Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 50 of 62 (328020)
07-01-2006 2:20 PM


Hi there Tennessee R,
Nice to see you posting again. I'm sure you know who I am. It stunned me to see you posting in here. Just thought I'd ask, were you aware that this place has been a huge haven for Wyatt discovery debates? It was back in July of 2004 that I posted extensively in here (while my leg was broken and I had nothing else to do). Because I'm lazy plus lack the time, I'm not going to take the time to find all my old posts, but I will say that there is a plethora of discussion and references to various sources speaking about the Red Sea Crossing, chariot wheels, the Pharaoh's, which dynasty the Exodus occurred in, etc. etc.
From my perspective, Buzsaw, JimsSDA, and myself did an excellent job at presenting our arguments in support of the Red Sea Crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba. I feel we established unequivocally that the Sea of Reeds cannot be the place of the crossing as so strongly pushed by Brian, yet many of the points we raised seemed to be just glazed over. For example, the evidence that Solomon had a fleet at Ezionberg (sp?) at the Red Sea doesn't seem to phase anyone. We've also establsihed the accounts of Josephus who clearly spoke of the inaccessible precipices that "shut them in", and clearly there is no such siting at the Sea of Reeds. Nuweiba beach only fits these descriptions to a precise "T". I have yet to see ONE photo of an area at the Sea of Reeds that matches this description. I've seen indiscernible map drawings for the Lake Timsah area, etc, but no real photos yet. We have countess photos of the Nuweiba beach crossing.
But we better stay on topic for Noah's Ark, should we not. I've written up a large dissertation exposing the critical points given about the boat shaped object near Dogubayazit. The writeup can be found here:
Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion Board
Unfortunately at this time, all the photos in the writeup are not displaying at this time, because I forgot to pay the web hosting service. Once I get around to that, I'll let you know when they're up, and then you can go back and view the photos. So for some arguments presented, just remember, it isn't complete without the photos. But it's still a good read nonetheless. Simply bypass all the flood arguments I provided a the beginning from another thread. The thread is primarily dealing with boat shaped object.
Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 3:05 PM Lysimachus has replied
 Message 60 by Brian, posted 07-01-2006 6:35 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 51 of 62 (328027)
07-01-2006 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Brian
06-05-2006 1:39 PM


Re: It doesn't mean that much
quote:
I am not deliberately nitpicking, I am just stating exactly what the find would mean. It doesn’t mean that the animals went in 2 by 2, it doesn’t mean there was a worldwide flood, it doesn’t even mean that there were 8 people aboard the Ark, and it doesn’t even mean that Noah was a real person!
You got that right Brian! Just like when we find bones of neanderthal man it doesn't mean we were descendant from a common ancestor, and just because we find dinosaur bones doesn't mean they were destroyed by an astroid, and just because we see evidence of an expanding universe doesn't mean our universe is the result of a big bang!
You see where faith comes in? Faith is a requirement, regardless of what we believe in.
Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.
Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.
Edited by Lysimachus, : spelling/grammatical errors, reasoning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Brian, posted 06-05-2006 1:39 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Brian, posted 07-03-2006 2:53 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 53 of 62 (328035)
07-01-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by CK
07-01-2006 3:05 PM


If I were you CK, I'd focus on the arguments presented rather than the name I attributed to the writeup. It isn't going to get you anywhere, trust me.
Definition of dissertation - "an extended usually written treatment of a subject" ~ M-W.com
It is certainly extended, but adapted for forum debate. Much of the style would certainly not be included for a university. Anybody knows that.
Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 3:05 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 3:17 PM Lysimachus has replied

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 55 of 62 (328039)
07-01-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by CK
07-01-2006 3:17 PM


Why don't you read the whole thing before coming to your conclusions about MFG? It's been established that whether Ron used MFG or not, standard, and scientifically accepted radar equipment was used giving the exact same results as the MFG, so whether Ron used MFG or not is of no consequence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 3:17 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 3:29 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5191 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 58 of 62 (328067)
07-01-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by CK
07-01-2006 3:46 PM


Re: Dating anyone?
CK, I had responded to that too. There is a lot to discuss--so much, that it can get overwhelming. The best thing I can suggest is to take the time to not just read their responses to me, but read my continued responses to them. It would save me a lot of headaches from having to repeat.
About the MFG. It is not based on accepted scientific principles, that I will admit. You have to understand, however, the situation Ron Wyatt was in. Back in those days, he was trying everything he could get his hands on, and he was asking the opinions of others as to how to go about using different methods. David Fasold was the original one to introduce the MFG. Ron Wyatt wasn't too sure himself as to whether it was the correct method, but he decided to at least be openminded and try it out. Because both he and Fasold knew the criticism that would ensue, they did employ the standard Metal Detectors. Even Baumgardner himself admitted that both yielded the same results.
Now that we know better, we would never use methods that are not generally accepted by the scientific community again. Ron Wyatt was still learning a lot. He'd understand what to do more now. For example, dowsing is a personal thing. I've tried it when checking for water, and it works everytime for me. But would I use it to write a paper proving it as a standard method for finding water? Of course not. This is why standard White's metal detectors and Subsurface radar by Geophysical Survey Systems (GSSI) was used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 3:46 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by CK, posted 07-01-2006 6:20 PM Lysimachus has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2006 9:45 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024