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

whay do you say that

quote:

---

Without any C-14 the paleontologists can not date to fossil imprint.

---

?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think your example of silt being covered by basalt lava's, ash, with the clams being found in the silt, supports that basalts in fact are acting as an insulator to prevent the clams from being destroyed, though would think it would crisp the clam a bit, until the (crust basalt silt interface) acted like making "baked alaska", shielding the silts below from the lava's, etc...P.S. Silts would have organics meaning younger via C-14 than the basalts above. Not that the basalts were not deposited after, but would date older than the clams, C-14 organics in the silts below. Andrew Snelling showed how petrified mineralized wood fossils in fact dated younger that the above and below basalts, though people are trying to say C-14 generates in the earth to get around this abnormal reading questioning the basis of the dating fossils by the sediments that entombed them. Steve Austin brought out leaching, and a whole host of problems with all the various dating methods, and Snelling brought out how Argon is rising up out of the off gases in oil well's. This is all questioning the constant states needed for the other dating methods to date accurately. You also have the oil itself dating younger than the sediments that contain them, suspect your el capitan corals would date younger by C-14 in the oil they produce, than the sediments that covered them. The el capitan formed before the earth rose before man was created on the 3rd creation day. Then after the biblical flood and man being created on the 6th day, God lifting these massive coral fields that were growing for over 5,000 years, covered by thousands of feet of flood sediments washing off the continent, thousands of feet above sea level (kjv psalm 104), so the waters would not again turn back and recover the earth, etc...jar, Drive your car on some wet sand, do you see the tire imprint in the sand, according to the evolutionists, that imprint is the age of the sand its found, for how else are you going to date your tire imprint, but by the sediments, and apparently in some cases calcium glues, is all thats left behind with all the other organics mineralized out of the fossil imprint. The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old, without actally dating the imprint fossil. If you can explain how you can date the tire thread imprint age by the sediments, by the various isotope dating methods, to most people it doesn't hold water, but to the evolutionists, they believe the fossil imprint is as old as the sediments that molded the imprint. The whole point though in Ron Wyatt, is that he documented his image imprint by a video, wanted to do an archeology dig, but wasn't allowed, so he tried to use magnetics, and other surface sciences to see deeper into the ark, and if they are so sure its not the ark, why not let it become an archeology dig (whats the problem), to see if the basaltic rock has preserved lower levels of the ark, was not this why Ron wanted to dig into the lower levels of the image cast in rock, as the basalts cooled preserving this image to mineralization, over the last 4,350 years.[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-21-2004]

This is misleading, either intentionally or through ignorance: In many cases the geologists dating imprints (the ones who date rocks, rather than evolutionists) will date a layer above the imprint (say volcanic magma) and a layer below but including the imprint (Your sand turned to sandstone), and both these will be dated with the result that the imprint was made between the dates of the two layers. Each dating will use at least two different methods as a further check on the accuracy of each.In other cases they can tell the date that something (like, say, volcanic ash) change into rock, so that dating that change gives a lower date for the imprint. The ash footprints at the Roccamonfina volcano in southern Italy are dated between 385,000 and 325,000 years ago this way, as are the footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania dated at 3.6 million years ago. In both these cases the ash did not lie on the ground for long periods of time before becoming rock, so the date of the rock formation is valid.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I did a thread on Wyatt and the ark site a year or so ago. I met Wyatt a couple of years before he died when he did a lecture near me with slide photos of his 17 expeditions to the region as well as the Aqaba crossing where the chariot wheels are. I have read Wyatt's book on his work and have viewed David Fassold's excellent video on the ark site. David Fassold accompanied Wyatt on some of his expeditions but I believe they had a falling out somewhere along the way.As for Baumgartner's reversal on the authenticy of the site, it is my belief that he too, like Wyatt was looking for something fossilized, but fossils don't form on the surface. The ark was not suddenly burried so as to make it petrify or fossilize.It is my understanding that Wyatt was the first to figure out the Aqaba route for the Exodus crossing and to discover the chariot wheels as well as the interesting split rock, the blackened mountain top and other evidences of Mt Sinai being in the Biblical land of Midian which is now Saudi Arabia.I believe scientist Lenart Moller who did the underwater photography for THE EXODUS REVEALED (see my thread on that) video got his cue for checking out this site from what he had heard from Wyatt's work. It appears from the video that Mollar, a Swedish scientist from Stockholm
University operated from a secularist position and just went in to photograph what he had heard about so the viewer of the evidence could decide for themselves.Now, I offered the above to say that Wyatt is no kook. No, he was not a bonafide scientist, but part time archeologist. He didn't need to get a degree to find stuff, but the will and energy to study, travel, dig and explore. He has more evidence, imo, for his claims than Darwin ever had, but because his support the Bible, he's the kook and Darwin's the one secularists listen to.I am convinced, after delving into this quite extensively for several years that Wyatt's site is not a petrified fossilized ark, but that it is the impression the large craft left in the landscape as it deteriorated and eventually rotted away. It is the exact Biblical length of the Biblical ark, given that Moses would have used Egyption figures since he was raised and taught in Egypt. Someone said it's too wide. That's a no brainer. It should be too wide to be authentic, because as it deteriorated the sides of the ship would most certainly splay out making the impression wider but the ends would not splay so they should be fairly accurate. I am convinced in my own mind that the stones are balast stones for the ark. The fact that one has old inscriptions of 8 people and a boat carved in likely by locals a long time ago says something. Some of Wyatt's approach was to interview the local herdsmen and others to hear the legends handed down over the centuries to them and they tended to believe there was a flood and this was where the boat landed.I exchanged some correspondence with John Morris at ICR several years ago about this and he rejects Wyatts claims both for the ark site and for the Exodus crossing at Aqaba. I was not satisfied at all with his arguments against Wyatt. For one thing, Henry Morris, John's dad and founder of ICR has made several expeditions up the big Mt Aarat and still believes it's suppose to have landed up there. That's nuts, imo, because of the rough steep terrain and so forth. Morris and ICR would have to retool all their books and data in order to go with Wyatt. Things like cows, horses, etc would not be able to get off way up there and survive the descent. The landing would need to be where they could be with the ship until they got things built and so forth.Yes, Wyatt has claimed to have found so much, but he did his homework on where things should be found and went after them. As for the blood on the Ark Of The Covenant mercy seat, I dono. He claims the ark was found directly below where Jesus would'v been crucified and Israel is keeping the wraps on it. I dono. God knows. I do believe the ark has to be somwhere and to have hidden it in an obscure cave makes sense. It seems to me though, that by now all the caves would've been discovered. Wyatt claims that God led him to the hidden cave. Maybe, maybe not. Again, I don't know and neither does anyone else I guess. I'm not saying Wyatt was honest or not because I just don't know, but I do know what I've seen that I do believe concerning his work.{NOTE from Adminnemooseus: My best guess is that the topic Buz mentions in paragraph 1, is Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Going Back up!!. It went 247 messages, and is now closed.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-22-2004]

In other words you are NOW claiming that the basic idea is correct but the methods used to determine the dates give the wrong results.Well there's a forum for discussing that. If you can provide real evidence that that is the case for *all* relevant rocks - which none of the major creationist organisations have - managed then set up a topic there to discuss it.On the other hand if you're simply asserting that the dates are wrong because they contradict your religious beliefs then I suggest you consider the possiblity that *you* could be wrong.

This is a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. Support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!

JonF, To date not the imprint but the sediments to determine imprint age, is like dating the tire imprint by the sediments you drive over, the paleontologist know all rocks sediments will date old, no wonder you have problems with the C-14 being found in fossils (coal, oil,& ancient bones dated by more sensitive C-14 instrumentation to be no older than 5,000 years old) between layers you've determined old, how else does the paleontolgists determine ancient bones are millions of years old. Do they not date the sediments surrounding the fossil and say it belongs to one of their biased layers ages, etc...It all doesn't make much sense, it makes more sense that these isotope dating methods are not accurate to when the sediments were laid down(meaning these sediments would of dated old even before they were laid down), meaning the Paleontologists have created a senerio where all fossil imprints will date old, not that the fossil imprints are old, or that the sediments would ever date young, etc...I'm not sure the paleontologists are liars, in that they probably actually believe they are able to date the sediments to determine the age of the tire imprints, foot imprints, but don't believe you can determine the age of Ron Wyatts ark by the sediments that preserved the ark's imprinted image, for the sediments would date older, just as the sediments preserving a tire imprint, or any fossil imprint, expressed in the sediments of the earth.Like I suppose because rocks lift upward by frost, this supports a young earths biblical deluge. If frost is only lifting (pressing upward) rocks approximately 4 feet deep. Then all rocks this deep should of already been pressed upward onto the earths surface. However this curse of the farmers, expressed in stone fences along their fields is still happening in the now. How is this not another thorn in the paleontologists dating rocks to be the age of the fossils, these rocks are still rising, supporting these massive layerings were laid down thousands not millions of years ago. etc...

This is a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. Cease your irelevant babble, support your claim with evidence (not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull) or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!{edited to add}You were suspended once for posting long irrelevancies and not responding to important items in the thread. I have no admin authority, but I suspect that what you are doing is inviting another suspension.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-22-2004]

I agree Jon.Whatever, you have been asked to support a claim. Failure to do so is in violation of Forum Guidelines.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

JonF, If not the paleontologists, then who rigged the unscientific principle of dating the image, by the sediments, etc...P.S. Would it not be more correct to say its not possible to accurately date the image by the sediments, and that the fossil imprint could of happened recently, like a tire imprint. How is dating a tire imprint image any different than dating any imprint image by the sediments, would not all sediments that the organism grew from date older than the organism that grew from it, etc...Andrew Snelling finding the mineralized petrified wood fossil having excess C-14. Walt Brown mentioning that coal, oil in the earth also having excess C-14, suggesting they are thousands not millions of years old.Andrew Snelling finding excess argon released from off gases in coal mines and oil wellsLeaching of parent daughter elements associated in dating methods dating the sediments believed by Steve Austin to affect the accuracy of the isotope dating methodologies. I realize your going to say they factor all this in, but how can you factor millions of unknown, over time, you have to assume that the tire imprint is the same age as the sediments its cast, so you come up with all these different sediment layers as not happening suddenly, perhaps its time to rewrite geology 101, no need to throw away the fossil record, just the inflated age thereof, etc...Walt Brown mentioning that ancient human bones believed millions of years old have been tested by more accurate C-14 dating, which determines these ancient bones no older than 5,000 years old.Andrew Snelling sending young rock samples, that dated old not young, because of excess argon, the diamond found with excess argon quite deep below the surface, dating older than the suspect age of the earth(you have excess argon expressed above and below the earth and excess argon in the off gases of oil wells, coal mines, etc...Jon the problem isn't that the sediments don't date old, its that the fossils don't date old by dating the fossils themselves, and were supposed to believe they are old because of suspect isotope dating methodologies that is like dating a fly on a truck scale, meaning they are all calibrated to millions of years to date rocks, not even in the ball park of the age of the fossils (C-14 5,000 year half life), making the fossil like a fly on a truck scale.[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-22-2004]

why you would make such a statement as...

quote:

---

JonF, To date not the imprint but the sediments to determine imprint age, is like dating the tire imprint by the sediments you drive over,

---

... since that is simply NOT what happens.To maintain the logic of your tire track analogy, let's consider dinosaur foot prints. They, like your tire track, are just an imprint in the sand.Now when such tracks are found, how do people go about dating them? Do they say, "Look, those tracks are the same age as the sand or mud they are in?"Of course they don't.Instead, they look at the age of the strata above where the tracks were found and the strata below where the tracks were found. It is a reasonable assumption that the tracks were made after the layer below, and before the layer above. It has nothing to so with the age of the layer they rest on except...they do rest on that layer.I am very glad that you introduced the analogy of tire tracks because it is very important. In several posts you have alluded to some liquification, running mud, flood and such nonsense as a method for placing fossils in a way that will allow us to misinterpret their age.However, as hard as I try, I can find no methodology where fluid dynamics can pick up a footprint that was made recently and transport that imprint to some other location.No way, No how.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are a poophead, whatever.

Doesn't it make more sense that Noah and his family would have dismantled the ark and used all of that wood for new construction?The enire Earth was devoid of trees for a long time, and the ark was made of already-milled lumber, too.The most sensical and logical thing for them to have done would be to take the lumber from the ark and build shelters.

1. It makes more sense that they used it for home, storage and shelter until rebuilding done.2. Likely they built from logs, stone, mud brick, etc.3. I believe the whole ark was coated with pitch for sealing as God instructed which would make it very hard to dismantle and unsuitable for reuse.

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

quote:

---

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

---

Your unsupported (and, as has been pointed out many times before with references, almost all false) claims about dating are irrelevant. Listing a few errors in or occasional problems with dating, especially in tests performed by dishonest creationists (and the evidence for this has been pointed out to you many times), is not support for your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Proivide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim. It would be a totally different claim, and it would only be slightly more correct. The tracks we date could not have occurred after the sediments lithified, and the dates we get are either the date of lithification or a date slightly after lithification. Either way, radioisotope dating establishes a minimum age for such tracks.I will not respond to your other claims, which have been discusssed to death before. Snelling is lying, Austin is lying, Brown is lying, and this has been proven. Leaching and argon and bubbles and what-not are all irrelevant. Since you do not have any idea of how dating methods work, and you have refused to learn, there's nothing more to be said.