Wyatt Museum - Archaeology and Noah's Ark II

Hello, I am new.
We were right in the middle of discussing Noah's Ark and I guess it got over the number of posts allowed.I want to continue the discussion.How do I go about it, and is there any way for the replies to somehow drift over into the new topic?Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

http://EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark -->EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
is the forum that went over 300. That is what I would love to see continued.It had interesting questions like I just found it on google today and bumped it, and it caught on quickly, showing it is popular. Just tonight, maybe more than five members were discussing all manner of facts, scepticisms, etc.Important Notice:I am not a scientist. I am not even close to being as scientific as many of you are. I AM however trying at my best ability.
I don't have a degree in archaeology, geology, paleontology, or anything for that matter. I am simply someone wanting to discuss this, and WANTING everyone here to double-check me, because, I CAN very much be wrong. But, I very much want to be right.So, please bear with me, and I'll try to be more careful in the way I word my points.Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

Thank you.Well, where were we?

Thank you for the welcome, Brian. Ron Wyatt determined that it was most likely the Biblical Noah's Ark probably because of:It's location. (The mountains of Urartu, where the Bible states)It's size. A boat-shaped object as big as that, (more than 170 metres) and not on water, not underwater, but on mountainous terrain.It's lenght. 300 cubits (what the Bible states).Two tombstones found very near the site, with engravings of 8 people and a boat and rainbow.Drogue stones with 8 primary byzantine-stlye crosses (Indicating that the crusaders knew it was Noah's Ark)The willage nearby known as "The Village of the Eight".and many others that I'm probably forgetting.

No-one explained, but I did figure that out.
We were right in the middle of discussion, so obviously, either we were enjoying repeating subjects, or we had some new content going on.Thank you for the welcome.Yes, I was referring to the Wyatt Museum topic, which I browsed through, and I posted the question of the moonpools, (which of course has already been discussed before I got here) as well as others, in an attempt to show the worth-while-ness of this topic.I must state this for everyone (and I have posted it in my opening post), so that I am perfectly clear:I am not a scientist. I am not even close to being as scientific as many of you are. I AM however trying at my best ability.
I don't have a degree in archaeology, geology, paleontology, or anything for that matter. I am simply someone wanting to discuss this, and WANTING everyone here to double-check me, because, I CAN very much be wrong. But, I very much want to be right.So, please bear with me, and I'll try to be more careful in the way I word my points.

Sorry for the delay. Here is the quantitative elemental analysis of the 'rivet':
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe9.gif
Location one refers to the material surrounding the 'rivet',
Location two is the 'rivet'.Also I understand that this was also on the 'rivet':
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpeB.gifHope you enjoy, and please respond, telling me what you think.
Furthermore, RAZD, the marine nodules that you refer to, they don't have anywhere near the same quantity, do they? (mainly referring to iron, silicon, aluminum, etc.) And, these marine nodules are just that, marine, correct? Found primarily on the ocean floor?Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.

True. If I may speak for Ron, I think that he believed that if it walks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it pecks like a duck, it's neck is the same lenght as a duck, it's feathers have been analyzed and appear to be duck's feathers, local tradition says that they think it is a duck,Then it just MIGHT BE a duck.True, it could be another animal that greatly resembles a duck.
But it VERY WELL COULD BE a duck.I will be quick to say that Ron Wyatt didn't document things very well. He wasn't very scientific. But he did have some common sense.And I am sorry for the accusations last night.
I was in such a bombarded state last night that I stupidly thought you were one of those slandering Ron Wyatt. Indeed, you never said anything about Ron Wyatt.

But this is like saying you believe Huckleberry Finn, it's not lying, even though you know that it is a fictional book.
You know that it is fables, yet it yet you won't call it fictional.
Please clarify. Is that not a contradictory statement?In my very simple opinion (and without going into complicated analytical theories), either the Bible is true or not. Please give sources, evidence, at least tell us what you are talking about.

Far from it. These are just a few 'facts'. Actual facts that cannot be debated by anyone reasonable. Everyone here kept finding problems with the scientific data, I just gave a few undisputable facts. Never called it evidence.It is in the mountains of Ararat.
It is large and boat-shaped, and on land.
It is 300 REC long.

CK, I could just as easily say that John Baumgardner is an incredible snake-oil salesman liar.Did JB see Ron plant any rivets? Then how can he be 'almost 100% ceartain'?If we conclude that Wyatt is deluded, lying, because he gives you ideas, even SOME evidence in the form of analytical reports,
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-08.htm
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-12.htmThen I suppose I could just as easily conclude John Baumgardner is deluded, lying, for not giving any evidence whatsoever to his spectacular claims.

Regardless if he planted it, or not, forget the 'rivet' for a moment.Have these 'marine nodules' been found on mountains? Simple question still not answered.And should you come back with one instance, I might expect the photos, strata data, elemental analysis, cross-sections, and a sworn statement from at least three witnesses.Or else we all could conclude that someone stole a rivet from Noah's Ark and planted it on another mountain, couldn't we?

Wait, I must have missed something here. When did we start discussing Richard Rives?What CK stated is true, he is President of Wyatt Archaeological Research.JimSDA was previously the curator of a previous Wyatt Museum.

Hello, Brian.Yes, I suppose it is as you stated, no historical theories are ever proven, just as no scientific theory is ever proven. True, but it would mean that Noah's Ark was true. But if Noah's Ark was true, wouldn't you be even slightly more open to something else in the Bible being true? You are very right.

I never said I wasn't Richard Rives. Or did I?
And David who? Rives?
Possibly he is JimSDA re-incarnated?
After all, Jim may be a fake name.
Richrd Rives, Ron Wyatt, JimSDA, their families, all the museums, Wyatt Archaeological Research, and the Country Music Hall of Fame.Every one of these are in Tennessee.Actually all we know about the fellow posting this message is that he has R for a Username, and at least likes Tennessee (Or dislikes it so much, he decides to use it for at least all sceptical usernames). But you are free to guess. Maybe someday I'll feel like telling the world who this associate of WAR is. Sorry for being slightly cynical, but my name really isn't important.
People can only judge you, mock you, hurt you, when they can associate you with a name. Someone they don't know.

Twenty Five minutes.Sorry, just couldn't resist. You don't have to do this, though. Unless it would ease your curiosity.You can call me Mycroft Holmes.Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.Edited by Tennessee R, : No reason given.