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

JonF, Remember toe is just a theory, just because they tell you its true, doesn't make it so, its a theory, the fossil imprint is just theorizing its date, because they are not able to date the imprint itself, etc...P.S. Its ok, lots of interesting stuff that's in the fossil record, If the paleontologists can not date the fossil imprint, they should simply admit this, but can see the problem, to do this admits toe is dead, and that God answers origin (the invisible creating the visible), etc...

And you are overestimating the ability of boats to float with openings into the interior, with ventilations for thousands of animals, and in a nearly submarine attitude, on a boat oriented so that whatever waves are there will more readily wash over the boat than have the boat ride up and over. The concept is poppycock hokum happyweed delirium.The biggest ocean waves in the world are two types -- tsunamis caused by tectonic shifting of masses of earth and rock underwater by earthquakes (which according to most creationists is going on all during the flood period to mix up and redistribute the earth masses to give an appearance of ages from layers) and the wind driven waves of the roaring 40's and 50's (southern latitudes) because of the fetch - the unbroken distance that the wind can push the waves.During a world wide flood the fetch of the entire world would be basically infinite. There would also be no interference to the wind currents to circle the earth.Finally the shape of the waves in shallow water becomes more vertical ... so if it was a shallow sea flood covering a nearly spherical mass of rock and earth, the waves would have been 'square' or breaking ... think "Perfect Storm" with wave after wave like that.Enjoy.

---

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

Good post, Whatever. I contended with a similar argument about a year ago and got heck for it. I wonder what the scientifically calculated difference between a tree and the Mt St Helens sediment that it was burried in would be using the same method used in measuring the age of a petrified tree assuming the St Helens sediment was unknown??

Raz, I don't think you would consider the possibility of Pharoah's 600 chariots being scattered in the Gulf of Aqaba all the way across from the Sinai Peninsula to Saudi Arabia to be poppycock if you could see the actual photography of them in the video, THE EXODUS REVEALED. There's even one wheel without corral encrustation which is gold, silver and lead overlaid. The metal prevented the coral to encrust that one.By the same token, nobody knows how the ark was designed to do the job it did, how the animals survived, and how it all came about, but like the parting of the gulf waters, it most likely happened.

The design of the ark is irrelevant. The flood didn't happen so there is not need for an ark.

The point, Buz, is that the scenario proposed by whatever is not workable: that boat just won't float. There is also no need for such 'embellishments' in order to have a workable concept, so inclusing them is counter productive.Perhaps you would like to start a topic on the chariot wheels. It is off topic here.

---

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

Tell me Buz have you actually READ this thread ? Did you even read the post you replied to ? Did you actually understand that from "whatever" is saying that you CAN'T tell that any trees buried by the Mouint St. Jelens eruption WERE buried by the Mt St. Helens eruption ?The simple question is what is actually GOOD about "whatever's" post. It's just a pile of ludicrous assertions that "whatever" keeps repeating despite the fact that he can offer no support for them whatsoever.You know what I think - you don't care whether it is really true or not - you just want what "whatever" says to be true. Just as you and "whatever" would like what Ron Wyatt says to be true. The real truth - that this is just one of many similar natural formations - goes against your wants and deres and must be rejected.Wekm if that's what you want then I suggest you go to some extreme creationist board where the truth is censored and you never have to confront reality. It's the best thing for everyone - especially you.

Yes. All of science is a theory. Absolutely. It's so because of the evidence.What you are doing is called "projection": "The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others". You believe your ideas because someone told you it's true (and you want to beleive them), and all you have offered in support of your ideas is "because I told you". Right. All we are able to do is get a date that is younger than the imprint. The imprint is as old as or older than the date we get. Not much help for your fantqasies.

quote:

---

Good post, Whatever. I contended with a similar argument about a year ago and got heck for it. I wonder what the scientifically calculated difference between a tree and the Mt St Helens sediment that it was burried in would be using the same method used in measuring the age of a petrified tree assuming the St Helens sediment was unknown??

---

Petrification, the total replacement of organic material with minerals takes some time so I don't think scientists would make such mistakes as you seem to imply. However, if YECs came across geology like that around St. Helens they would probably look at the "polystrate" trees and conclude they were buried by global flood.Randy

JonF, You should talk to a coroner, likely they would say you need a body, in your case you don't have the body, its been cremated in a sense, by biologic decay, leaching, leaving only an imprint in the sediments that it existed, etc...Its kinda like Jesus in the resurrection when in the gospel of John where the diciple that believed when he looked at the shroud still wrapped, without the body, etc...We all know Jesus resurrection story because of the account of the Roman guard falling asleep, the entire Roman guard going not to their leader but to the Jewish leaders, to escape their death sentence for sleeping on the job, because the tomb was sealed, the shroud still wrapped together without the body (kjv St. John 20:7). Its kinda like you having a fossil imprint, without the body, what happened to the fossil imprint, I say it decomposed, leached away, Jesus however died, but his body didn't suffer decay, only 3 days in the earth, however your imprints suffered decay, like the Roman soldiers and the jewish leaders without the body your just punting, your not dating the body, you have not the body, your dating the sediments, and want us to believe your projections (theories), have some basis in reality.Think its thinking like what your expressing is one of them reasons scientists are turning to ID. Scientist don't want to be projecting untruths, like life shows no evidence of design, that one can date sediments exposed to the elements, and date a fossil imprint, its obvious the dating isn't giving the true age of the sediments, likely these same sediments dated old even before they erupted out from the earth, if a moon rock dated billions of years, then your rocks are dating younger as time goes by, solutes seeking to equalize, as all water wash to the sea, returning fresh dilution water, solutes seeking to equalize or some such thing, etc...

Whatever,You have been asked numerous times to support your assertions of fabrication by scientists concerning dating methods.You have beena asked for evidence that shows that the jam was put on AFTER the second slice of bread in the geologic sandwich.Support your claims with evidence not hyperbole and biblical metaphores.While you're at it, please reread the Forum Guidelines specifically point 2.If you cannot follow these simple requests then suspension is the next order of business.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

I kinda agree RAZ that a boat this size could be built without the embellishments, isn't it believed that the chinese built boats this large by comparmentalizing and laminating the structure, and they didn't leak, don't see how sea anchors would turn the ark into a submarine, they were not heavy enough to overcome ballast, its the same principle for sea rafts, if you have 4 to 5 sea anchors, it also helps stabilize the sea raft so it will not flip over.With the way the waters were erupting out of the mid-ocean ridges you wouldn't have the perfect storm, it would of pressed the oceans back before the earth was flooded, acting like the continents preventing an encircling square wave, the waters would of overpowered the sun preventing the east wind from blowing, until after the deluge was over, it was likely at this point that Noah started feeling the waves, kjv genesis 8:1, for God at this point cause a wind to blow across the earth, but with the oceans lowering and the mountains rising(hydroplate theory)(psalm 104), the waters would of been rushing off the earth, with the sea anchors catching the ground of the mountains of Ararat, and snagged it where the sea anchor resides above the imprinted ark image, otherwise likely the ark would of been swept out to sea, as its the sea anchors snagging the mountains of Ararat being strewn over the 12 mile vicinity of the ark. I'm leaning the ark originally rested up above where it was found by Ron, before it slid down from the anchor stone above where the ark was found, is likely where the ark finally came to rest, all the other sea anchors ropes breaking, explaining how come these anchor stones were strewn over a 12 to 14 mile area, etc...P.S. The anchor stones too me is evidence that Rons ark, is the decomposed imprinted image of the very Ark that Noah acutally built, and it really is a shame Ron wasn't allowed to make an archeologial tell out of the site, to see if if nail stains in the sediments, or even if there existed petrified fossil, or wood imprint images in the sediments, proving move conclusively by imprint images that it was man made, like you all know when you have not fossil remains you still might find imprinted images, etc...

Now I'm not a scientist, never said I was, but is not Jon saying to me that the bible is a lie, because to him it implies the fossil record is young, and gets offended by my belief he's being lied to by the paleontologists, because I believe the bible is inerrant.P.S. The problem is that Jon calls all my sources liars, but thats understandable given how Jon believes, All my sources have Ph-d's in the sciences, Walt Brown, Andrew Snelling, Steve Austin, etc..."The creationists all believe he's being lied to, so I can not in good faith tell Jon he is not being lied to", though I may not have all the answers, but faith is a bit like that. The paleontologists by saying you can date a fossil imprint age accurately, by the sediments are simply decieving themselves, though we all realize toe just a theory in danger of being replaced by ID, because toe believes that time explains the origin of the species, and they believe no evidence it was designed, because that would infer a creator.In America we have freedom of religious expressions, so its not hateful to say your being lied to, but constructive, etc... where the truth will not be the truth, which will be about attacking the biblical truths (the sacred institution of marriage)(gay marriages)(fossil age), which we see happening everywhere today, where lies will be percieved as if they are the truth, but God's got the hammer, "his word" will abide forever, though from whose face heaven and earth will pass away, etc...

I agree whith you, Whatever, that dating the sediment the fossil is found in gives a false age. Boy, you're sure on the ball with that one! Isn't it a good job then, that fossils aren't dated by dating the sediment they're in? You see, the fatal flaw in dating the sedimentthe fossil is in has been known about for eons AND THAT'S WHY THE BLEEDIN' PALEONTOLOGISTS DON'T SODDING WELL DO IT THAT WAY!!!!! Yes, you're right in that the way you describe it is the wrong way to do it, but you only describe it like that IN ORDER to make it the wrong way to do it. It bears no relation to the methods of scientists or reality, but you can't fault the actual method they use. Instead, you make up a method and on the basis of this you see fit to suggest dishonesty by scientists. You have already been informed that scientists DON'T date a fossil by the sediment it is in, yet you continue to bang on about it - that's deliberate dishonesty, that's misrepresenting the truth. Someone on this board thinks that atheists have no morals because they can't tell right from wrong, but Christians do have morals because they do know the difference between right and wrong. You've just proved that person wrong YET AGAIN. Any chance of a bit more honesty from you in the future?

Is Jon saying that?? I think that it is the literalists like yourself who are saying the Bible is a lie. It isn't our interpretation that the Bible implies a young earth it is yours.You haven't shown that the paleontologists are lying. You've been shown that some of your sources do lie. Even some sources on your side think that some of your sources can't be trusted.If you have no better argument against the evidence other than "it's a lie" then the I don't suppose you need to bother with any further discussion. You are actually bonkers enough to think that 10,000's of people in several different disciplines (some of them Christians) are all lying?You have organizations like ICR who are supposed to be able to do 'scientific' research. Why haven't they done the controlled, public demonstrations of these lies?It is hogwash, whatever.