Noah's ark found

[CanuckMA]

You can't expect to come in here and like to a few hours long video by discredited individuals as proof of a claim and not be taken to task. Show us videos and/or papers by peer reviewed archeologists, then we'll talk.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

To put it into perspective, if you opened a thread with a video, and I watched the whole thing before I posted a single comment, I will have shown you eleven times more respect to you than what you have shown to me in this thread. Also, if I DON'T like the subject matter of the video you post in the new thread created, and I don't post a comment - I still will have shown you eleven times more respect (and probably still counting after you read this one ).

You video is crap "science" from a fake "scientist". It's a waste of time to waste 1-2 hours watching it, when the contents have already been shown to be -WRONG-. It has nothing to do with not liking the subject matter. Personally, I find the flood myth to be an interesting one to look at, especially when you compare the Hebrew one to the original Babylonian.

You can't expect to come in here and like to a few hours long video by discredited individuals as proof of a claim and not be taken to task. Show us videos and/or papers by peer reviewed archeologists, then we'll talk.

What he said.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Anything "Ron Wyatt" is suspect, at best.

I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR's Noah's Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt's site is Noah's Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt's claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah's Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt's video entitled "Presentation of Discoveries," those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his "facts" put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. "Fraud" was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries. Read the letters from archaeologists within Ron Wyatt's own denomination, Seventh Day Adventist, and you will see that even those who would have an interest in substantiating Ron Wyatt's claims find little or no scientific evidence to support any of these discoveries.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

Wyatt is so bad that other creationist and Christian groups have put up webpages debunking his work. Here are three major ones: Tentmaker, Christian Information Ministries and Answers in Genesis.

When CHRISTIANS say he's a fraud....

 

[Instructor]

Faith is about believing in somethign we don't see or have evidence of. I grow weary of all these people trying to prove the unprovable. I believe, I don't need evidence to do so.

 

[CanuckMA]

Faith is about believing in somethign we don't see or have evidence of. I grow weary of all these people trying to prove the unprovable. I believe, I don't need evidence to do so.

I have faith in both the flood story and the Exodus. I don't need them proven, I believe in them. So I won't grasp at straws to have proof they happened. If a peer reviewed paper would come out with proof, that would be great. In the meantime, I'm in DC next week. I'll see if I can find the warehouse and see the Ark.

 

[punisher73]

I have faith in both the flood story and the Exodus. I don't need them proven, I believe in them. So I won't grasp at straws to have proof they happened. If a peer reviewed paper would come out with proof, that would be great. In the meantime, I'm in DC next week. I'll see if I can find the warehouse and see the Ark.

Which Ark? The lost Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark? I know after I watched the documentary by Dr. Jones that the US government is hiding the Ark of the Covenant in the Smithsonian. It was a good documentary called "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It's been out for awhile. Dr. Jones also did a follow up documentary on when he found the Holy Grail.

 

[CanuckMA]

Which Ark? The lost Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark? I know after I watched the documentary by Dr. Jones that the US government is hiding the Ark of the Covenant in the Smithsonian. It was a good documentary called "Raiders of the Lost Ark". It's been out for awhile. Dr. Jones also did a follow up documentary on when he found the Holy Grail.

Ark of the Covenant of course. Hard to get more compelling documentaries than those of Dr. jones.

 

[Gnarlie]

Ark of the Covenant of course. Hard to get more compelling documentaries than those of Dr. jones.

Quite. Use of a bullwhip automatically negates the need for peer review.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Quite. Use of a bullwhip automatically negates the need for peer review.

*Makes note to have bullwhip present when next discussing US Civil War with Arni* :wavey:

 

[Dirty Dog]

*Makes note to have bullwhip present when next discussing US Civil War with Arni* :wavey:

Whatever you guys are into. Consenting adults and all that.
We ain't judging...

 

[grumpywolfman]

Up to fourteen Bob and Dirty Dog is still trying to find a sparring partner lol

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Here's #15.
Your posting videos of a discredited hack's fantasies. This section, The Study, is for serious discussion. Those videos, aren't worth watching. As I and others have posted, the guy behind them is not credible.

You also didn't answer my question. If I posted a 2 hour expose on the fiction that is Christianity, would you watch it? Yes or No.

You might as well put me down for 16-20 because I'll have more comments later.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Wyatt found anchors from the ark"

Seems that was debunked.
http://www.fni.com/cim/reports/wyatt.txt

7. One of the more interesting lines of evidence that Wyatt has put forth for the formation being the Ark is his alleged discovery of giant anchor stones that Noah used to steer the ship and keep it facing the wind (see photo #5). Fasold has researched this and contributed quite a bit to this argument as well as Dr. William Shea. Ten of these stones have been found in the same general vicinity near the village of Kazan about 14 miles from the site of the "ship". Since some of these megaliths have 8 crosses carved on them it is assumed this is a reference to Noah and his family. The stones all have a hole carved on one end in which Noah supposedly secured them with ropes. We have several reasons for disagreement with the idea that these were anchor or drogue stones used on the Ark: a. Our impression from Scripture is that Noah had no kind of mechanism to steer the ship; he could not even close the door himself. When he and his family were inside the Ark they were at the total mercy of God, Who was providing for their safety from the flood waters. I feel fairly certain that the design of the ship was such that it was kept from going around in endless circles as result of the wind and currents. When I asked Wyatt why the anchor stones were found so far away from the site, his reply was that one day when Noah was looking out the window he discovered that the Ark was heading in the direction of dry land so he cut the anchor stones. But this means Noah had something to do with the destiny and direction of the Ark! b. We feel there is a far better explanation for these giant stones. After studying these stones, it seemed obvious that the crosses carved on them were from the previous Armenian inhabitants. So, we decided to consult with Dr. Abraham Terian, of Andrews University. Dr. Terian is recognized as an authority on classical Armenian studies. He was readily interested in this project and offered that these stones are not unique to that specific location. The crosses carved on the stones are known as Armenian "khatchkars" and they were probably carved between 301 A.D. and 406 A.D. These dates are significant in that the former is the date the Armenian nation was converted to Christianity. The later date is when the Armenian language was first put down in written form. Dr. Terian is fairly certain that these stones were originally pre-christian Armenian "stelae" containing pagan inscriptions. Armenian historians note that immediately after their conversion, in there zeal for Christ, they removed all remnants of paganism from such "stelae" and replaced them with crosses. According to those who have examined these "stelae" closely there is evidence of an earlier defacement. Dr. Terian believes that this was done before 406 because after that they probably would have written something in their new alphabet. The holes in these "stelae" was put there by the pre- christian Armenians according to Terian, and had occultic significance, possibly as the "eye of the dragon". c. The theory that these are Armenian "stelae" is also supported by the fact that the stones are located in an ancient Armenian graveyard. d. If these were "drogue" stones as Wyatt says, the holes were carved too near the edge of the rock and the ropes would have easily become broken off. There is also no sign of wear which one would expect if ropes had been tied through them to drag in the water for one year. e. It has been stated that these stones are not indigenous to the area. In fact, Wyatt in one news report, said they were cut out of precambrian rock. This is false. To our knowledge these are huge chunks of basalt which are found in abundance in the area. f. The number of crosses on these rocks number anywhere from 3 to 20. The number eight has been vastly overplayed.

Then there is this:

Ron also knows exactly where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and has even located chariot parts from Pharaoh's army. He claims he found a chariot wheel one and a half miles out in the Gulf of Aqaba and in two hundred feet of water! Professional skin divers say this would be quite a feat to dive that far down and impossible to photograph without sophisticated lighting equipment.

So, no. You've posted hours and hours of video from a discredited wanna be, for what reason we can only speculate. We can easily Google his name, theory and the conclusions of people better trained to interpret the evidence than us. The overwhelming consensus is, he is wrong.

"Both former "friends" as well as professional archaeologists in his own denomination (Seventh- Day Adventist) have published detailed refutations of all of his "discoveries.""
http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html

Wyatt has never submitted verifiable evidence for his claims to competent authorities

No peer review, no proof, no credibility.

Sorry, no discussion.

Oh, that's #16.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well then can we get back to the point I was trying to make…the ark was a tardis

 

[K-man]

My attitude to religion has changed over the years. When I was much younger I wanted to make the Bible 'real'. If you are going to quote texts from the Bible as being a true and reliable event, then all that is written within it needs to be true also. Otherwise what you are doing is being selective. "This is real but that bit is just a story." I lost that fight with myself.


The Bible to me is a collection of writings from somewhere around 2000 to 2800 years ago that represent the beliefs of the authors as the understood the world at that time. Now depending on what date you want to use for the flood, it occured sometime between 4000 and 6000 years before it was written down. Now oral history is fine but a lot of Chinese Whispers can occur over 5000 years, especially in a primitive civilisation.

Some of the writings in the Bible are as radical as the worst excesses of Islam, and there was very little 'analytical' science at that time. There was belief in astronomy and astrology, and multiple gods to explain the inexplicable. In two thousand years time people will look back on the 'Age of Silicon' and marvel at how primitive we were, just as we can look back and see how humankind has evolved over the past four million years or so.


There is a huge difference between being 'closed mind' and being willing to listen and decide. I like to think that I can listen to someone who has a counter view to me and if the argument is compelling I would change my position. Some of us do that each time we have an election and some of us wouldn't change no matter how bad a government had been. In the case of religion there is no proof of the existence of any god. Just the same, no one can prove there is no god. If your belief in God makes you a better person and the world a better place, go for it. But trying to prove myths are fact with discredited evidence from discredited people, against current scientific evidence, makes you look stupid at best and does a total disservice to the religion you profess. :asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm more than happy to look at history. I've got a small collection of dvd's including "Digging for the Truth", "Cities of the Underworld", as well as numerous VHS tapes of "In Search Of", and a gazillion History Channel specials. I seriously considered majoring in history when I first looked at colleges, sticking instead with computer science. I've long held an interest in Egyptian history, in fact Egyptian history's #3 behind US Civil War and World War 2 for the 50-200 books a month I'd check out and devour from our libraries. I've looked at a number of Noah's Ark / Flood theories over the years, though nothing much in the past decade. So I'm a bit rusty on things.

As to videos, there's a ton of them out there.
Here's 1 from 2005 The History Chanel.

Then there's the Sumerians...

National Geographic 2009

etc.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Then there is this:

Ron also knows exactly where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and has even located chariot parts from Pharaoh's army. He claims he found a chariot wheel one and a half miles out in the Gulf of Aqaba and in two hundred feet of water! Professional skin divers say this would be quite a feat to dive that far down and impossible to photograph without sophisticated lighting equipment.

So, no. You've posted hours and hours of video from a discredited wanna be, for what reason we can only speculate. We can easily Google his name, theory and the conclusions of people better trained to interpret the evidence than us. The overwhelming consensus is, he is wrong.

Actually, a 200 foot dive is not all that difficult if you're properly trained, although it is beyond the 130 foot maximum depth recommended for recreational divers (i.e. those not trained in decompression and mixed gas diving). Nor would it be particularly difficult to shoot photos or video at that depth. My dive camera and lights, for example, are rated to 600 feet, and I'm certainly not in possession of professional gear. Hell, the housing for my iPhone is rated to 195 feet...

However, good luck finding any remnants of a wooden chariot. Do you know what you mostly find at shipwreck sites from that long ago? Amphorae and things of that sort.

If this "discovery" were real, it would be not in the least difficult to document.

The fact that it's not documented speaks volumes...

 

[K-man]

Thanks Bob. That provides a plausible reason for so many different cultures having the tradition of a flood in their history.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Actually, a 200 foot dive is not all that difficult if you're properly trained, although it is beyond the 130 foot maximum depth recommended for recreational divers (i.e. those not trained in decompression and mixed gas diving). Nor would it be particularly difficult to shoot photos or video at that depth. My dive camera and lights, for example, are rated to 600 feet, and I'm certainly not in possession of professional gear. Hell, the housing for my iPhone is rated to 195 feet...

However, good luck finding any remnants of a wooden chariot. Do you know what you mostly find at shipwreck sites from that long ago? Amphorae and things of that sort.

If this "discovery" were real, it would be not in the least difficult to document.

The fact that it's not documented speaks volumes...

When I learnt to dive in the 70s we were taught not to go below 300 feet. That is the depth at which the pressure is 10 atmospheres and the oxygen becomes toxic. I used regularly i(e weekly) dive to 55 to 60 metres. That became more safe with the advent of dive computers. Before that we had to use the US dive tables to calculate the time we could stay at each level. Without decompressing 200 feet is about the deepest you can go as you only have about 30 seconds or so bottom time. (That's actually about the depth at the stern of the President Cooildge in Vanuatu.) Why they only dive shallow depths recreationally is more to do with nitrogen narcosis which is difficult to predict in people until they have completed different depth dives. Something fortunately I have not experienced. And, do DD said, my camera is rated way below that depth.
:asian:

 

[Dirty Dog]

When I learnt to dive in the 70s we were taught not to go below 300 feet. That is the depth at which the pressure is 10 atmospheres and the oxygen becomes toxic. I used regularly i(e weekly) dive to 55 to 60 metres. That became more safe with the advent of dive computers. Before that we had to use the US dive tables to calculate the time we could stay at each level. Without decompressing 200 feet is about the deepest you can go as you only have about 30 seconds or so bottom time. (That's actually about the depth at the stern of the President Cooildge in Vanuatu.) Why they only dive shallow depths recreationally is more to do with nitrogen narcosis which is difficult to predict in people until they have completed different depth dives. Something fortunately I have not experienced. And, do DD said, my camera is rated way below that depth.
:asian:

Oxygen is toxic at much less than 300 feet. And frankly, you won't find anybody but a few fools still doing deep dives on air anyway. Trimix is the way to go, and hypoxic trimix is THE thing for deep diving, if you're not rich enough to dive heliox.
Bounce dives are also pretty foolish, which is one reason why the recreational limit is 130 feet. That depth gives a short but reasonable bottom time while staying within the no stop requirement of rec diving. It's also a function of the near-universal adoption of the AL80 (an aluminum cylinder carrying 80 CF of air) as the default tank. Even 130 feet on a single AL80 with an average SAC (Surface Air Consumption) rate is pushing it, since you probably will NOT have enough air in your tank at the end of your bottom time to bring you AND your buddy to the surface without bending (or breaking) the ascent rates.
Nitrogen narcosis is a misnomer. Pretty much all gases cause narcosis to greater or lesser degrees when under pressure, so it's called gas narcosis now. While narcosis CAN be an issue on shallow dives, it's most commonly encountered below 100feet. And there are plenty of people who don't experience it until even deeper. We routinely do mental testing with puzzles (math problems on a slate, opening a combination lock, that sort of thing). I've gone to 155 feet on air (in a no current freshwater cave in Mexico) without being measurably affected. I wouldn't have done THAT dive on air, had it been in cold water or a current. And I'm not one of those fools who is going to do deep diving on air anyway. With the right gas mix, narcosis can be virtually eliminated on much deeper dives, and decompression obligations drastically reduced.

But this is pretty much off topic. The point is that it is not at all difficult to document a claimed 2000 year old find in 200 feet of water. Since it's not documented, I think it's safe to say it doesn't exist.