I verified Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark claim

[BibleArcheology]

Well, I decided to settle the dispute, so I went to Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark site, twice, in order to investigate the claim.

Instead of leaning on pharisee-ism, that is to trust in experts, I went there myself.

I purchased an expensive $800 metal detector the second time around because the first time I went to Turkey the cheap detector gave me a bunch of headaches. It only registered by needle movement and not by audible beep. Which meant that I would have to hold the camcorder over my shoulder to view the needle movements. Which meant that I could have no perspective of what hotspots I was hitting in relation to the other.

So I went home disappointed, in 200. I went again, this time with ribbons and HD camcorder and that detector.

Myself, and three tourists laid out ribbons and verified the metal detection scan, claimed by Ron Wyatt and David Fasold. I have to say, even though I respect many creationist ministries, and still do, I have falsified their contention that the metal pattern is merely "random."

I have produced video and posted them on Youtube for all to see, and I expect future investigators will reproduce our results. Check out my videos.

And next time I suggest that Christians quit relying on "experts" regardless of whether or not they claim to be Christians. Christians make mistakes too. In my experience at the Noah's Ark site I can see how some researchers could mistakenly assume that the pattern was random. One reason being is that if you just show up with a detector and not video it or ribbon it, you could end up making mistakes that make it seem that the pattern isn't there. I learned from personal experience, that unless you watch somebody else using the detector at the site, from a distance, you could not discern the pattern. The grass at the site looks all the same and all reference points get lost in that sameness.

I suggest that all Christians go to the site and see for themselves.

By relying on people rather than your own investigation, you make yourself subject to bad ideas and missed opportunities.

Noah's has been found and too bad, too, because we need to focus on excavation and publicity right now, instead of repeating errors.

Check out the videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/VortexDelta

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEydyhk2wE



Bible Archeology.

[FreezBee]

Welcome to TWeb, Bible Archaeology :hi:

Do you have some presentation of the pattern, so it is easier to see, if it is random or not?


- FreezBee

[rogue06]

You are aware it isn’t just conventional geologists (“experts”) that have thoroughly debunked the Durupinar site made famous by Ron Wyatt, but YECs as well, including Andrew Snelling (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp) for AnswersinGenesis (AiG), which itself lists the claim “Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible” amongst the “Which arguments should definitely not be used?” section of their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp). The even more conservative Creationwiki summarily dismisses the claim Wyatt found Noah’s Ark as “What Ron Wyatt found is a natural geological formation (http://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use#Ron_Wyatt_has_found_Noah.E2.80.99s_Ark).”

John Baumgardner (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp) made his position clear in a letter: “Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form.”

And even Consevapedia, known for parroting nearly any and all claims made by YECs (including having a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur (http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/dinosaur.JPG) for awhile!), is none too keen on the Durupinar site (http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah%27s_Ark#Durupinar_site):

“In 1977, Ron Wyatt promoted a site on the lower slopes of Mount Ararat which he claimed was the remnants of Noah's Ark. However, his findings have since been discredited by a variety of sources including mainstream archaeologists and other Young Earth Creationists prompting Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis, two of the world's largest creationist ministries, to make a general statement that Young Earth Creationists should not use Wyatt's claims since they are at best highly dubious.”

And it isn’t just so-called YEC Flood Geologists that objecting on geologic grounds, but other Christians have noted that the streamlined, pointed shape of the rock formation is nothing like what Bible scholars and creation scientists believe the Ark was like. They think that the real Ark was rectangular and had squared-off ends.

But aside from that Durupinar is not on Ararat. It is something like 18 miles away at a much lower elevation which doesn’t correspond to where it is described as landing. Being relatively nearby doesn’t count.




And I second FreezBee's welcome to Tweb

[Dee Dee Warren]

You mean dino riding Jesus pic isn't real.

Crap.

[rogue06]

You mean dino riding Jesus pic isn't real.

Crap.

You can tell me, who sold you "the original" picture?

[xtreem5150ahm]

You mean dino riding Jesus pic isn't real.

Crap.


I think it was a re-enactment.

I'm also certain that the robbery happening in the garage behind McGruff the Crime Dog is also a re-enactment...... that or the camera man was mute.

[Alan3838]

You can tell me, who sold you "the original" picture?

The same guy who sold me the Golden Gate Bridge.:blush:

[BibleArcheology]

You are aware it isn’t just conventional geologists (“experts”) that have thoroughly debunked the Durupinar site made famous by Ron Wyatt, but YECs as well, including Andrew Snelling (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp) for AnswersinGenesis (AiG), which itself lists the claim “Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible” amongst the “Which arguments should definitely not be used?” section of their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp). The even more conservative Creationwiki summarily dismisses the claim Wyatt found Noah’s Ark as “What Ron Wyatt found is a natural geological formation (http://creationwiki.org/Arguments_creationists_should_not_use#Ron_Wyatt_has_found_Noah.E2.80.99s_Ark).”









John Baumgardner (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp) made his position clear in a letter: “Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form.”








And even Consevapedia, known for parroting nearly any and all claims made by YECs (including having a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur (http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/dinosaur.JPG) for awhile!), is none too keen on the Durupinar site (http://www.conservapedia.com/Noah%27s_Ark#Durupinar_site):

.




“In 1977, Ron Wyatt promoted a site on the lower slopes of Mount Ararat which he claimed was the remnants of Noah's Ark. However, his findings have since been discredited by a variety of sources including mainstream archaeologists and other Young Earth Creationists prompting Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis, two of the world's largest creationist ministries, to make a general statement that Young Earth Creationists should not use Wyatt's claims since they are at best highly dubious.”

And it isn’t just so-called YEC Flood Geologists that objecting on geologic grounds, but other Christians have noted that the streamlined, pointed shape of the rock formation is nothing like what Bible scholars and creation scientists believe the Ark was like. They think that the real Ark was rectangular and had squared-off ends.

But aside from that Durupinar is not on Ararat. It is something like 18 miles away at a much lower elevation which doesn’t correspond to where it is described as landing. Being relatively nearby doesn’t count.



The Bible says the "mountains" of Ararat, plural.

BA








And I second FreezBee's welcome to Tweb


I saw Andrew Snelling again, earlier this year, in Redding California. He told me a year before that when he wrote his piece, which was published in Creation magazine, that he was relying on the best evidence available, at the time.

Don't you think that you're reliance on "the professionals" is like phariseeism, the same that I warned about in my statement above?

Did you go to the site and check out the pattern of metal with a metal detector, or did you just assume that what someone says is the truth just because he falls into your range of acceptance?

Personally, in sofar as YEC creationism goes, Dr Snelling is a good friend of mine and is an expert in many things. However, Snelling was relying on the statements of others - statements which are downright mistaken.

Did you know that Snelling claimed in his paper that there is no pattern of metal at the site?

The Pattern of metal is the be-all end-all in terms of whether the site is man made or not.

I went to the site and checked it out. Further, Jim Irwin, the astronaut went to the site and found a pattern of metal there, some 6 years before Dr Snelling wrote his report. So what you are telling me is that the pattern of metal disappeared after Irwin left the site, and reappeared when I went there. There are others who I know of who have found the same pattern, as well.

Ironically, this same Baumgardner changed his mind. He used to believe the site was Noah's Ark. He claimed that he used a dowsing rod in finding the pattern of metal, but a "gotcha" video shows him obtaining the pattern with a metal detector.

Conservapedia has done no research at the site but has relied strictly on Baumgardner's message. And Snelling relied on Baumgardner's messages, as has done many others. But the problem is, Baumgardner is a Pentalcostal Christian who said that nobody who doesn't speak in tongues can be the discoverer of Noah's Ark. Ron Wyatt was given the honor of being discoverer and for that reason Baumgardner rejected the site

[BibleArcheology]

Watch my videos, they are the refutation of Snelling and Baumgardner's work. I don't understand why you guys have brought to my attention Snelling and Baumgardner's work when my videos clearly prove that:

1. Snelling was wrong when he said "no pattern of metal"
2. Baumgardner said, "I used dowsing rods".

My videos show a pattern of metal and shows Baumgardner finding a pattern of metal with a metal detector and NOT with dowsing rods.

BA

[rogue06]

Actually your entire hypothesis rests on metal fasteners (your videos mention nails) being used, which I don't recall being included in the fairly detailed description of the Ark's construction. And Noah and his family abandoning this source of worked metal and not scavenging every scrap of it after leaving the Ark (not like there are miners sending it for smelting and working by a no-longer existing smith).

[FreezBee]

The Pattern of metal is the be-all end-all in terms of whether the site is man made or not.

Excuse me, but I don't quite see, why that should be.

Wouldn't a dig to find out, what that metal is be required?


- FreezBee

[BibleArcheology]

Actually your entire hypothesis rests on metal fasteners (your videos mention nails) being used, which I don't recall being included in the fairly detailed description of the Ark's construction. And Noah and his family abandoning this source of worked metal and not scavenging every scrap of it after leaving the Ark (not like there are miners sending it for smelting and working by a no-longer existing smith).


While it is true that the Bible doesn't mention metal in the construction of Noah, we shouldn't be surprised, as NOBODY does NOT assume that when a man builds a house today that he's going to use nails. We assume it. So you could read and hear numerous accounts wherein someone says that he's going to use certain types of wood yet not mention nails. There are numerous accounts wherein we read about a letter being written and sent, yet no mention of whether it were of clay tablets or paper.

We do know for a fact, however, that metal was used BEFORE the flood.

GENESIS 4:22: "And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron."

This is interesting in many different ways. The Bible tells us that we should live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. So the question is, why would the use of brass and iron, before the flood, be of spiritual worth that we can live by?

Well, the fact is, it aids us into understanding the real Ark -especially when it comes to discovering it.

At anyrate, the fact of the matter is that some have said that there is no "pattern of metal" at the site, and some have claimed that there is a pattern of iron. Last September I checked out the site with a very expensive detector and came back with positive results.

I know that ego-centrism and trust in "professionals" is going to make the results hard to accept. I know, we all want our favorite professionals to validate our beliefs, and tell us what to believe. Holy scripture, however, tells us to trust in God and live by His word, not by men. We are told not to put our trust in men.

I don't know where else to go with this except that humans lie, but a metal detector does not, and the site is up for any future researchers who will validate and duplicate the results I got last year.

(By the way, I used to think this site was NOT Noah's Ark. To this day I'm still smarting from that fact)

BA

[BibleArcheology]

Excuse me, but I don't quite see, why that should be.

Wouldn't a dig to find out, what that metal is be required?


- FreezBee


Digging up the metal will serve little purpose other than to show what state the metal is. Maybe rusted or something. A nail shape was pulled out in 1985, however, by Fasold. I haven't released this video yet.

The pattern of iron fits coincidentally, longitudinal and latitudinal wise, as we would expect for a ship. This is no mere coincidence.

BA

[FreezBee]

Digging up the metal will serve little purpose other than to show what state the metal is. Maybe rusted or something. A nail shape was pulled out in 1985, however, by Fasold. I haven't released this video yet.

The pattern of iron fits coincidentally, longitudinal and latitudinal wise, as we would expect for a ship. This is no mere coincidence.

BA

Ok, but it is still an inference, not rock-solid proof

- FreezBee

[xtreem5150ahm]

Digging up the metal will serve little purpose other than to show what state the metal is. Maybe rusted or something. A nail shape was pulled out in 1985, however, by Fasold. I haven't released this video yet.

The pattern of iron fits coincidentally, longitudinal and latitudinal wise, as we would expect for a ship. This is no mere coincidence.

BA

One nail pulled out could simply be a coincidence.... someone walking, hunting, hiking... or ark hunting, could have dropped something nail shaped in that area-- an area that just happens to have some metal in a curious "pattern".

Digging up the metal-- under video-- would strengthen the case, if it were shown that the "pattern" were indeed nails or fasteners. It would also be claimed by some, that the metal fasteners were planted there while the video camera was off, by dishonest, hypocritical Christians.




Was it the practice to use metal fasteners in the construction of ancient vessels?
It would seem to me, that wood pegs that swell when wet would be a more likely material, since nails (if they are nails) pull loose during stress. (don't get me wrong, it's not that i don't think God could keep the ark together, but then why use nails in the first place?)