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.

To get this promoted you should add references to the to-be-continued thread.Use [.msg] commands. (see dbCodes On (help) to the left when you are editing. In this case the x, y and z should be the f=, t= and msg numbers from the posts you want to refer too. See the http URL address in the address line of your browser when you are looking at the old thread to get those numbers.Here is an example: use the peek button on the lower right to see how I did it:
[msg7,138,303]You probably should but a -II on the end of the title to point out that it is a continuation thread too.

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.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thank you.Well, where were we?

Welcome T R, nice to have you aboard EvC.I have a quick query.I know this is a geology forum, and I am not a scientist, but, as universities nowadays seem to favour a cross disciplinary approach, I thought I'd look at this from an archaeological/historical angle.Now, Wyatt says he found Noah's Ark, how did he know it was Noah's Ark and not another 'ark'?Thanks.Brian.

In Message 289 TR said: Do I believe the Bible? Yes.Do I believe the Bible is literally correct as a history? Mostly no.Was there a world-wide flood? No, of course not. Atleast not in the last 600,000 years or so.And I don't call the Bible a liar but I do know that much of it is fable, myth.Here is the problem. As a Christian I find the material that Ron Wyatt has accummulated and presented to be an embarassment. His idea of evidence and proof is about what you would expect to see at a 5^th. or 6^th. grade science fair, but certainly would not be accepted at the middle school level. In addition, he has falsified evidence, withheld evidence that refutes his position, and misrepresented what he found.So far not one piece of evidence that has ever been presented here or in the film I saw about the Exodus has stood up to critical examination. If you have evidence which you would like considered then by all means present it to us, but as I said, so far nothing that has ever been presented here in support of one of Ron's "discoveries" has stood up to examination.It is possible that Ron found something. It was not the Ark since there was not a Flood, but he may have found something. Please present what evidence you do have and it is possible that someone here may be able to help you determine what it is.Edited by jar, : added requisite spalling arrersEdited by jar, : Fix wordingEdited by jar, : yet more spalling and wording corrections

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If no one explained, all threads are cut off at 300 posts. This serves several purposes, not the least of which is whether anything new can be said after 300 posts (and for a lot of threads that happens much sooner). It also cuts off any off-topic discussions, so it tends to re-focus thoughts, and if there is still need to continue, then a new thread can start clean.I only got one post in before it was closed, and did not reply directly to you in that one, so I will take the opportunity now to say "welcome to the fray".I understand you work in some capacity for the "Wyatt Museum" -- good, then you can verify things with the "Museum" eh? You will forgive me for using the quotes, but anyone can call any kind of collection a "museum" these days. I took this to mean alloys made up of these materials, but that your wording was a little sloppy.The first thing I thought of even before I saw the picture was a marine nodule, well known for concentrating certain materials into round objects, see Wikipedia Article on Marine Nodules (quote captured 6/4/06): Round, concentrates manganese, makes formations like the ones in the pictures that you don't want to disturb ... perhaps NOT because they will fall apart but because something else will - the riveting theory? Kind of hard to say that round balls are rivets eh? Archeologists are experienced at removing debris from much more delicate objects, so he could have called in an expert to do the work for him ... if he wanted to know. Whenever I see an excuse like this my first impression is (thanks jar):
My signature actually means what it says.Actually I've actually been through the actual "story" before, so I actually might actually know more actually than you actually think I actually do. I've seen pictures from the air of the site showing the "boat shaped object" ... and several others (was there a fleet?), and I've seen pictures from ground level. None of them impress me as either being remains of a bonafide boat or of any special significance. Significance comes from doing real science on the artifacts, and so far this is missing.Fossils are found on the surface all the time and they are still related to the stratum on which they are found. Relationships between objects are more important than the objects themselves in most of archaeology, and removing stuff to put in museums is doesn't accomplish that. It's poor science, done like the early dinosaur hunters that possibly destroyed more information than they collected."Lucy" is one example of such a surface find, and so are the resently discovered Tiktaalik rosea fossils, so making this claim as an excuse for lack of strata information is BOGUS. Presumably you mean the "Wyatt Museum" topic, and not the questions about rivets, petrified wood and moon pools. Nope. It, especially combined with the rocks on the cantelevered beams, would tend to help the vessel sink.Of course, with the information you have on hand of the actual remains of the actual vessel that was actually afloat (according to the actual theory here), it should be pretty easy to confirm or refute the existence of large opennings in the bottom of the hull eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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.

That's evidence that somebody believed that that was the resting place of Noah's ark - not evidence at all that it is the ark.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

My, what a compilation of anecdotal "evidence" Or just pick the one geological artifact that you think you can sell the easiest out of all the possiblities:
(click to see full size)
from Noah's Ark Search - Mount AraratWas there a fleet? Tombstones of what age? If the images are clearly discernable they can't be that old eh? Or is it much more likely that the "tombstones" and the "byzantine style crosses" were ADDED at the same time?"Drogue stones" must of course appear in the bible too, right (I must have missed it, but then I am no scholar on that book: enlighten me)?Otherwise they cannot be evidence of a biblical connection eh? Just of Wyatts imagination. Oh gosh, that really settles it. None of these have anything to do with verifying that we are really talking about a boat and not a common geological formation that looks enough like one to fool the gullible.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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.