But, we need to be careful about what you mean by ‘Noah’s Ark was true’ because the find would only mean very little in the grand scheme of things.
If it was established that this object was Noah’s Ark it really doesn’t mean very much in archaeological/historical terms. All it means is that at one time there was a boat like object built that belonged to a guy named Noah, it proves absolutely nothing else.
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!
Historians need to look at all possibilities that the extant evidence suggests before making conclusions, they cannot take a text as being true and then go looking for evidence, historical research doesn’t work like that.
But if Noah's Ark was true, wouldn't you be even slightly more open to something else in the Bible being true?
I am very open-minded as far as archaeology and the Old Testament goes. I know for a fact that a great deal of the Bible is true. I also know that a great deal of the Bible is untrue. But each biblical claim HAS to be scrutinised by the same methodological approach as any other ancient text, it cannot be given special status, as this is not how research is carried out.
No scholar is completely objective, but they need to at least appear as objective as they can because overly biased research just cries out for peers to rip it to shreds.
There is a great deal of contrary evidence that falsifies the two flood accounts, discovering a possible boat shaped object in a mountain doesn’t really make the flood accounts any more realistic.
Finally, I would urge anyone examining the evidence to try and be objective, look at as much as possible from as many different angles as you can, listen to objections and try and be fair when evaluating the evidence. You also have to be reasonable with your conclusions, and keep in mind that miracles are beyond the realms of historical enquiry.
Please give sources, evidence, at least tell us what you are talking about.
So many people have debunked Wyatt one hardly knows where to start. By the standards of logic, you should be asked to provide independent sources that support Wyatt, as an extraordinary claim is being made. It is not for the skeptics to provide the evidence - it is for the persons making the extraordinary claim. The standard of proof is always high when such a claim is made. And by the way, tombstones and names of villages do not cut it. Nor does an analysis sheet devoid of information identifying the lab and persons that did the analysis as well as how the samples were collected. Fossilized wood and pitch mixed with coprolites of many different kinds of animals (with careful documentation of the collection process) - now that would at least be a start.
But since you asked - here is one person who knew Wyatt and doesn't believe him. http://www.ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html
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:
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.
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! :p
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
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.
quote:Why don't you read the whole thing before coming to your conclusions about MFG?
What conclusions? Are you unwilling or able to explain the MFG and how it was used?
You support people having a full picture of what went on don't you? So let's start with the MFG. Once we have discussed that we can move onto the other methods and methodologies employed. That way we can arrive at a complete picture and context.
Although carbon dating can be utilized up to 50,000 years, admittedly Geochron Laboratory in America refuses to use carbon 14 dating beyond 3000 years, claiming it is unreliable beyond that. They will not tell you this specifically on their website, but they have made this known in no uncertain terms. “50,000? years would be the alleged maximum to give any sort of interpretable results at all, but only concrete reliability within 3000 years. Beyond approx. 50,000, complete inaccuracy ensues. But even the existence of “50,000? years is imaginary, since when can one tell how old an object is until Carbon 14 testing is employed? If you are willing to learn more on this subject, read the following links:
Another poster there replied:
Steve Forden writes:
This is completely and utterly false. Geochron would not say that 3000 years is the reliability of radiocarbon; you are either lying or have misunderstood what they have said.
The reliability of radiocarbon can be demonstrated by comparison with independent, non radiometric, dating techniques. If you don't like this, its your problem.
Oh and by the way, there are other ways to determine whether something is 50ka than C-14.
Anyone with a better understanding of the subject than me want to expand on this?
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.
So you admit that the MFG is bunk and we can move onto the other methods uses and dicuss those in detail?
If you don't think it's bunk - please explain the principles it does work on. It might seems I'm being picky but it all goes to context and credibility.
So is the MFG bunk or do you want to explain to the viewers at home how it works?
quote:Subsurface radar by Geophysical Survey Systems (GSSI) was used.
and what did this instrument show? where can I see the images from it?
EDIT - you really don't come out of that thread you link to at all well. Suggesting that it's a good thing to murder babies?
quote:As for the babies being destroyed by the flood. Every single one of those babies would have grown up to be wicked just like their parents. Every single one of them were wicked in the site of the Lord, and every one of them deserved to die. If there had been ONE baby that God had known would have grown up righteous, I'm sure He would have found a way to save them. But obviously, they died. So we leave it at that and trust that God knew what he was doing.
Further edit: - that link really is a goldmine of good information - people should check out this page: