Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sparrow · 02-21-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Yeah - that's what I get for trying to install a tile floor and read on these things at the same time. I better save this and reread it in more detail - I even missed the fact that the one poster works for/with wyatt. No wonder he's so funny. Thanks.

Is that tile or is it pre-flood petrified wood? No growth rings I suppose.

Sven · 02-22-2005, 07:49 AM

Wow, what a massive post. Not directed at me, but I anyway take some shots:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

I have serious reservations against the theory that ancient civilizations are as old as claimed. I believe there was a massive springing forth of civilization soon after the flood.

"the theory"? There's no such theory. It's a fact, based on multiple lines of evidence.
Even if you allow ridiculous high birth rates, the civilisations which "sprang forth massively" would have consisted almost entirely of toddlers. Why don't you do the math yourself?

Quote:

But if there was no rain before the Flood, then how did any vegetation receive water? The mist system is the only logical explanation. There is nothing wrong with theories based on deduction. Evolutionists use the same method for coming up with countless theories of their own as well.

Umm, there are raindrops conserved in some strata.
Reference: Robb, A. J. III, 1992. Rain-impact microtopography (RIM); an experimental analogue for fossil examples from the Maroon Formation, Colorado. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(3): 530-535.
(thanks to TO)
Were those strata laid down only after the flood?

Quote:

If the archaeological data supports the biblical description of these varied events such as Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai, Sodom and Gomorrah, that Edom existed during the time of David and Solomon, then one must also take into account that the Biblical record could be correct in many other things.

Yes. If. Since this is not the case, I don't see your point.

Quote:

But if standards, for example change, stating that a 515 foot object falls short of seaworthiness, but yet the archaeological data reveals otherwise

So far you've at best found an object which could have been wood at some time and meets the dimensions described in Genesis if one uses a special unit. So what?

Quote:

This would yield a much richer environment preflood

And thus more "kinds" to be taken on the arc. I don't see how this helps your position. :huh:

Quote:

Scientific studies have confirmed that in order for the earth to be millions of years old, the salinity levels of the oceans would have to be much much higher.

You really bring up this long-refuted nonsense?
After this, I don't see why one should believe anything you claim here. Since you seem to have no problem spreading other creationist lies, why should we assume that your claims about the archeological findings contain any truth?

Quote:

I trust you read up on these subjects on your own, and don't just visit talkorgins.org every day to get your answers.

How about visiting talkorigins and then following the references to the primary literature? Something which is - for some reason - missing from such scholary sites such as AiG?

Quote:

If the Durunipar site is not the remains of Noah’s Ark, then what is it? If it is something else, why does virtually everything about it match the biblical account? Why is there plenty of archaeological evidence in the surrounding areas support the story of Noah and the flood?

Creative interpretation. Distortion/neglect of data. This are usual creationist tactics, I see no reason to assume otherwise until a non-biased observer confirms your claims.

Quote:

I have beside me as I write, video footage shot inside Gailbraith Laboratory at the time of the testing. The spokeswoman for the lab gave a commentary on camera as the testing proceeded. She announced:

“We’re in the process of weighing the sample now, before the analysis for the total carbon, of this sample.

“The inorganic carbon will be included in this determination, all the carbon that’s present.

“As we burn the inorganic carbon, we’ll be able to tell the difference, if there’s any organic present in the material.�?

As a chemist, I'm baffled. There's no way to "burn inorganic carbon" (whatever this means, I can only assume that they mean carbonate - but this can not be burned) without "burning" organic carbon, too. I'd like to have the Email adress of this spokeswoman to determine what the heck they were doing - or a publication in a journal where this procedure is described.

Quote:

Q) WOOD

But fossilized wood has been found with growth rings – so doesn’t that negate what you say about pre-Flood wood?

ANSWER:

If fossilized wood is found with growth rings, it is not pre-Flood, but post-Flood.

Even if it is dated by dendrochronology to be older than 4500 years?

Quote:

Fossilization is the result of catastrophism, in which rapid burial occurs before the living organism can decay. Fossils were buried in abundance during the Great Flood, but rarely form at present.

Then of course the old question comes up why the pattern of fossils does not match the rapid burial of a "snapshot" of species living on Earth.

Quote:

Fossils do not take long to form. There have been several reports of man-made artifacts less than 200 years old, such as hats, which were found to be fossilized when dug up. A farmer near Hobard, Tasmania, was renewing a wooden fence known to be 60 years old. AS he pulled out a post, he noticed that its base was fossilized.

Umm, references?

Quote:

In situ fossil remains have been found across Europe, from Spain to Romania, where they grew above pre-existing fossil remains from the Flood. (Barry Seterfield, Creation and Catastrophe, p.48, 1993)

Umm, did those ground-breaking results not make it into peer-reviewed journals?

Quote:

My conclusion:

Folks, let us be bold enough face reality—to face truth, be honest, and evaluate all with an unbiased approach. If the evidence speaks for itself, be willing to admit that the data gathered from the Durupinar site is consistent with the Biblical record of Noah’s Ark.

My conclusion:
This is either one of the hugest bag of lies and self-deception I've ever seen - or one of the most ground-breaking discoveries humans have ever made.

Judging from the usual creationist tactics, I'm not holding my breath that those results will ever be confirmed by an unbiased, independent researcher.

Sven · 02-22-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RBH

I find that distinction made, as for example here, with the same analytic approach -- measure total, measure inorganic, and subtract to get organic.

Yes - but they don't say anything about burning the inorganic carbon - which simply doesn't make any sense.

Sven · 02-22-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

[...] had Noah go to Turkey to get wood to build an ark hundreds of mile south of there (which then conveniently floats back to its original location – homing wood like homing pigeons?)

According to the article coloradoatheist linked, this is also true for the anchor stones. So we additionally have homing stone.

Clivedurdle · 02-22-2005, 08:55 AM

RBH, you asked about aluminium technologies. I do know the Chinese had steel for their swords was it 500BC, but only the emperor had a steel sword!

I have no idea what the Ancient Egyptians got up to - wasn't there a model working steam engine as a toy from Alexandria but that is much later?

(Just thought I would help the Noahists with a bit of technology - the ark was made of aluminium!)

Jack the Bodiless · 02-22-2005, 11:37 AM

Ah yes, Wyatt.

As I recall, he posted scans of mineral assays which revealed exotic "metal oxides" from the site: specifically, silicon and aluminum oxides, more commonly known as "rock".

He also presented a satellite image, which actually made it quite plain that the "boat-shaped formation" was a natural geological formation, part of a much larger pattern of strata.

The guy was pretty much self-refuting. I'm surprised that so many took him seriously. Such is the power of wishful thinking.

Lysimachus · 02-22-2005, 12:32 PM

I'll respond more later, but

Jack,

It has been refuted time and time again that the boat-shaped object cannot be a geological formation. Critics continuously use the argument that the shape is due to mud flow hitting an obstruction. But there is a problem, the point of the boat is pointing UP HILL! If a flow were to go down hill, the point would form DOWN HILL! This problem is yet to be addressed by geologists.

You and many others will continue to remain in your blindness until you are willing to dish out the money to buy BOOKS, especially the new ones recently released such as "The Boat-Shaped Object on Doomsday Mountain" and "Discoveries: Questions Answered".

LOL, I've only touched the surface! The Discoveries: Questions Answered book is over 300 pages long totally obliterating most of the links I've seen so far....which convinces me, this stuff has to go online. The public hasn't seen what's coming. Ron Wyatt as not a fraud, and more and more scientists are finally beginning to realize this. Scientists and archaeologists alike are beginning to realize authenticity to his discoveries than originally supposed.

Even Turkey's NUMBER ONE ARCHAEOLOGIST Ekrem Akurgal, who received many awards, WHO WAS AN ATHEIST, told Ron Wyatt personally ON VIDEO that there is no other natural explanation for the Ark site other than it was "Noah's Ark". We have his exact quotes--from an Atheist. And I can get them if you like.

Now, Professor and Researcher Dr. Lennart Moller from the Karolinksa Institutue in Stockholm, Sweden has been investigating Ron's claim of the Red Sea Crossing site at the Gulf of Aqaba. His opinion is that Ron was right---doing his analyses on the petrefied bones found on the sea-bed, and he is creating a new 3hr/3part documentary series called "The Exodus Case" (based on his book, The Exodus Case) that is planned to be sold to television stations such as the History and Discovery Channels and released in "selected theaters" around the globe sometime in the middle to end of 2005. You can view some small video clips here: http://www.exoduscase.com Watch BOTH of them.

You can also see the list of scholars contributing to this series in the same link. Ron's discoveries are finally getting laid out on the table, and scientists are finally taking the sites seriously--realizing that they must be thoroughly investigated.

If I were you folks, I wouldn't take Ron's claims so lightly. Wait for the documentary, read the books. Quit going to old online sources that I've already read. It's old news. The answers are in the books.

gravitybow · 02-22-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Amaleq13
Could you be more specific in explaining how this wood is different so that one might conclude that it is "of much different and sturdier consistency"?

I also find that to be a baffling assertion, particularly when the timber supposedly comes from what we earth people would call the "Carboniferous period." Lysimachus himself quotes:

Quote:

Pennsylvanian Climate. Many years ago the plant life of the great coal period was thought to imply a warm to tropical, very moist, uniform climate. More careful study, however, clearly points to a temperate, only relatively humid, but remarkably uniform climate. Some of the criteria favoring this latter view may be stated as follows: The great height and size of the plants together with their frequent succulent nature and spongy leaves indicate luxuriant growth in a moist and mild climate; absence of annual rings of growth shows absence of distinct change of seasons;...

Not only were the plants mostly succulents, but the landscape was dominated by gymnosperms - pithy softwoods and conifers. There is not a single hardwood in the fossil record because hardwoods - angiosperms - didn't arise until later. In fact, the first tiny angiosperm (flowering plant) doesn't show up in the fossil record until the Cretaceous. Hardwood trees (also angiosperms) came later. To put this in perspective, the early Cretaceous is about as time-distant from us as the late Carboniferous is from the early Cretaceous.

So, are there any other candidates that might work in this scheme? The only one I could find would be the Ginkgoales, a group which includes the Ginkgo tree. The Ginkgo is called a "living fossil" because it is the only surviving species of that group that predated the angiosperms. As a candidate, the Ginkgo is at least a hard wood, deciduous in nature, with leaves instead of gymnospermic needles. Unfortunately for the creationists, the earliest fossil from that group is just 280 myo (sorry, I don't know what that translates to in creationspeak) which places it in the early Permian, the period that follows the Pennsylvanian (Late Carboniferous), which, in turn, places it after the Carboniferous construction of Noah. And the Ginkgo isn't "of much different and sturdier consistency" than angiosperms. So this leaves the creationists in the position of defending a fantasy wood with the characteristics of steel supposedly growing at a time when the softest woods on the planet ruled.

Quote:

Lysimachus:
Now take particular note to the fact that the significant amount of petrified wood that was excavated at the Durinapar site (boat-shaped object) contained NO GROWTH RINGS! And what type of seasonal changes occur in eastern Turkey? The regular four seasons that occur in America, Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall! What is a massive structure with no growth rings doing out there? This is proof that it had to have been a structure built in a non-seasonal climate.

The seasonal changes in Turkey at the time of the Carboniferous were exactly zero. At that time, Turkey was part of the sea floor of the Paleotethys (Tethys, Tethyan) Ocean (the source of the marine fossils found on Ararat). There was no Turkey, except a tiny bit attached to what later became Syria. Here's a paleogeographic map of the earth during the early Jurassic, a long, long time after the "Carboniferous Flood."

In this diagram, the infant Turkey is an island emerging from the ocean. Mount Ararat isn't even a blip on the screen because the Arabian, African, and Indian continental plates had not yet begun to collide with the Eurasian plate to send the volcanic Ararat range skyward.

So, Lysimachus, why bother with the pretense that the deck timber belongs to the Carboniferous? After all, you don't believe anything else SCIENCE says about that period of time. There was no Turkey, there was no Mount Ararat, there were no hardwood trees or gopherwood, there were no doggies or kitty cats or horsies or dinos or Fred Flintstones to populate an Ark. There were no people, hence there were no civilizations to record the Carboniferous Flood. There were no sinners to wipe out. The most advanced land critter of the Carboniferous looked something like this:

Archaeothyris, Late Carboniferous

Only in the Lalaland of creation science is there a misty Carboniferous world of steel trees and happy-go-lucky sinners unconcerned with the coming wrath of the Almighty.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-22-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

I'll respond more later, but

Jack,

It has been refuted time and time again that the boat-shaped object cannot be a geological formation. Critics continuously use the argument that the shape is due to mud flow hitting an obstruction. But there is a problem, the point of the boat is pointing UP HILL! If a flow were to go down hill, the point would form DOWN HILL! This problem is yet to be addressed by geologists.

I could address it myself if you like, but I doubt that you will listen.

Quote:

You and many others will continue to remain in your blindness until you are willing to dish out the money to buy BOOKS, especially the new ones recently released such as "The Boat-Shaped Object on Doomsday Mountain" and "Discoveries: Questions Answered".

...You expect me to part with cash, rather than use my own judgement and scientific knowledge to assess evidence presented by Wyatt himself?

Incidentally, you mentioned a forthcoming book in which you cite John Baumgardner:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysimachus

The following will be obtained from Jonathan Gray’s book “Discoveries: Questions Answered�?. The format will be in Q/A format. Questions in Bold, Answers in regular and italics:

----------------------------------------------------

Q) NO PETRIFIED WOOD?

What do you say to the claim that NO petrified wood has been found within the “boat-shaped object�??

ANSWER:

In October, 1984, when the Turks sent their own team of archaeologists to the site, their expedition yielded very positive results. Apart from four feet long metal spikes and other metal objects, they recovered PETRIFIED WOOD.

Dr. John Baumgardner also reported that the Turks found PETRIFIED WOOD.

This report states:

�?Since the American team’s August visit the Turkish government has sent an archaeological group to the site and recovered four-foot-long iron spikes, petrified wood and other metal objects, Buamgardner said.�?

AS a scientist, he isn’t going to report to Los Alamos Labs something he doesn’t know to be fact.

[Note: I have a copy of this newspaper report.]

We also have in hand Baumgardner’s newsletter dated December 17, 1986, in which he reports:

“We have reliable information that the Turkish government has had its scientists working there.�? In his own handwriting he adds: As of April – Turks have recovered some artifacts at the site. They say it most certainly is the Ark.�?

This is the guy who has since said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Baumgardner

The footage of me in the video that has been shown several times on U.S. and British television during the last three years reflects my early enthusiasm about the possibility of a connection of the site with Noah's Ark, but it does not accurately represent my very firm conclusions reached after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in 1987 and 1988. I realize this answer is brief, but I hope it is clear I am convinced the remains of the Ark must be somewhere else, that such remains are emphatically _not_ associated with this boat-shaped formation. The central claims Wyatt and Fasold have been making about the site are bogus...

...I have spent weeks at this site and never once saw any sample that even remotely resembled petrified wood...

...The dark, weather-resistant rocks are genuine parts of the formation. They are of igneous composition. Calling them "beams" or "rib timbers" is something that comes from (Wyatt's) human imagination...

...it is the natural product of a geological process (a catastrophic mud slide)...

...Also from these excerpts it should be clear that I consider Wyatt's misrepresentation of my views as morally wrong and dishonest. But his deception of multitudes of Christians who have not had the opportunity to check his claims firsthand as I have is an even worse crime. I give you permission to use these words of mine to warn people of this snare.

Sincerely,

John Baumgardner
Los Alamos, New Mexico

Would I be correct in guessing that Baumgardner's views won't appear in the book? How much do you expect me to pay for it anyhow?

Of course, the site cannot be the resting place of the Ark anyhow, because Genesis is fiction. There was no global Flood in recent history, and hence no Ark.

I lack the Christian programming necessary to be taken in by this material.

Sensei Meela · 02-22-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

I could address it myself if you like, but I doubt that you will listen.

I'd listen, and it would benefit the lurkers too, probably.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2005, 08:55 AM	#125
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	RBH, you asked about aluminium technologies. I do know the Chinese had steel for their swords was it 500BC, but only the emperor had a steel sword! I have no idea what the Ancient Egyptians got up to - wasn't there a model working steam engine as a toy from Alexandria but that is much later? (Just thought I would help the Noahists with a bit of technology - the ark was made of aluminium!)

02-22-2005, 11:37 AM	#126
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Ah yes, Wyatt. As I recall, he posted scans of mineral assays which revealed exotic "metal oxides" from the site: specifically, silicon and aluminum oxides, more commonly known as "rock". He also presented a satellite image, which actually made it quite plain that the "boat-shaped formation" was a natural geological formation, part of a much larger pattern of strata. The guy was pretty much self-refuting. I'm surprised that so many took him seriously. Such is the power of wishful thinking.

02-22-2005, 12:32 PM	#127
Lysimachus Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 148	I'll respond more later, but Jack, It has been refuted time and time again that the boat-shaped object cannot be a geological formation. Critics continuously use the argument that the shape is due to mud flow hitting an obstruction. But there is a problem, the point of the boat is pointing UP HILL! If a flow were to go down hill, the point would form DOWN HILL! This problem is yet to be addressed by geologists. You and many others will continue to remain in your blindness until you are willing to dish out the money to buy BOOKS, especially the new ones recently released such as "The Boat-Shaped Object on Doomsday Mountain" and "Discoveries: Questions Answered". LOL, I've only touched the surface! The Discoveries: Questions Answered book is over 300 pages long totally obliterating most of the links I've seen so far....which convinces me, this stuff has to go online. The public hasn't seen what's coming. Ron Wyatt as not a fraud, and more and more scientists are finally beginning to realize this. Scientists and archaeologists alike are beginning to realize authenticity to his discoveries than originally supposed. Even Turkey's NUMBER ONE ARCHAEOLOGIST Ekrem Akurgal, who received many awards, WHO WAS AN ATHEIST, told Ron Wyatt personally ON VIDEO that there is no other natural explanation for the Ark site other than it was "Noah's Ark". We have his exact quotes--from an Atheist. And I can get them if you like. Now, Professor and Researcher Dr. Lennart Moller from the Karolinksa Institutue in Stockholm, Sweden has been investigating Ron's claim of the Red Sea Crossing site at the Gulf of Aqaba. His opinion is that Ron was right---doing his analyses on the petrefied bones found on the sea-bed, and he is creating a new 3hr/3part documentary series called "The Exodus Case" (based on his book, The Exodus Case) that is planned to be sold to television stations such as the History and Discovery Channels and released in "selected theaters" around the globe sometime in the middle to end of 2005. You can view some small video clips here: http://www.exoduscase.com Watch BOTH of them. You can also see the list of scholars contributing to this series in the same link. Ron's discoveries are finally getting laid out on the table, and scientists are finally taking the sites seriously--realizing that they must be thoroughly investigated. If I were you folks, I wouldn't take Ron's claims so lightly. Wait for the documentary, read the books. Quit going to old online sources that I've already read. It's old news. The answers are in the books.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.