Possible Evidence For Religious Anecdotage

[Skeptic Ginger]

For what it's worth, Ron Wyatt^WP

Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 - August 4, 1999) was an amateur archaeologist (he had no training in the discipline and held no professional position) and author who claimed to have discovered many significant biblical sites and artifacts. His claims are dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars and most Christian leaders even in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but he continues to be quoted (especially on the Internet).[1] He was the author of the book "Discovered: Noah's Ark" published by the World Bible Society in 1990.

Wyatt was a nurse-anesthetist when in 1960 he saw a picture in Life magazine of a boat-like shape on a mountain near Mount Ararat. The resulting wide-spread speculation in evangelical Christian circles that this might be Noah's Ark started Wyatt on his career as an amateur archaeologist. From 1977 until his death in 1999 he made over one hundred trips to the Middle East, his interests widening to take in a wide variety of references from the Old and New Testaments.

Sounds like he got a lot of attention and probably money from a lot of fundies. Too bad. It's like other woo sellers but in this case he has a specific target audience among Christians who love to tell each other about the "evidence" someone has found typically also adding something that scientists must be covering it up.

 

[This Guy]

Sorry, no. I was responding to the OP. I'm not looking for any new gods now that I've squared away that Dawkins deal.

 

[Radrook]

This article provides some information that can be interpreted to the contrary:

excerpt

In the past, scientists largely dismissed Noah's flood as a myth, or a local flood, as it was believed that there could not have been enough rainwater to cover the world as high as Mount Everest. Recent discoveries in plate tectonics and crustal physics have shown that a much flatter Earth could have easily been flooded, with the resultant volcanic and geologic activity altering the land surface. These details have demolished the main argument against a global flood, but the tag of "local flood" has remained because atheists do not want any evidence that supports the existence of an Almighty, Creator/God.

Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
http://unmaskingevolution.com/18-flood.htm

The authors of the following website allow counterargument feedback:

Date of Noah's Flood
http://www.ancientdays.net/flooddate.htm

The Flood
http://www.ancientdays.net/flood.htm

 

[m_huber]

Radrook has given us a basis for a competition. I made it through the first 23 of the Evidence for a Worldwide Flood link before I was too amused/frustrated to keep going. Anybody do better?

 

[Meadmaker]

It's really weird to quote any sort of evidence based on plate tectonics as evidence for the deluge. The problem is that all of that evidence would have to start with a set of assumptions, especially that this whole process takes a very, very, long time. We aren't talking 6,000 years here.

So, evidence from plate tectonics allegedly shows that there was a much flatter Earth, according to Radrook's quote. Great. Much flatter Earth. Yay. So, allegedly, then, it could flood more easily. Fantastic. So, when does it say that the Earth was much flatter? (Assuming that claim isn't made of whole cloth, either.) I'm willing to bet that if any evidence from plate tectonics says any such thing, it was at least 500 million years ago.

If anyone wants to say that a flatter Earth 500 million years ago is evidence for Noah's Flood. I'll listen. Cognitive dissonance can be entertaining.


Oh, but there's one problem. Noah's Ark came to rest on a mountain. Oops. So much for the flatter Earth at the time of the flood.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This article provides some information that can be interpreted to the contrary:

Good grief. How many times in row can they make the assuming your conclusion fallacy??

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, yeah, wasn't the earth thought to be completely covered in water (in the form of ice) for a few million years or so.

 

[JoeEllison]

Radrook has given us a basis for a competition. I made it through the first 23 of the Evidence for a Worldwide Flood link before I was too amused/frustrated to keep going. Anybody do better?

I made it to 3 before the stupidity of Radrook's link overwhelmed me.

 

[This Guy]

I'm fond of #1 under "Logic" -

(1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized area is currently close to impossible.

Sooo..... forty days in one location is currently close to impossible, but forty days the world over is likely? I don't get it.

Under the Genesis account I like -

(59) The account in Genesis speaks of the flood being a universal event at least thirty times.

So, if you say something enough, it becomes true? (I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich, I'm rich).

Hmmm....

And then there is this Gem!

(60) God promised three times not to "smite [destroy - NKJ] every living thing" by a flood (Gen 8:21; 9:11; 9:15). Three occurrences in Scripture indicates absolute truth.

Whereas only two occurrences in Scripture is what? A maybe? Only once an out right lie?

Yes, the stupid, it hurts.

 

[m_huber]

It's really weird to quote any sort of evidence based on plate tectonics as evidence for the deluge. The problem is that all of that evidence would have to start with a set of assumptions, especially that this whole process takes a very, very, long time. We aren't talking 6,000 years here.

So, evidence from plate tectonics allegedly shows that there was a much flatter Earth, according to Radrook's quote. Great. Much flatter Earth. Yay. So, allegedly, then, it could flood more easily. Fantastic. So, when does it say that the Earth was much flatter? (Assuming that claim isn't made of whole cloth, either.) I'm willing to bet that if any evidence from plate tectonics says any such thing, it was at least 500 million years ago.

If anyone wants to say that a flatter Earth 500 million years ago is evidence for Noah's Flood. I'll listen. Cognitive dissonance can be entertaining.


Oh, but there's one problem. Noah's Ark came to rest on a mountain. Oops. So much for the flatter Earth at the time of the flood.

My field area is in South Africa, where I study rocks that are ~3.5 billion years old. There are sediments in some of the rocks that appear to have come from land. The land probably appeared sometime between 4 billion and 3.5 billion years ago. That was the last time the entire planet was flooded at the same time. At this time, there may or may not have been life.

 

[Madalch]

(60) God promised three times not to "smite [destroy - NKJ] every living thing" by a flood (Gen 8:21; 9:11; 9:15). Three occurrences in Scripture indicates absolute truth.

"What I tell you three times is true."
So it is the song of the Jubjub, after all.

 

[fuelair]

So you are a self-proclaimed authority on the Bible?

None of the things you mention, except perhaps the flood which strove to cleanse mankind of demonic genetic contamination, were based on genes. Would your effort to defend mankind from genetic contamination by aliens categorize you as a genocidal maniac?
Pharoah's army met a military defeat. Are all military defeats Genocide? The Caanannites were driven from the land not based on genes but based on their behavior. Sodom and Gomorah were also destroyed based on behavior of the people there and not on genes.

Before making such statements which you obviously expect the ignorant here to accept without any qualms as to your authority or your motives for saying them, I suggest that you reconsider how these unsubstantiated, mindless, statements make their author appear to be.

BTW

Tagging that preferred conclusion as obvious casts great doubt on your reading comprehension ability as well as on the quality and true nature of your recently-rejected beliefs.


Romans 10:2
For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

Actually: IF there was a god it would clearly be an evil murderous maniac. There isn't, so that's not a real problem.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

No, no, no, Radrook. The world was actually created two seconds ago, and God in all his omnipotent glory reverse-engineered history and people's memories to make it seem like the world is much older. The evidence that attests to this fact is all around you. You just choose not to see it.

Now prove me wrong!

 

[shadron]

Well, yeah, wasn't the earth thought to be completely covered in water (in the form of ice) for a few million years or so.

No. It is thought to have frozen solid one or more times in the remote past (say, between 2 and 4 billion years ago), but there is no requirement or evidence that it was covered with water at that time. It is assumed it was simply a cold version of what we have now (without life, of course).

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050801_snowball_earth.html

Some newer evidence would seem to contradict that the freezing was absolutely solid. As in all science, more evidence is needed and expected; the beat goes on.

 

[shadron]

Ahhh...in deep water where there is no bacterial action organic material can remain intact. There have been 2,500 year old seed pods found in one location. I'll look for the link.

Absolutely. But the opportunity to "dig up" such artifacts is exceedingly - emphasize the word exceedingly - rare. The only thing that allows organic material to stay whole for over 500 years is being completely sealed away from oxygen and even oxygen dissolved in water. Even then anaerobic bacteria can destroy it if they can get to it. To claim to find more than small pieces of a chariot wheel, for example, or more than one, would be incredibly lucky, and those piece would deteriorate very rapidly upon exposure.

See this for a description of such a find: http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles Sep07/Art_Sep07_09.html

(Yes, a christian source, but I think it can be trusted. Just this once. )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Shadron I posted evidence of 400,000 year old wooden spears and a 4,000 yr old carved gord. I'm only saying wood can be preserved.

I don't buy the chariot wheels on the Red Sea floor as I also posted the fact the evidence was only reported on fake web sites. There was no actual evidence suggesting the claims were true of either the sulphur balls or the chariot remains. And we already know there is no evidence of any worldwide flood event regardless of how many very large floods there have been.

 

[arthwollipot]

The Whole Silly Flood Story

 

[godless dave]

1. The Crossing Of The Red Sea - Apparently there is evidence of human and horse bones, as well as chariot parts, in the Red Sea that are dated back to the same period as the biblical account of the Israelites fleeing from Egypt.

Flat-out, bald-faced lie.

2. The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah - Ruins of cities in the the land near the Dead Sea have apparently been found covered with ash and millions of sulphur balls.

The sulphur balls thing is a flat-out, bald-faced lie. It is true that there are ruins of cities in the Dead Sea area. Remains of cities in the part of the world where civilization began, what a shocker.

3. The Flood - A whole smorgasbord of claims, running from the unusual worldwide dissemination of stories regarding floods, birds and boat survivors to apparent evidence of fossil graveyards and, slightly more amusingly, 'mammoths in deep freeze'.

More lies. If you look at the flood stories from various cultures, the only element you find in common is flooding. The only other culture to have a story about a guy building a boat to save himself and his family is among the Babylonians - a culture that predated and influenced the Israelites.

 

[Tanstaafl]

So you are a self-proclaimed authority on the Bible?

None of the things you mention, except perhaps the flood which strove to cleanse mankind of demonic genetic contamination, were based on genes. Would your effort to defend mankind from genetic contamination by aliens categorize you as a genocidal maniac? <snip>

Radrook, you should check out the definition of genocide. It really doesn't have anything to do with genes, beyond the word-origin link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

gen·o·cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key -[jen-uh-sahyd]
–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

 

[Radrook]

Leakey post info deleted due to discovered innacuracies ==================================================

Much ado is made about educational credentials as if they would would make any difference when presented in support of creationist claims. The fact is that educational credentials would be glibly dismissed as irrelevant. Which of course means that the damned-if-you-do-or-don't modus operandi is the choice one for many here-a modus operandi which is indicative of a fanatically hermetically closed mentality impervious to any type of contradictory evidence or logic regardless of source.