Ron Wyatt

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi folks,

Has anyone heard of Ron Wyatt?

A couple of years ago, I found some links regarding Ron Wyatt. They detailed his research and looked pretty good. I even linked a couple of them to my site.

Recently, I've heard that many of his claims were extremely outrageous. I've even heard that some were outright false. Therefore, I removed the links from my site (these sources appeared credible and I didn't want to have anything questionable on my site).

Can anyone shine some light on this issue? Should it be said that Ron Wyatt made some good discoveries, but also made some stuff up? Was he 100% wrong? 100% legitimate? What do you think?

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[Celsus]

See here (http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html) and the main site here (http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html) for example. He's a fraud, and a lousy one at that.

Joel [no relation to Joel Davenport :wink: ]

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well technically, when you make a discovery, you have to show it to other people and not just hide it.

[Socrates]

I have to admit that I don't trust Wyatt at all, sorry. So Jason was right to remove the links to his claims. See: Could this be Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1154.asp)
Has the Ark of the Covenant been found? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n2_ark.asp)

[Waterrock]

Greetings Jason,

Yes; I have heard of Ron Wyatt. He's dead now. Before dying, he claimed to have discovered, among other things, Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Ark of the Covenant. I've viewed video footage of what he claimed to be an excavation of a chamber underneath Jerusalem where the Ark of the Covenant was located. He seemed to have a theological explanation why the Ark of the Covenant was there: it *had* to be there, so that when Christ shed His blood on the cross, and there was an earthquake, a crack opened from Calvary directly to the Ark so that Christ's blood was literally applied to the mercy-seat.

His discovery of "Noah's Ark" has gotten more press (he was featured on ABC more than once), since he found /something/ -- a naturally-occurring geological formation, imho -- that looks like a ship, in Turkey. He claimed that ground-radar showed the cross-beams of the ark's structure; he claimed that there was laminated wood from the ark; he claimed to have found rivets from the ark.

He also claimed to have found a pillar by the Red Sea which was inscribed with the name of Solomon as a memorial of the location where the Red-Sea-crossing occurred. This single discovery, if authentic, would have rocketed him to fame and fortune. But he seems to have treated it as a minor discovery compared to the Arks.

To make a long story short: with a few Google-searches you should be able to find enough material to throughly refute all of Ron Wyatt's claims about almost anything physical he claimed to have discovered.

He did make one legitimate discovery: when swimming on Israel's coast, he and his sons discovered some ancient pottery underwater. By means of citing this discovery he -- an anesthesiologist by profession -- was apparently able to get a permit to dig (i.e., excavate) in Jerusalem later.

I emphatically recommend avoiding using Ron Wyatt's material. If you just can't resist investigating, try a Google search for "W.A.R." and see what pops up.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[Dr.GH]

I asked some colleagues to check if Wyatt ever had an excavation permit, or ever filed a research design in Israel. They found nothing to report. This seems just another "pious fraud."

Add this to the dino/man tracks, and most of the rest of "creation science."

[dizzle]

During this period of heavy moderation DrGH please refrain from being needlessly inflammatory or broadbrushing. If you would like to discuss specific cases of "fraud" then do so without the sweeping generalizations. That would have been fine normally but this area is under heavy moderation to allow everyone to step back and relax.

[TheFiveSolas]

Waterrock,
Welcome to TWeb!

[Jason Gastrich]

Thanks, Waterrock.

Yes, I'm aware that surfing google.com can reveal many contrary things about Wyatt's findings. However, I question the reliability of such web pages when they have infidels.org (for instance) in their address. Some infidels.org stuff is compelling, but I appreciate unbiased evidence when I'm approaching a controversial subject (well, any subject, actually).

Thanks for your links, Socrates. I've investigated one. I have a high amount of respect for AIG's web pages, especially because they are well-cited (evidenced by the list or resources at the bottom of their pages). I'll check out the 2nd site, now.

As we exegete this circumstance, I think it begs another, important question. If we find a person, researcher, scientist or even minister that has some quality, true data and some false data, how do we treat them?

In apologetics, since there are numerous, quality ministries, I tend to quickly move on and stop giving heretical ministries my time and attention. If a ministry has a sound statement of faith, but differs on a couple of non-essential doctrines, then I can tolerate them and I read their materials with caution.

When it comes to science, what is a safe and responsible criteria? What are the basic "tenets" of science that one must adhere to in order to be taken seriously? When does a scientist cross the line into heresy and become moot?

A quick aside: Darwin made statements like: "If an enormous number of transitional fossils are not found (after my death), then my theory will utterly fall apart." Well, they haven't been found, but most evolutionists simply say that Darwin had some great points and some errors. And this doesn't seem to tarnish his reputation any.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107056#post107056)
Jason G:

Yes, I'm aware that surfing google.com can reveal many contrary things about Wyatt's findings. However, I question the reliability of such web pages when they have infidels.org (for instance) in their address. Some infidels.org stuff is compelling, but I appreciate unbiased evidence when I'm approaching a controversial subject (well, any subject, actually).

Actually, I doubt that there is such a thing as lack of bias. But yes, the infudgels are hardly the epitome of objectivity or reliability.

Thanks for your links, Socrates. I've investigated one. I have a high amount of respect for AIG's web pages, especially because they are well-cited (evidenced by the list or resources at the bottom of their pages). I'll check out the 2nd site, now.

No problemo -- glad to help.

As we exegete this circumstance, I think it begs another, important question. If we find a person, researcher, scientist or even minister that has some quality, true data and some false data, how do we treat them?

We should realise that the Bible is infallible, while models people make to expound Biblical history are not. Therefore we should be firm on the basic history taught in the Bible, i.e. Creation in six ordinary days about 6000 years ago, Fall bringing death, a global Flood, the Incarnation of Christ, etc. But this doesn't mean that models of the Flood or alleged finding's of Noah's Ark should be defended dogmatically; rather, we should "hang loose" on anything which is neither a direct teaching of Scripture or logically deducible from it. See Moving forward — Arguments we think creationists shouldn’t use (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_moving_forward.asp) for some ideas.

So in the case of Wyatt, yes, the Bible teaches that the Ark of the Covenant did exist, but this doesn't mean that a person's claim to have found it is right. And if the Bible indicates that the Ark was destroyed, as I think it does, then that takes precedence over a sensationalist discovery purporting to confirm the Bible.

In apologetics, since there are numerous, quality ministries, I tend to quickly move on and stop giving heretical ministries my time and attention. If a ministry has a sound statement of faith, but differs on a couple of non-essential doctrines, then I can tolerate them and I read their materials with caution.

Fair enough.

When it comes to science, what is a safe and responsible criteria? What are the basic "tenets" of science that one must adhere to in order to be taken seriously? When does a scientist cross the line into heresy and become moot?

Wyatt's errors were not heresies. Heresy applies to doctrinal error, not scientific mistakes.

A quick aside: Darwin made statements like: "If an enormous number of transitional fossils are not found (after my death), then my theory will utterly fall apart." Well, they haven't been found, but most evolutionists simply say that Darwin had some great points and some errors. And this doesn't seem to tarnish his reputation any.

Of course not, because he's their hero, the one who made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Soc, let's not use the phrase "infudgels" during this time.

[Lobstrosity]

Yesterday @ 10:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107056#post107056)
Jason G:

A quick aside: Darwin made statements like: "If an enormous number of transitional fossils are not found (after my death), then my theory will utterly fall apart." Well, they haven't been found, but most evolutionists simply say that Darwin had some great points and some errors. And this doesn't seem to tarnish his reputation any.
Of course it doesn't tarnish his reputation, just like Newton's record isn't tarnished by the fact that he was fundamentally incorrect in his theory of gravity. I mean, it was a great approximation and all for the things humans encounter every day on Earth, but it provides an incorrect view of how the physics of our universe really works. No one can expect any one man to be perfectly correct about everything, especially when he has only a small subset of the facts. Heck, Darwin didn't even know what DNA looked like. Science is always changing, building upon itself and improving. It should come as no surprise that there were evolutionary mechanisms Darwin never even considered simply because he did not have access to the empirical data we have today. Transitional fossils have been found--perhaps not in the numbers Darwin would have expected given the assumptions he might have been making at the time, however--that support Darwin's ideas.

[Jason Gastrich]

Thanks, Soc. Yes, I've read that AIG page about arguments to use and avoid. I'm thankful for such a document.

I was a little disappointed that you didn't give a solid criteria for identifying good and bad scientists. Ok, the word "heresy" was a misnomer. However, I was hoping that you would give more of a response.

Lobs, thanks for your input. I see what you are saying. However, now, I'm trying to discover where the line is that a scientist crosses and becomes irrelevant. By reading your post, it doesn't look like there is a line.

I suppose I'd be happy with simply accepting the following principle: weigh each scientist on each claim he or she makes. It seems wise to take each, individual claim and weigh it against the truth.

In Christianity, we have the "essential doctrines for salvation" and a ministry needs to embrace those or they become labeled as heretical and false. Unlike you're doing with science, I reject a Christian ministry that rejects an essential doctrine for salvation. It is obviously different with science.

On a side note - I've heard some atheists reject AIG because they have a statement of beliefs. To them, this is paramount to being unscientific because AIG will only accept, publish and recognize things that fall into their paradigm. What do you think about this?

Regards,
Jason Gastrich

[rossum]

Jason G asked:

On a side note - I've heard some atheists reject AIG because they have a statement of beliefs. To them, this is paramount to being unscientific because AIG will only accept, publish and recognize things that fall into their paradigm.
Many scientists reject the AiG statement because it is incompatible with science; not all of the scientists who do so are atheists. Within science the only valid source of knowledge is observation. We can use inference, extrapolation etc. to extend our knowledge, but repeated observation is paramount. The repetition is important, remember that Cold Fusion failed because the initial observations could not be repeated. Sacred texts are not a valid source of scientific knowledge. A Hindu scientist cannot say "I reject the evidence of the earth being 4.55 billion years old because the Upanishads say that the earth is hundreds of billions of years old," and claim that her words are scientific.

Religions do not have a similar single source of valid knowledge, each religion has its own particular source. This means that religious arguments can become: "The Bible says this," "No, because the Qu'ran says that," and the argument is never resolved. When scientists argue, and they certainly do argue, at least they are arguing from the same increasing body of knowledge. Thus in the long term the religious arguments tend never to be resolved whereas the scientific arguments tend to be resolved in agreement as more observations are made. The gradual acceptance of plate tectonics is a good case in point.

The AiG Statement of Faith says in part:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
This is not acceptable scientifically because it attempts to add an extra source of knowledge to science. The statement would, I imagine, be fine in a theological setting, but it is not acceptable in a scientific setting. If science accepted this statement then it would no longer be science as it is currently understood. Science is well aware that "evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people" which is why there are mechanisms for dealing with error within science and why theories are modified as new and better information comes in.

Some specific problems with the AiG statement are:

1 Science is a-religious. It takes no account of religion one way or the other. Obviously AiG takes "scripture" to mean the Bible, but other scientists will take "scripture" to mean the Qu'ran, the Upanishads, the Granth and so on. Would we expect a Christian scientist working in America to get a different result to a Hindu scientist working in India when measuring Uranium decay to date a piece of rock? Would you expect a Buddhist scientist to have to conform to a particular interpretation of Genesis? Would you expect a Christian scientist to have to conform to a given interpretation of the Lotus Sutra? Trying to import any religion into science would fracture science into pieces and cause chaos.

2 How do we decide when something "contradicts the scriptural record"? Even if we confine ourselves to the Bible, there are thousands of different sects all with different interpretations of the Bible. Which of these is the one that science cannot contradict? What if the Pope agrees, but the Patriarch of Constantinople disagrees? Does each scientific paper have to be peer reviewed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and Billy Graham? Does the Chief Rabbi have to be consulted? Within a single group like AiG this is practical, on a wider basis it is impractical.

3 There are no scientific theories that are immune from revision or even replacement. Evolution has been modified since Darwin to incorporate Mendelian genetics and other advances over the last 150 years. We cannot put down an arbitrary bar to say that some theories are immune from this process. Lysenko tried this in the old Soviet Union and set back Soviet biology by decades. Any attempt to import a political or religious bias into science will be met with a change of Lysenkoism.

My $0.02

[Jason Gastrich]

Rossum,

Very interesting thoughts. Thanks.

I think you've set up a bit of a straw man, though. AIG never says, "The Bible says so, and that is our reason for these, scientific conclusions." In fact, AIG does an exceptional job at revealing the "science" behind creation and the Bible. It avoids using the "God did it" response.

I see what you are saying about presuppositional biases. However, wouldn't you say that evolutionists operate with an "a priori" bias? You can't tell me that Dr. (stick someone in here) who has learned the evolution of species in elementary school, junior high, high school, college, graduate school and post-graduate studies and seeks money, respect and fame from his secular peers and readership could suddenly claim that biblical creation occurred. It would be next to impossible for an evolutionist to do this.

Everyone operates with a paradigm or bias. People compare what they find against what they know. Therefore, evolutionists are just as "guilty" as creationists. Evolutionists assume the unproven theory of the evolution of species while creationists assume the (scientifically) unproven theory of creation.

Just because evolutionists can show that a primrose plant produced a different species of primrose plant, it doesn't make their assumptions any wiser or better. Evolutionists use the class bait-and-switch. "Well, micro-evolution happened, so macro-evolution happened." Unfortunately, most textbooks are more subtle and conniving and do not allow the reader to make a distinction.

FYI: Here is a paper I wrote on Micro vs. Macro Evolution - Link: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/MicroAndMacroEvolution.htm

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[rossum]

Jason,

It is a truism to say that many Christians fail to live up to the highest ideals of their religion. Similarly, scientists do not always live up to the highest ideals of science. Yes there are prejudices, presuppositions, biases and so on; scientists are human and less than perfect. The ideal of science says that observation is paramount. If there is an argument then if it cannot be resolved immediately both sides will go and look for more data. When the new data is available it will resolve the argument and science can progress. This means that the body of scientific knowledge is constantly growing as more observations are made.

Because knowledge is constantly growing we can be sure that we do not know everything at the moment; AiG is correct to mention this. All scientific theories are therefore subject to revision or even replacement as new data comes in. The problem with Bible based theories, such as Noah's flood, is that AiG are not prepared to have them falsified by new data. Remember that AiG say "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field ... can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." This is not science. They are saying that for certain theories no new data can be accepted unless it supports the theory. Their theory does not have to change to fit the data, instead the data has to be selected to fit their theory. This is not science.

Scientists may well be reluctant to give up their pet theories, they are only human. However thek know in their hearts that in the end the data will win.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation was replaced by Einstein's. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is similarly up for revision or replacement. However we have got 150 years of data to support the ToE - replacing it will be a big job. Any replacement will have to do two things:

1 It will have to explain all the observations that the ToE currently explains - all that data is still valid.
2 It will have to explain some observations that the ToE does not.

A creationt theory will have to explain all the current data; there is no point in replacing a theory that explains a lot of data with a theory that explains less. It will also have to explain data that the ToE does not; there is no point in having a second theory that explains the same data - in this case Occam's razor will eliminate creationism. For all the work by creationists they are nowhere near doing this yet. Remember that until about the start of the nineteenth century creationism was the standard scientific theory. As more evidence came in theories were amended away from Biblical models. Darwin came towards the end of a long process, Geology had moved away from creationist models long before Biology did.

You describe both evolution and creationism as "unproven". Technically this is correct, no scientific theory is ever "proven" since new data could in principle overthrow it. Theories are supported by the weight of the evidence; the ToE has a mountain of evidence and creationism has a molehill, if that. Those scientists you talk about have a mountain of evidence to support what they say. The accused was found standing over the body, with a smoking gun. The bullet in the corpse matched the gun and there were witnesses to the shooting. The whole thing was captured on video. It is hardly "prejudice" to find the accused guilty. The evidence for evolution is that good.

As I said before, science is a-religious. If there was a global flood about 4,500 years ago then non-Christian scientists should be finding evidence of it. Is there any research by Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs which confirms the flood theory? There is plenty of work by theist scientists which confirms the "atheist" theory of evolution.

I have not yet had time to read your paper on micro- and macro-evolution.

rossum

[Jason Gastrich]

Rossum,

Thanks for your message.

It appears that you haven't read much from AIG or ICR. You still think that there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than creation. I challenge you to visit their sites and subscribe to their publications (I have). They are awesome, quite revealing and very educational.

It appears that you admit that scientists have biases and this is good. However, what is not good is this: You endorse the biases of evolutionists because (you think) there is more evidence for their case than there is for creation.

Do you understand that the dating methods that evolutionists use show the "billions of years" figures because they assume things have remained relatively constant? The Bible indicates that there was a cataclysmic, worldwide flood with widespread earthquakes, upheavals, volcanic activity, etc. When you factor this into evolutionary theory, you begin to understand how and why their dates are wrong.

Since we are having a conversation about creation/evolution, please take the time to read the paper I wrote (the link was included in my last post). You didn't address the issue of trickery regarding the bait-and-switch with micro/macro evolution.

Lastly, I've read numerous interpretations of data that contradict evolutionists and make much more sense. For instance, a "transitional fossil" that an evolutionists finds - which is generally only a tooth or perhaps a skull - is either a) an extinct species or b) a known species with a deformity. I have yet to see evolutionists prove otherwise. All they do is assert to the contrary and it isn't very convincing.

In this situation, I think it would be very appropriate to use Occam's Razor. It is much more plausible to accept the fact that a fossil was either an extinct species or a known species with a deformity than a transitional species! In fact, it is quite outrageous to assume that a bone or two found in the ground did the following: a) had offspring, b) had offspring UNLIKE itself, c) was indeed a transitional species.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich

[rossum]

Jason,

Thanks for your reply. I suspect that we will not be able to agree on this discussion. I have read AiG and I have read some of ICR (it crashes my normal browser so I have to resort to IE). I have also read Hugh Ross, Ken Miller, the Pope and others. All of these are creationists of one sort or another, all believe that God created the world. The theological arguments between them are irrelevant as far as science is concerned. If even creationists are unable to agree on a theory of creationism then you can hardly expect me to agree.

For the reasons I have already given I find very little of AiG and ICR's output is real science. Certainly they have identified some sloppy scientific work, which is good, but this does not constitute a real attack on evolution. IMHO too much of creationism is directed at trying to pick holes in evolution and not enough at developing a positive theory of creationism.

Creationist theories are not very well developed, which is puzzling since creationism was once the standard paradigm for science and these ideas have been around since long before the origin of science. For example I have not been able to find a definitive statement of which rocks were laid down before the flood, which rocks were laid down during the flood and which rocks came after the flood. Different creationists give different answers. Until there is a coherent theory there is very little chance of creationist theories being accepted. As you rightly pointed out "God did it," is not acceptable.

If you read nothing but creationist sites then you are only getting one side of the story. Some of what you say indicates that you still have something to learn about evolution. I can see that you are aware of the Talk Origins archive. Have you read this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html)? It is not only the proponents of evolution who have blind spots.

Picking up some of the specific points you make.

Radiometric Dating: The best I can do is to point you at this webpage (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) which covers radiometric dating in reasonable detail from a Christian perspective. Scientists do not "assume" that decay rates are constant and unaffected by outside events, they check their assumptions by observing stars and by doing experiments. What your interpretation of the Bible indicates is irrelevant in this context, what the scientific evidence indicates is all that is relevant. We are discussing science and not theology (despite the name of this site.)

Transitional Fossils: You are right, there is no way to tell if a particular fossil had offspring before it died. That is why a paleontologist will usually describe a transitional fossil as a "cousin" or "close relative" rather than a direct ancestor. Evolution works on populations so if a particular individual did not have offspring it is not important as long as other members of the same species did. All transitional fossils belong to a species and most are extinct. Just because a species is extinct does not mean that it was not an intermediate. Many of them are much more than a skull or a tooth; we have a number of complete skeletons of archaeopteryx for instance and that is a rare fossil.

Taking Archeopteryx as an example:


Dinosaur Arche Bird
======== ===== ====
Teeth Teeth No teeth
Some with feathers Feathers Feathers
Claws Claws No claws usually
Arms Wings Wings
Bony tail Bony tail Tail feathers only


Archeopteryx is obviously a mix of features from both dinosaurs and birds. What else do you want from an intermediate fossil?

Any organism that has offspring will have offspring unlike itself. You are not a clone of your parents; you are unlike both of them. As well as the effects of recombination, on average you will have about 100 mutations of which about 5 are in coding DNA and potentially will have some effect on you.

I have looked at your web page. It is good that you provide links to pro-evolution sites. You will no doubt have noticed the AiG and ICR do not. I am afraid that I was not impressed with the creationist sites you link to. They had many errors which indicated that their authors have not properly understood evolution. If I picked up all the errors this post would be far too long, but most of them are already answered at the Talk Origins archive (http://www.talkorigins.org).

There is no trickery in macro- and micro-evoluiton. Exactly the same mechanisms operate at both levels. Those mechanisms have been observed in the wild, in the laboratory and in silico.

Finally, getting back to the topic of this thread, I agree with Socrates. Until Ron Wyatt's evidence has been made available for independent examination his claims should be treated very sceptically. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You did right to remove the links from your webpage.

Apologies for the long post.

rossum

[runtmc2jc]

why remove an address/link? does not one need to weigh all evidences before coming to an informed decision? i think a simple 'buyer beware' should suffice, or do we want to silence anything controversial.