mount Ararat?

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...........FALSE


So everyone knows Mr. Snelling holds a PhD degree in geology from the University of Sydney in Australia. Mr. Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist by trade. Who is the expert again?

This is considered the definitive rebuttle of Mr. Wyatt's claims. It is obvious from this article that Mr Wyatt did not find the Ark of Noah, but a unique rock formation.

Next site is hear:

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

First, about the man:

Ron Wyatt was an amateur archaeologist whose work has gained wide attention in Christian circles before and after his death in 1999 because his efforts were claimed to yield tangible "proof" of many of the events in the Bible. His findings were presented by himself and others in person and on tape to many church groups in the US and around the English-speaking countries of the world. They gained particular popularity in Australia and New Zealand through the efforts of Wyatt associate Jonathan Gray. Wyatt's archaeological claims continue to be aggressively promoted in the US and around the world by both the official Wyatt Archaeological Research (WAR) organization which he founded, and a variety of independent ministries and interested individuals. A number of "prophetic" ministries, such as that of Michael Rood, [see the Profile of Michael Rood elsewhere on this Field Guide website] use Wyatt's materials extensively in establishing and promoting their own prophetic scenarios.

Wyatt seemed to have adopted a swashbuckling "persona" not unlike that of the fictional archaeologist "Indiana Jones" from the movies, and his exploits have become almost legendary in some Christian circles. The news of his claims has been widespread, and many Christians have swallowed those claims whole. They are unaware that almost all of Wyatt's most flamboyant claims are highly controversial and hotly contested. It is the purpose of this material to give an overview of the claims and provide documentation on the challenges to those claims by credible investigators.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Claims

Ron Wyatt claimed to have discovered (or positively identified--at least to his own satisfaction--for the first time in modern history) a large number of locations and objects in the Middle East which would corroborate the events of the Bible. Some lists of such discoveries by Wyatt include close to 100 such claims made by him. The most significant of these are:

Noah's Ark

"Anchor stones" used by Noah for the ark

The Post-Flood house and tombs of Noah and his wife

The location of Sodom and Gomorrah

Sulfur balls from the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah

The point of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus

Debris from the pursuing army of Pharoah at the bottom of the sea

The site of the Biblical Mt. Sinai

A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's temple

The Ark of the Covenant

The stones on which God carved the Ten Commandments

The exact site of the crucifixion of Jesus

An earthquake crack under the crucifixion site made at the time of the death of Jesus

Blood of Jesus, which dripped down this crack onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant, located in a chamber directly beneath the cross




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wyatt's Theology

Although in many of his public presentations Wyatt did not emphasize his personal theological underpinnings, he was in fact a devoted Seventh Day Adventist. Many of his "conclusions" about the results of his efforts were based on SDA theology, and specifically the alleged visions and teachings of Ellen G White. White has historically been viewed by the SDA denomination as the only modern "prophet," whose prophetic ministry validated the identity of their organization as the Remnant True Church. [For details on the claims of the SDA denomination and their prophetess EG White, see the Profile of Seventh Day Adventism elsewhere on this Field Guide site.] When sharing the news of his exploits with SDA audiences, Wyatt emphasized the spiritual, doctrinal and prophetic implications of his alleged finds. But when sharing those same finds with non-SDA audiences, he emphasized the value of archaeological validation of Bible facts. Still, one of his avowed ultimate goals was to eventually persuade people to accept the claims of Seventh Day Adventism, and he believed that the combination of evidence he gathered would ultimately lead to that goal.



Many of Wyatt's claims have been challenged by numerous investigators, including archaeologists, scientists, Bible teachers and commentators, Israeli officials, and others with an interest in establishing or refuting those claims.

Wyatt and his promoters have, in general, refused to answer the questions raised by such detractors. Instead, they have most often chosen to address the questions in general by calling into question the sincerity or honesty of the questioner. They have typically done this by categorizing these individuals into several groups, all implied to have less than honest and reasonable causes for their attempts to refute Wyatt's claims:

Atheists who don't want to admit the truth of the Bible

Disgruntled rival archaeologists looking for glory for themselves

Religious people who disagree with Wyatt's theology and thus his conclusions about the significance of some of his "finds"

Disgruntled religious people who resent that the glory for discovery is going to a Seventh Day Adventist, rather than "one of their own"

In addition, Wyatt claimed in a number of instances that he could not reveal certain facts and evidence that would substantiate some of his claims because he was privately asked--or ordered--by unnamed Israeli authorities to withhold that information as it was believed to be "dangerous" for Israeli security.


Now about the claims of Mr. Wyatt:

http://www.isitso.or.../wyattnoah.html

The late amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt claimed during his lifetime to have positively identified the remains of Noah's Ark. Since his death in 1999, supporters and promoters of his archaeological claims have continued to promote Wyatt as the "discoverer" of the "Real Noah's Ark". This webpage provides documentation and evaluation regarding these claims.


Selected snips from this article:

Wyatt's claims about the Durupinar "Noah's Ark" site have been featured in videos produced by his own organization, as well as in some commercially-produced films. All of these weave very convincing stories from a few pictures and a lot of speculation. The primary "evidence" that attracts most viewers seems to be just the sheer size of the formation (it is roughly the length given in the Bible for Noah's Ark) and the odd shape, which does look like a modern "ocean liner" shape. But that is hardly enough to establish proof of the identity. The videos rely more on speculative description of various objects found within the formation to convince the viewer that this is, indeed, Noah's Ark, than on any truly scientific substantiation for the claims.

After a very short flurry of enthusiasm in the mid-1980s by a number of scientists and qualified investigators, based on some very preliminary tests, acceptance of Wyatt's claims regarding Noah's Ark has waned drastically. Doubt was soon raised by a number of factors.

Wyatt was never able to deliver on his "trainloads of evidence" claims. Enthusiastic folks who have seen one or more of his videos still describe to their friends that Wyatt found trainloads of "deck timber," but there has never been any credible evidence that any of the items seen or brought back by Wyatt was such "deck timber." Initial laboratory analyses of the one 18 inch piece of rock didn't totally "rule out" that it might be fossilized wood, but further investigation shows that no qualified scientists interpret the data as substantiating Wyatt's claim for it.


The "tests" ordered by Wyatt on various items that he claimed "prove" that the objects were what he said they were do nothing of the kind. Most were just raw analyses of the chemical composition of samples … not statements by a lab, for instance, that an object was "fossilized laminated timber." And later examination of the alleged timber piece by various geologists who are familiar with rocks and minerals of the region have stated that there is absolutely no reason to conclude the item is "fossilized timber" … other than Wyatt's fervent wish that it be such. The same is true for the single sample of an item that Wyatt claimed was a "fossilized metal rivet." The alleged lab analyses of the item did nothing to establish that it was , indeed, a rivet.


Wyatt never made any attempt to answer the legitimate questions about his findings put forward by qualified scientific critics. As Wyatt promoter Bill Fry puts it on the Anchorstone website …

He believed in the sciences but felt that often the scientist could not see past his own education and "think out of the box". He was concerned that today too many of us let the "people of letters" do our thinking for us.

For this reason Ron never relied on scientists or professionals to confirm his work. He employed scientific testing and then presented the results along with the biblical, historical, archaeological and scientific evidence in the belief that each person was capable of making their own decision.

The problem with this reasoning is that Wyatt did claim to use "scientific testing." And it is the scientific validity of that testing which is often the source of questions about Wyatt's claims. The "belief that each person was capable" denies the reality that the average person is utterly unequipped to evaluate Wyatt's claims in a vacuum. It is only when those claims are challenged by alternative scientific information that the average person would have the slightest clue that Wyatt's claims might even be questionable. Yes, it may be helpful to "think outside the box" when pursuing a variety of theories. An atheist scientist who is convinced there was no Noah's Ark would not be inclined to even go look for it. But this is not the same thing at all as using standard scientific methods to identify objects. It may be "thinking outside the box" to try to discover new mathematical equations to explain phenomena. It is not thinking outside the box to insist that 2+2=43 .

Wyatt also pointed to a number of early "ground radar" and similar probes done at the site as "proof" of his claims. But the results of such tests were very preliminary and inconclusive in the beginning, and totally refuted by later such probes. But Wyatt refused to address the questions raised by the later probes, insisting instead that there was no need to look at those since he was personally convinced by the earliest information … because it verified what he wanted to believe. "Don't confuse me with the facts," as the old saying goes.



My Wyatt has also tried to use respected Christian Scientist to bolster his claims. John Baumgardner, (who I have met personally and correspond with on occasion) is one of these folks. If you have read the above web sites, he strongly disagress with Mr. Wyatt on this being Noah's Ark and has pubicly posted this letter expressing his displeasure with Mr. Wyatt's claims.

Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form …

The footage of me in the video that has been shown several times on U.S. and British television during the last three years reflects my early enthusiasm about the possibility of a connection of the site with Noah's Ark, but it does not accurately represent my very firm conclusions reached after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in 1987 and 1988 …

It should be evident that I, as a scientist with a Ph.D. in geophysics but also an earnest Christian, am absolutely convinced the site contains no remains of Noah's Ark. This conclusion was reached after eight trips to the area between 1985 and 1988 and two major geophysical investigations during the summers of 1987 and 1988 in collaboration with Dr. Salih Bayraktutan, a geologist, at Ataturk University in Erzurum, Turkey. In the 1987 effort we surveyed the site with ground penetrating radar that involved 72 separate traverses spaced two meters apart. We also took 1200 magnetometer readings in a detailed magnetometer survey. In addition we made several traverses with an exploration seismograph. In the 1988 effort we drilled four core holes and performed additional seismograph scans. It was the results of the core drilling that revealed, with no room for debate, that a long ridge-shaped block of rock lies along the centerline of the site. Mud flowing around this obstacle is responsible for the almond, or boat-like shape. The dark colored boulders are pieces of the igneous seafloor rocks that happen to underlie the site. The glaring absence of human artifacts of the sort implied by the visitation of multitudes of pilgrims reported by historians like Josephus is a final forceful argument against this being the true resting place of the Ark.

Also from these excerpts it should be clear that I consider Wyatt's misrepresentation of my views as morally wrong and dishonest. But his deception of multitudes of Christians who have not had the opportunity to check his claims firsthand as I have is an even worse crime. I give you permission to use these words of mine to warn people of this snare.

Sincerely,

John Baumgardner
Los Alamos, New Mexico


Bex, do I need to do further resarch to disprove the claim by Ron Wyatt that this is Noah's ark? This is very clear evidence, not speculation, claim, or ad-hommin attack, but evidence- cut, dried, and crystal clear.

#57 Starfighterace

Starfighterace

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 April 2009 - 12:51 PM

There is some historical documentation to suggest the final resting place of Noah's Ark is on MT. Ararat.

Flavius Josephus

1st Century Jewish historian, and both a Jewish and Roman General, Flavius Josephus mentions the remains of Noah's ark 3 times.  Once, Josephus tells us that some persons were reluctant to come down from the Mount onto the Mesopotamia plain to settle because of fears of another Flood.
 
  Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

"... the country called Carrae: it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also in it the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them"


John Chrysostom

Do not the mountains of Armenia testify to it, where the Ark rested? And are not the remains of the Ark preserved there to this very day for our admonition"


Berosus, a Caldean historian

"But of this ship that grounded in Armenia, some part if it still remains ... and some get pitch from the ship by scraping it off and use it for amulets to ward off evil.".  Also, 'It is said, moreover, that a portion of the vessel still survives in Armenia on the mountains of the Gordyaens, and that persons carry off pieces of bitumen, which they use as talismans.'


Marco Polo

reported finding the Ark after a 3-day climb in the "snowy reaches of a very high mountain. At the bottom of a summit, not at the peak."


Sorry Bex, too much information out there to suggest that it's anywhere other than around Mt. Ararat. Thousands of years of reports all point to the same location.

#58 Starfighterace

Starfighterace

    Junior Member

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

Posted 11 April 2009 - 01:02 PM

Hear are some photos of and around Mt Ararat taken by John Morris:

http://www.answersin...2/ararat-photos

Wouldn't be great to actually do an archelogical dig of those tombs, caves, and altar sights? How about translate the engravings? This is where the investigation of Noah's Ark sould be happining, not a rock formation that dosen't even look like an Ark.

#59 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 11 April 2009 - 07:53 PM

Hear are some photos of and around Mt Ararat taken by John Morris:

http://www.answersin...2/ararat-photos

Wouldn't be great to actually do an archelogical dig of those tombs, caves, and altar sights? How about translate the engravings? This is where the investigation of Noah's Ark sould be happining, not a rock formation that dosen't even look like an Ark.

View Post


This is why I was reluctant to believe that this place was the resting place of the Ark, because of the historical writings. I have yet to hear of modern expeditions to Mt. Ararat. I would love for it to happen, but I do believe that the Turkish government is trying to direct people in the wrong direction for a reason.

#60 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 12 April 2009 - 02:26 PM

Starfighterace,Apr 12 2009, 07:51 AM]

Hello Again, Bex.

I am afraid all your bluster is not going to convince many people. Cutting and pasting comments from Ron Wyatt's supporters web sites is not helping your cause either. Extraordinary facts demand extraordinary evidence, and it is not forthcoming. Just ad-hommin attacks from those who discredit Mr Wyatt and his followers.


Hmmm, I think that both of us need to calm down, or we are going to incur a warning or a locked thread from the moderators. Do you want that? I sure don't because it will stop us bringing this to light and dealing with it - hopefully as mature adults.

It is tempting to retaliate in like manner here, but I'll simply start by saying that I have not sat here and loosely copied and pasted from websites. It appears your comments could be more easily turned in your direction in this area. I have gathered the information from a document packed filled book. So by claiming all the information as "bluster" is far from accurate. I am not going to respond to the few claims you've shot up out of nowhere, because I would need to know more. Plus, as agreed, we wanted to stick to the substance of "Noah's Ark". Let's try and do that.

Since the topic is Noah's Ark, lets begin!


Thank you!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users