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

Your own sources says that there was no reason to think it was man-made. Then there is the "a scientist" saying nature can't create such a symmetrical shape. Obviously wrong. All you have to do is look around you - rocks in a stream for example or how about: That is a lenticular cloud. This is also a souce of flying saucer siteings.It doesn't take much to realize that this is not particularly meaningful even just staying within your post.There are times to cut your loses, Mike. Wyatt is not an honest source. If he does happen to get something right it would be a fluke.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-17-2004]

That last link (the "bogus" one) offers a speculation. The locals may have in the past treated the formation as a "ship" of the deluge. It is just, ever so slightly, a teeny bit, possible that the formation does not match the ark but rather that the ark matches the formation. It may be that it is the ark. But it was never a ship.However, we don't know how many formations of this type are anywhere in the general area. If there are a bunch then there is a chance that one of them is sort of the ark's size. I'm not sure what the exact measurements of this thing are though or, more importantly, how they were taken.

I think Bill has answered the questions we might have had. There are, in fact, lots of these formations. It does not match the ark.There is not fun in it but that's the way it is.Mike, once a used car salesman has sold you a lemon you should be a bit more leary about getting another car form him. I'd put Wyatt in that box if I were you.

And that is one reason why I have hope for you Mike That is exactly the kind of quick thought that someone with an once of sense would have and be quickly inclinded to then throw out the source as very probably full of crap.That others can not make that kind of analysis is a sad testimony. To what I will leave you to figure out for yourself.It is just slightly encouraging that AIG, ICR etc. can manage the same kind of thinking. There is an upper limit on what nonsense they can stand to support. I used to think it was unbounded.I could tell from the start that you didn't think it was necessarily the ark. I think I can also understand how much it would mean to you if the ark was found. It is a bit like when the first pulsars were found. I was in a physics lab at the time. BIG excitment! They were dubbed LGM's at first (little green men). This was purely joking but I'm sure we all had a tiny hope that they were signs of someone else. It is just in those situations that your skeptical shield must be raised highest. When you really really, want one answer you must be very careful about fooling yourself. Sadly the LGM "hypothosis" didn't last many days even.

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

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.

Isn't it time to give up on this nonsense??(but if you're having fun, it is just painful to watch and I can't help but peek)This guy is as ignorant as any we've had come through here.

I know how you feel. That's why I can't stop reading the nonsense he posts. It is scary that someone with so little comprehension is let out on his own.