It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Wyatt and his shocking discovery!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
No Noahas Ark, sorry religious folks its a farse. How could Noah fit all the living creatures on there? We find new life everyday, not just oceanic life either so you tell me cubic feet/meters of storage space versus the probability of fitting a mating pair (not all species mate with the given partner, you should see some of the women I have turned down, and some I should have lol) of all living land animals on the big canoe.




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prodicaliforniason
The point ICR was making was that if in fact carbon dating was acurate then explain how the "materials" they found were older near the top

Since carbon dating isn't going to work properly on sediments, this 'issue' is meaningless. If you misuse the technology you will get weird answers, thats all they've demonstrated here.


So having sea shells in the middle of the desert doesn't make you think for a second?

It does make me think, and it makes me look for the answer, not simlpy say 'these here seashells are from ol' noah's days'.


An evolutionist who thinks that nothing plus nothing equals something. You mean that only some monkeys evolved into humans, but what about the ones at the zoo?

The subject here is not your own ignorance of the theory of evolution and its implications, its whether wyatt found the ark of noah or not.

byrd
Furthermore, the rocks aren't and can't be carbon dated because they were never alive.

They can be carbon dated but its useless, it would only tell you when the minerals solidified out of cooling lava. This is nice for igneous rocks, but meaningless for sedimentary rocks since they're made up of a mish-mash of minerals from all over the place. One mineral would give one solidification date, and another a different one. This applies to any radio-isotopic dating method and sedimentary minerals. Besides, ICR is nortious for not knowing how radio-isotopic dating works, since they consistently use it in improper and incorrect ways. Either they just don't get it, or they are purposely running 'spectacular' sounding tests, knowing full well why they are getting 'whacky' dates.




whoompa
That is defiantly not a natural rock formation.

Yes it is, its called a concretion.


Heck that one looks more 'immpossible' than they dodgy one wyatt picks out.

here's a bigun
external image
Was there perhaps another, really huge, ark? IS that what all iron concretions are then, rusted out nails from the thousands upon thousands of arks that were floating around the earth??


[edit on 30-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
LOL!

Next he'll be discovering the resting place of Harry Potter's Broomstick and prove it by revealing it was powered by an anti-gavity engine..............

The Noah story is a garbled version of an earlier Mesopotamian myth, possibly based on a severe storm during Flandrian Trangression around 5-6kya

All Wyatt has found is a well known rock formation.......


The Noah myth is indeed a garbled version of an earlier story. The Epic of Gilgamesh to be specific. Gilgamesh was a Sumerian king btw, so it's more accurately a Sumerian story.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Iv'e read on here in many different threads concerning the Ark and the 'Great Flood' that its just not possible to have a worldwide flood as well as collect all the different animal species and contain them in a space not physically possible of accomodating them all.
With this... I agree.

But is it not possible that perhaps as in many cases of story telling and relaying information, that some of the facts become embellished or down right falsified.

Could all of the events concerning Noahs Ark have actually happened but only on a much smaller scale? These people were not world travellers so their perception of the world could be alot less grand than it known today.

Might there have been a flood which would cover the Earth (their perception) in which Noah was instructed to build an ark and house all the animals ( again, their perception of all the animals of the Earth which could have been limited to just the surrounding area) ?

Mind you.... I still do not have anything to offer in regards to the floating around for 40 days and 40 nights, bad shrooms perhaps



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grailkeeper
Could all of the events concerning Noahs Ark have actually happened but only on a much smaller scale? These people were not world travellers so their perception of the world could be alot less grand than it known today.

Might there have been a flood which would cover the Earth (their perception) in which Noah was instructed to build an ark and house all the animals ( again, their perception of all the animals of the Earth which could have been limited to just the surrounding area) ?

Mind you.... I still do not have anything to offer in regards to the floating around for 40 days and 40 nights, bad shrooms perhaps


Yes, certainly, that's plausible although the floating stable would have been a problem. Noah was to take seven pairs of the clean beasts and one pair of the unclean, and even with known domestic animals only, it's quite a lot of food and dung and biomass.




top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join