Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps back in 1947, if a shepherd boy had approached you stating he just found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Perhaps you would of laughed at him to.
In reality, it is Evolution that is based on theories of speculation, Noahs Ark has historically been viewed by eyewitinesses. And you might consider the account by David Duckworth, which can be viewed on No. 4 of the link below. Do you think David is another liar? His story has never changed.
Aliens have historically been viewed by eyewitnesses too. Doesn't mean they exist.
Where is the hard evidence? Where are the pieces and photographs?
And Evoluton has one thing that your Ark lacks completely, hard evidence.
Fossil records, DNA/RNA sequencing, and carbon dating have provided more than enough evidences to prove Evolution correct.
Then again it takes about as much "faith" to ignore plain scientific evidence as it does to convince oneself that the ark exhists despite lack of direct evidence or supporting evidences such as I listed above.
If you had read the link provided, you would of understood that Rene Noorbergen who was a veteran news reporter discovered that in a high level meeting in Washington NG/SI officials decided to bury everything found on Ararat.
And by the way, all those who have gotten close to the Ark will tell you. The Ark's wood is now as hard as stone.
And as a side note, while reading another link which I have not come across of late, I recall how upset one person was who reached the Ark. He stated it appeared to Him non believers tried to destroy the Ark with explosives. It appears he was unaware that Dr. Geist had used thermite back in 1968 to gain entry, and not to destroy it. Funny how the truth sometimes comes out in those unrelated stories.
Oh please, not some form of conspiracy bull-poo.
How is "Washigton" going to bury something found overseas.
And anyone who has any experience with explosives, or even internet access, will explain to you that thermite is not used on wood, or petrified wood either. One doesn't use a substance based on FIRE to gain entery into a wooden structure.
And "all those" who ahve "gotten close to the ark" are mislead and/or liars. Period.
Perhaps back in 1947, if a shepherd boy had approached you stating he just found the Dead Sea Scrolls. Perhaps you would of laughed at him to.
Probably since they have already been found. But if a shepherd boy came to me with a piece of parchment I would be concerned about getting it to the proper scientific community.
"it is Evolution that is based on theories of speculation,"
Hardly.
"Noahs Ark has historically been viewed by eyewitinesses."
Who might those eyewitnesses be perchance?
Anyway,
When it comes to intellectual weight (despite their faith in the supernatural) and commitment to science and intellectual rigor I can find few less esteemed than the Catholic Church and I have yet to read or hear of the Church's acceptance of these hair brained pronouncements.
That's something hilarious to use on a debate "I can't show you any of the evidence I claimed existed because the government took it all away and buried it"
Wyatt was no doubt a man thinking out of the box, especially in his later years. Yet some of your information used against him is dated. And often discovery has more to do with effort then knowledge. Thomas Edison use to say, success is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration. Certainly that shepherd boy back in 1947 did not have a degree in anything. Yet he made the greatest Biblical discovery of all time when he discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now I don't believe Wyatt discovered Noahs Ark, or the Ark of the Covenant either. Yet you cannot ignore the fact that some of his other discoveries have been confirmed by others. Dr. Lennart Moller spent 10 years working the same area discovered by Wyatt, and finished an indepth book called the Exodus case, and produced a three hour documentary of his findings at the Red Sea Crossing site. And I have much more confidence in someone who actually went the extra mile and did the leg work, than I would from armchair observers who never took the time to purchase a plane ticket. And when it comes to Mt. Sinia, it is the distance from the Red Sea crossing site that would be required by the Bible. Not to mention, all the other evidence that would need to be in place around the mountain. The first pictures of the real Mt. Sinai have come back from this place, and were taken by Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams, and at great risk. Consider the links below.
I'm sorry but this is apologetics, not evidence. The risk taken to obtain photographs of blackened mountain -tops, may get points for intrepidity but identifying that as proof of a pillar of fire falls far short of credibility.
Stumbling on the dead sea scrolls does not require a degree nor does finding a hoard of coins with ametal detector, but proper archaeological work does. Thinking outside the box is one thing. Going off a wild tangents and drawing conclusions that are either unsupported by evidence or result in nothing but are still claimed as great discoveries (like the Garden tomb nonsense) is something else.
If you had read the link provided, you would of understood that Rene Noorbergen who was a veteran news reporter discovered that in a high level meeting in Washington NG/SI officials decided to bury everything found on Ararat.
I should like to know more about that. What authority has Washington over a site owned and monitored by the Turkish government? Even if it is true that they persuaded the Turks to bury everything found (not much apart from rocks) I'd say too much is being read into covering up a rock formation.
Quote:
And by the way, all those who have gotten close to the Ark will tell you. The Ark's wood is now as hard as stone.
It is stone. The 'Ark' is a rock formation, by all the evidence found. By the way, I thought you said it wasn't the Ark? Didn't you say it was in the wong place? Or were you talking about the ark of the covenant?
Quote:
And as a side note, while reading another link which I have not come across of late, I recall how upset one person was who reached the Ark. He stated it appeared to Him non believers tried to destroy the Ark with explosives. It appears he was unaware that Dr. Geist had used thermite back in 1968 to gain entry, and not to destroy it. Funny how the truth sometimes comes out in those unrelated stories.
You mean the truth about how believers jump to incorrect conclusions about the supposed activities of skeptics and falsely accuse them of trying to destroy evidence for Biblical truth?
As a fundamentalist Christian, I am annoyed by these charlatans who claimed to have found the Ark. I worked at a Chemistry institute at a university. My boss was asked to go on that expedition to Mt Ararat. He had a picture of the Stone "Ark." After some prodding, he told me about the expedition, how it was flaky from the word go. The "Stone Boat" was a natural; rock formation and there was no Wood boat on Mt Ararat. The remains of a first century chapel, yes, but no Ark.
I researched the Ark in the Bible. It was a giant reed boat. No one made ocean going wood boats in 3,000 BC, but they made ocean going reed boats back then. Archaeologists even have found shipyards with chips of tar. On one side is impressions of reeds and on the other are barnacles. The boats stayed in the water long enough to grow moderate barnacles. 450 foot wood boats are impossible. They hog, or bend in the middle, let in water, and sink. Reed boats can bend as much as they want and still float. 450 foot reed boats are possible. We haven't and won't find the ark, but we have archaeological evidence that it was possible. I have a website where I examine the flood and the boat, and everything fits scientifically and Biblically. Home ‎(noahsfloodsite)‎
Remember, I am not claiming any absolute proof, just that it is possible.
I researched the Ark in the Bible. It was a giant reed boat. No one made ocean going wood boats in 3,000 BC, but they made ocean going reed boats back then. Archaeologists even have found shipyards with chips of tar. On one side is impressions of reeds and on the other are barnacles. The boats stayed in the water long enough to grow moderate barnacles. 450 foot wood boats are impossible. They hog, or bend in the middle, let in water, and sink. Reed boats can bend as much as they want and still float. 450 foot reed boats are possible. We haven't and won't find the ark, but we have archaeological evidence that it was possible. I have a website where I examine the flood and the boat, and everything fits scientifically and Biblically. Home ‎(noahsfloodsite)‎
Remember, I am not claiming any absolute proof, just that it is possible.
A wooden boat loaded with animals including the extinct ones is bogglish enough, but made of reeds? Now I am beyond boogle...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
