edge
quote:
quote:
1. The fact that over 70% of the earth is still covered in water and that there is evidence of water erosion on the highest parts of all continents.
Ummm, did you ever think of exactly WHERE erosion occurs?
Depends on what type of erosion you’re aiming your argument at. If I might be more specific, it was water erosion I spoke of. You must remember that simply because there is not evidence for water erosion "everywhere" that this does not necessarily mean there was no water in contact with that vicinity. I firmly believe that the global deluge incorporated both peaceful as well as turbulent vicinities. If all the water had been turbulent, every rock and natural formation we see would reveal evidence of water erosion. But it doesn’t. In order for sea creatures to have survived, God would have preserved safe tranquil ocean deposits for them to reside.
quote:
Yeah, well... too bad it's not a boat...
Don’t be so sure of yourself. Matter of fact, it can be nothing but a large seagoing vessel.
crashfrog,
quote:
quote:
The fact that over 70% of the earth is still covered in water and that there is evidence of water erosion on the highest parts of all continents.
No, that's evidence against the flood, because it means all the water on Earth can't cover more than 70% of the Earth's surface.
That is an extremely naive answer. Does not Mount St. Helens play any role in this? Does it mean anything to you that islands are born and land masses elevate above sea level as a result of volcanic activity? I suppose in your estimation, continents cannot play a role in this scenario on a massive scale?
But continents in themselves are considered massive mountains. The earth can only hold so much water as it, 1. Sets itself into crust and soil of the earth (why do you think we find so many water deposits underground) and 2. Evaporates into the air.
The water that broke loose from the ultraviolet protecting vapor canopy (firmament in the heavens) came down on the earth. Only so much of it could settle so far into the earth, exposing the higher elevations of the earth. Only so much of it could evaporate and stay in the skies. The rest are the numerous lakes, seas, and ocean masses you see today.
quote:
quote:
That the boat shaped object
Is it a boat?
All we need to prove this global deluge is some evidence that it actually happened, and for all the evidence that it didn't happen (i.e. areas of the Earth that have never been flooded within the past, oh, 5,000 years) to conviniently not have existed in the first place. But that's really not going to happen, because the flood didn't happen.
You say that to yourself so that you can conveniently not have to follow the Bible, or even acknowledge a God. Now you're free to commit any act that the scripture condemns. That's the only true reason — whether you admit it or not.
Stating that certain areas of the earth have never been flooded within the past 5,000 years in no way negates a global flood. In fact, it roughly supports it. The global flood occurred roughly 5,000 (close to) years ago.
roxrkool and
JonE
quote:
errr... I'm confused. Are you referring to the same D. Fasold who co-authored the following paper:
Collins, L. G. and Fasold, D. F., 1996, Bogus "Noah's Ark" from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure. Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, p. 439-444.
There is more to the story than meets the eye my friends. It is so sad that it is this easy for people to pull an article like this riddled with information that miserably lacks the complete picture. First of all, let me state clear. One geologist isn’t going to change the facts. Dr. Collins wrote up his theories based solely on information he gathered, not by actually excavating the site himself. Why should he not be taken seriously? Because all the geologists that DID ACTUALLY investigate the site PERSONALLY agreed that the structure can be nothing else but man-made. One such geologist is Professor
Salih Bayraktutan, head of geology at Turkey's Ataturk University (who still believes whole heartedly that the site is not a geological formation). He did a number of personal scans on the site. Joe Rosetta, who was Vice President of Geophysical Survey Systems would disagree with Dr. Collins. The makers and producers of metal detecting survey machines know much more about what the machines are designed to pick up. Rosetta stated:
"You’d never see anything like that in natural geologySome human made this structure, whatever it is." There is absolutely no possible way in natural geology for so many lines to be evenly spaced, both longitudinal and transverse undergroundespecially on one spot alone and not anywhere else surrounding the site.
There is speculation as to what actually caused David Fasold to co-author that article. This co-authorship is questionable. There exists speculation ranging from depression to a growing brain tumor. Who knows exactly what it was. But we do know there is evidence of a state of mind differing with that article after 1996.
It all started from an Australian T.V. program "ABC
Four Corners Show" aired in October 1994. It was out to disprove the Ark site and claimed "an excavation" took place that disproved it.
However,
no scientific expedition was shown on that program — and certainly not an excavation.
It is what did NOT go to camera that is most enlightening.
Two months earlier, during a phone conversation, Mary Nell Wyatt said to Jonathan, "We've had some people here from Australia. They were filming for a T.V. program. And I don’t think their intentions are good.
"They were very secretive, although pleasant and nice at first. Their questions were solely about the subject of Noah's Ark and they were not offensive to me in any way.
"But they wanted to interview Ron badly, so I arranged to take them to the hospital to do their interview. Once there, their questions took on a much more offensive nature.
"They wanted to film from our just opened museum so the next day, I met with them at our museum in Gatlinburg. They were still very secretive and continued to avoid telling me exactly who they were with and why they were there. The two cameramen filmed everything in the museum and even watched the videos. Or at least portions of them pertaining to Noah’s Ark. Then, the cameramen set up and filmed the interviewer doing a very sarcastic segment on Ron's belief in Noah's Ark. By now, it was becoming very clear that they were not here to gather evidence — they were here to try to discredit the site. We soon found out exactly what was going on when we found the producer’s notes that he accidentally left behind, which made it quite evident they came to 'discredit this guy', meaning Ron."
A few days after leaving here, the crew flew to Turkey where they met Mr. Fasold, Dr. Plimer and Dr. Bayraktutan at the Ark site. Fasold and Plimer apparently had become friends even though on opposite sides of the "Ark" question. And they had made a bet, the loser of which had to buy the other a steak dinner. Mr. Fasold would try to prove to Dr. Plimer that the site was the Ark, while Dr. Plimer would try to prove it was nothing but a geological formation, all in a couple of hours on the site, with no scientific testing. In reality, it was just a contest of wits.
Returning home, Dave phoned Ron. He appeared angry.
"These people," he fumed, "filmed me with the metal detector looking for the metal lines, but the moment I hit the spot, they cut the tape - making it appear that I was fumbling like an idiot when there was nothing there.
"And they refused to core drill in the places where the structure showed near the surface." Into the 8 feet of mud and rubble which lines over the wreck, they drilled a brave 2 foot hole to prove there was no Ark.
David had with him a photo of some of the ship's ribs, exposed when some of the mud was shaved off. In the intervening 4 years, the extreme weather had "mottle cracked" the surface, making it harder to see the shave-off.
But the ribs are still there.
"I can’t see them," David on the program, was heard to say; while Dr. Bayraktutan was calling out, "Yes, they’re here. They’re here. They’re here!" (3 or 4 times).
But the T.V. reporter declined to have these videoed.
Yes, this was a nice piece of selective reporting! So the Ark did not exist... naturally.
Using the same method, they could show that the city of Sydney does not exist. Just go out on a boat to the Heads, point a camera in the opposite direction — and it could be shown that Sydney does not exist.
Their "failure" at the Ark was willfulnot accidental.
For thousands of years, the powers of evil have wanted to destroy those evidences which witness to God's dramatic interruptions in human history. But God has been protecting them — to be brought out at the right time as His great attention-getters just before His greatest intervention of all, the Second Coming. Likewise, the enemy has groups of men marshaled ready to fight these evidences, when they come out, in a bitter fight, using every dirty trick.
John Swinton, the former chief of the
New York times, in giving a toast before the New York Press Club, made a monumentally important and revealing statement:
"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to see his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." (A U.S. Police Action, Phoenix, Arizona, 1992, p.18)
Richard Slant, former president of CBS News stated:
"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have." (
Ibid, p.19)
But back to Dave and the demonstration in Turkey, which Dave Fasold recognized as a scam.
Well, just six weeks after that,
Fasold was "suddenly" persuaded to help the T.V. crew complete their story. Dave, down the drain by a handsome fortune on account of his Ark research, traveled all the way to Sydney, Australia, to very casually dump ten years of careful scientific work (including tangible finds) at the Ark site.
The question would be asked, "Had he done this merely for... LOVE?"
The examination of the site and the verbal debate between the friendly adversaries was filmed and shown on a well-known Australian T.V. program called
Four Corners, of which Jonathan Gray received a copy. No match for the cunning geologist, Mr. Fasold lost the bet. He then went on Australian T.V. and announced he had been wrong about the Ark site. Dr. Plimer now had a real trophy -- "the once determined advocate of Noah's ark" was now on his side.
David recanted his support for the Ark find. But it was too late. He had already put into writing his views on the validity of the tests.
And Wyatt stood his ground.
Meanwhile, Dave’s powerful
pro-Ark documentary was sold to New Zealand television, and on November 19 Dave showed some of his evidence for the Ark on Australia’s Channel 7.
Well, a very interesting sequel to this drama ensues.
It is recalled that during this T.V. show ridiculing the discovery of Noah’s Ark, several times the presenter had an impression on his face
which bordered on a smirk.
Just two years later, this man died
suddenly of a massive brain hemorrhage. He was only 42. Five other men who had set themselves up to impede or stop these projects were, up to that time, reported to have died in a similar manner.
The sad story continues.
Some time after his Australian T.V. "denial" of the Ark find, Fasold was on Californian T.V. claiming that he, not Ron, was the main discoverer of Noah’s Ark.
During the
final week of December 1997 (AFTER the co-authorship of Lorence Collins "Bogus Ark" paper) events took another dramatic turn. David rang the office at Jonathan Gray’s headquarters and spoke to Glen Coopman. The conversation that follows is
very sad.
Fasold: "I need to speak with Jonathan I guess, not many people know this, I need to tell you that both myself and my wife have been diagnosed as having brain tumors. Despite treatment my wife is getting worse and the doctors say that she has two months to live So you see I really need to speak to Jonathan and have this sorted out I guess [laughing] God is paying me back for something, hey?..."
Glenn: "Thank you for sharing this with me. I am very sorry to hear about your wife and yourself. I will have Jonathan return your call as soon as he returns from his trip overseas. Can I just say, whilst I have the opportunity, how much I enjoyed reading your book on Noah’s Ark. Can I commend you on your scholarship. But now can you please explain why, in a recent ABC program, you rejected the proposed site of Noah's Ark as the real Noah's Ark?"
Fasold: [laughing] "...Well you have a close look at that program they can do anything these days with editing They would ask me a question when I was wearing a red shirt and then you would see me answer the question wearing a green shirt..."
About mid-1998, we received word that Fasold had died.
Allegedly, in an email to an acquaintance, David’s last words were:
"I suppose now that everyone’s going to say I'm one of those guys who turned on Ron Wyatt and ended up dead."
This reminds me of the divine promise: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" (Gen. 12:3). God has spoken. His word is irreversible.
Based on this information, it is safe to question Mr. Fasold's "co-authorship" with that malevolent article. That article is a snaring trap for the so many gullible folk who lack true research qualities. I suggest you dig a little deeper in areas you don’t know much about.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 11-26-2004 02:40 PM
~Lysimachus
™ Version 4.2
