Noah's Ark has been found

You made the claim that you alone debunked every single bit of the evidence and that there's evidence in the archives to prove it. I'm saying if that be the case, you alone should be able to easily win a one on one debate with the one claiming otherwise or otherwise retract your bogus claim.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Actually buz if you look at the message you replied to, you will notice that I went back and added a quote of your message. You have a habit of constantly misrepresenting what people say, and you continue to do that in this message. I will not take part in a Great Debate with someone who misrepresents what I say. That buz is another of your misrepresentations.Here is what I actually said. and I will not hold a Great Debate with someone who is not capable of representing what I actually say.I was NOT the only person who debunked Wyatt's falsified evidence. Many people did. I did not say I had all the information archived, I said I still have links to most of the FACTS.So here is how it is. If you wish to start a thread, you may present an item to be considered. I will be happy to then address those items I believe I can address.If you don't like those terms, tough. Them's it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

buz, I will not hold a Great debate with you on any subject at this time.But, I would be most happy to try to repond in a thread on Wyatt or on evidence in general. I think that a discussion of the differing ways evidence is viewed might be informative to all the membership. Let me try to point out why.Pretend for a second that someone did find the remains of an old vessel. The size matched the Biblical description of Noah's Ark. It is found in the Middle East, Turkey or Iran. And on one of the recovered timbers is found an inscription "I Noah built this Ark and took aboard two tutrle dove and a partridge in a pear tree." Samples of the wood were taken and radiocarbon dated to about 4000-5000 years ago.Now the qestion. Would that evidence make me think the Biblical account of the flood was correct?The answer is a resounding "No!"I have no problem believing that there was a flood, that there was some guy named Noah, that Noah built a boat, that he took some critters aboard. None of that is outside the realm of possibility.However the bulk of the evidence shows that there was not a worldwide flood anytime in the last 600,000 years or so.The bulk of the evidence shows that there was no one bottleneck event that is common to all existing species of critters.Those two chains of evidence are sufficient to discount the tale of Noah and the flood as told in the Bible.Is it possible that Wyatt or someone else could find the remains of some vessel? Sure.Is it possible that that vessel could be shown to be the one mentioned in the Bible? Unlikely but certainly possible.Would that validate the story in the Bible? No!The same line of reasoning needs to be applied to all of Wyatts alleged findings. Not only must the evidence FOR something be considered, but we also need to consider the evidence AGAINST. Both sides MUST be presented if we are to consider Theological History and Archeology to be as ethical as other areas of science.One problem I see is that the Theological Community is nowhere near as ethical as the Science Community. Oh, there are folk in both that are not ethical, but the Scientific Community has ethics guidelines and procedures that are totally lacking in the Theological Community.When a scientist is caught falsifying data, or excluding data that refutes his or her results, the Scientific Community sanctions them, and all of their work is then either thrown out, or reexamined by outside independant sources to check validity. The individual is then cast out of the scientific community or all future results from that individual marked as suspect.There is nothing like that Ethics Procedure in the group that claim to be scientists such as Wyatt or Hovind or Baugh or the like. There are specific examples of unethical behavior in the body of work from Ron Wyatt.Some examples of such behavior can be seen in the so called Altar of the Golden Calf evidence in Ron's Exodus case. In that particular incident parts of the pictoglyphs were modifed to change the significance of the image. Only selected pictoglyphs were included and all the others excluded. A claim was made (I will admit it is couched in terms that allow Ron to plead innocent) that they were not common when in fact, such glyphs are found throughout the Middle East and across North Africa. Finally it was not mentioned that such glyphs are common to folk native to the area and dating to about a thousand years before the alleged Exodus or even longer.Another example is the images of the chariot wheels themselves. The claim is made that they are computer enhanced when the fact is that it was far more than enhancement. They were simply drawn. You can see this image in Message 264 and in Message 245. That image is not an "enhancement", it is a friggen drawing. In addition, even the alleged original image seen in the lower position of Message 245 is NOT evidence that can be related to any specific event.As I have said, I will be happy to discuss any of the evidence with you in a regular thread. Let me make a suggestion.Select whichever of Ron's findings you believe you can best support. Pick one item to start with. You present the case in support of Ron's position on that item. I and others will present the case against that item. Then we can move on to the next item you believe can be best supported.If we work through this in that fashion I believe the people reading the thread will be able to make their own judgements about the validity of either position.Edited by jar, : add a space and change even to event

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not interested in another Exodus open thread at this time. Maybe in the future after I finish Moller's book, the one who did the marine research at Neweiba. All I'm interested at this time is to call you on your false boast that you yourself have imperically falsified every single item in the Exodus evidence to the point of myth status, implying that I, creo scientists and the fundie Christian community are believing in and supporting myths. The only way to settle that would be a one on one debate. That's a false highly exaggerated claim and imo it should be retracted.Abe: Jar's statement: "I personally have debunked every single bit of evidence that has been brought up, the petroglyphs pictures he doctored, the calf altar he claimed to find, the guard shack, the wgaon wheels, all of it."".......every bit of evidence.......all of it." What does that not include? Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

quote:

---

".......every bit of evidence.......all of it." What does that not include?

---

Anything that Wyatt couldn't fabricate or dream up before he died?Wyatt was a rug-chewing nutcase and his "evidence" was a mixture o fabricated or dreamed up during his mental delusions while he was off with the fairies.I like the blood of Jesus myself, classic crackpot stuff but any of it is pretty easy to piss all over.

Well, sorry you feel that way buz. I belive that I as well as many others have more than adequately debunked every claim that was brought forth in support of any of Wyatt's claims. In addition I belive that in the very message you are replying to I laid out the reasoning. I believe that you are sincere in your position, never doubted that for a minute, but the overwhelming body of evidence seems to indicate that yes, you are believing in and supporting myths. And that is fine. If you want to believe in the myths, go right ahead.What I do have problems with is the unethical behavior of people like Ron Wyatt and the fact that there is no standard of ethics in the body of the Theological Community that does not saction and repudiate people like Ron Wyatt.What Ron Wyatt did is unethical. Had he been in ANY of the valid scientific communities he would have been sanctioned and expelled and all of his findings marked as invalid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In the case of Ron Wyatt I would say, yup, pretty much all of it. I have never seen a single piece of evidence from Ron Wyatt or his organization that stood up to examination. Not one single item.I do not understand, and freely admit I do not understand, how anyone can give any creedance to Ron Wyatt's findings.If you think there is ANYTHING, anything at all, even ONE piece of evidence that Ron has that can stand up to examination then please start a thread on it. I will be happy to consider it and if it can be supported will gladly admit that that piece of evidence is valid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no not really, and i'll tell you why. that may be. there may have been a guy who put his whole family and a bunch of animals on a boat to save them from a flood. but considering the geological evidence and common sense, there was no worldwide flood. or at least not since man has existed. there is simply no evidence of a worldwide flood. and don't ask me for proof, i'll simply refer you to other threads on this board. there is a literal metric butt load of evidence for a scad of very traumatic local floods in various time periods in various places, but there is no such thing ever as a worldwide flood. also, consider a mixture of biological and geographical evidence. if noah only landed in one spot, how did animals get across the oceans? (as rqb said. i still don't know what to make of him...)a boat is merely evidence of a local flood. the potential size of a boat that would have been able to accomplish the goals of noah's boat... it's never been built. the size of boat in the genesis record is big enough to hold the animals of a town maybe. now, i can't argue supernatural intervention, but that is outside the realm of evidence.we know there have been very large and very devastating local floods. a find supporting that would do nothing to modern scientific current.the thing is. the bible may well be a decent record (read: iliad) of certain events. however, even the iliad was wrong on a few things. the iliad was the first source to suggest that troy ever existed and we found it.
was the city built in 35 years like the iliad says? no. it was many cities overlayed and was there for a terribly long time. we don't even have any proof that it was called troy, really.
was there a wooden horse? probably not.
was achilles mostly immortal? probably not.
how long was the war?
how many ships did they send?
was it all for a woman who just conveniently is named similarly to the name of the greek people and thus it is perhaps a tale of the soul or the pride of the greeks being stolen or challenged by a foreign might or rival city-state?
these are all very questionable. but there was a city near the dardanelles that was destroyed by siege at least once.so. was there a flood in mesopotamia? sure. there were lots. and even a few big ones. was it precisely when the bible suggests it is? probably not. did it cover the whole world. almost absolutely not. was there a guy named noah who put a few oxen on a boat with his wife and kids? sure. did he have two or seven of every kind of animal that has been alive since then? resoundingly, no.

So easy that you are unable to squeeze more than a couple of sentences out at the time. The terms for that is dribbling, not pissing.

Iano - I know you are feeling frustrated because of the hammering you seem to be taking off multiple people on multiple threads but taking it out on me is not going to help your cause. Go and have a nice cup of tea or something.Or you could pop over to the Blood of jesus thread and put us all straight - I await with baited breath the evidence and considered discourse you will bring to bear on the subject. Clearly from your interjection here, you have must valuable knowledge on the subject to impart to the rest of us.Warm regardsCK

The metric butt - that's a new unit of measurement on me I'm assuming the metric butt is way smaller than the American butt (but give us another decade of so of Big Macs and KFC and they'll be the same size ).

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

well. the actual scientific terminology is metric fuck tonne, but i thought i'd be nice to the particular poster as i do not know how he responds to such language.

Aside ftom the variosu direct allegatiosn of fraud against Wyatt, we have:The "Blood of Jesus" claimWyatt's claim to be the original discoverer of the ivory pomegranate which until recently was thought to be the only objected surviving from the original Temple.Both of these are fairly strong evidence of fraud or dishonesty on Wyatt's part - the latter in particular because it has been revealed that the pomegranate's "connection" to the Temple was an inscription added in modern times (in the unlikely event that Wyatt told the truth he is implicated in that fraud).As for incompetence we have:The supposed "land bridge" at Nuweiba, based on misinterpreting the data.The whole sorry saga of Wyatt's attempted rerite of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. It is hard to imagine how somebody incapable of reading a popular level book could be considered a serious source. The whole thing is a complete mess based on ignoring contrary evidence.The inability to admit that Wyatt's "molecular frequency generator" is a worthless dowsing device. (Here's a hint guys, connecting the dowsing rods to some electonic stuff that doesn't do anything doesn't change the fact that it's still dowsing).(And I will add that I have discussed all these points in the past and I'm happy to discuss them again - if any Wyatt supporter dares).So what we have is amazing claims backed by almost no significant evidence - coming from people who are certainly incompetent and very likely dishonest. Those of us who doubt Wyatt have nothing to be ashamed of.
o

quote:

---

I do not understand, and freely admit I do not understand, how anyone can give any creedance to Ron Wyatt's findings.

---

Guess what Jar, neither does Answers in Genesis Has the Ark of the Covenant Been Found? | Answers in Genesis Apparently this creationist organization wishes some potential supporters would stop embarassing their cause by supporting each and every crank and huckster that challenges both science and common sense, regardless of how unsavory the reputation of such individuals has been shown to be as in the case of Cornuke and Wyatt.

Buzsaw, there really was not much to the story. Kasich had Cornuke on the show, he basically said they think they found the ark, but not 100% certain as of yet, more studies need to be done. They showed some video footage of what was suppose to be the ark, although, IMO, you really could't tell anything. They showed Cornuke and company extracting some petrified wood. The entire story lacked any information at all. I'm not even sure what Cornuke is going to do next. Supposedly everything is being carbon dated. He also has something like 23,000 feet of video footage. Not sure when he is going to release this though. Like I said, the entire thing maybe lasted 5 minutes and gave no information at all.