posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Fluxd
Well anyone who visits this site should very well know that for every person that claims they saw, found, or know something there is an army of
nay-sayers ready to counter with all kinds of proof to the contrary. Hell, that's why we're at this site right now discussing the topics that we
Right. So what about their analysis was unconvincing to you?
Because this is where people can pass along information freely and let the reader make up his/her mind.
Right. Information. Evidence and the like. As an aside, why do you think that the ark existed at all? Lets just set aside, for the purpose of this
portion of the discussion, any ark 'discoveries', pro or con. Why do you think it existed in the first place?
I would tell you whether or not it is petrified wood or just basalt columns.
It shoul've been relatively easy for anyone to demonstrate that a rock sample is either petrified wood or basalt. What is the evidence that you find
convincing for it being petrified wood?
how do you explain the detected metal deposits that just happen to lie in a pattern that could indicate a man made structure?
The 'metals' were found to be naturally occuring metallic bearing minerals. the 'pattern' is merely a dispersed field of them. Look at it. The
'pattern' is just that they have spread out over an area, its not some intricate pattern, just a dispersal that one could
draw a grid over.
Do you think that was all staged? If you've read any of Ron Wyatt's biographical accounts you would know that he always kept a skeptical
scientific eye on what he found.
I have not seen anything on any of these sites to indicate that what he found had anything to do with the supposed 'ark'. I do not care if fraud or
error is involved, the data
itself is insufficient.
Ok, so you think what's posted on the Wyatt Foundation's site is bunk. Well why should I believe a site that tells me that everything I've
heard is a lie, especially when the link was posted by someone who is in discordance with me?
Because their reasoning, evidence, and systematic analysis is more logical, coherent, plausible and sensible?
I would love to see exactly how much of their money is being put into research of another alleged ark site. I'll just bet they are behind
such an operation. It would be a a no-brainer why they would want to debunk other findings.
Ok, now you are making completely baseless accusations. This is a discussion about the relevant evidence and what it tells us. Apparently you
haven't been able to find anything wrong with their reasoning and explanations, and instead cop-out and accuse them of fraud.
And since Mr. Wyatt is no longer around to defend himself, I think I'll take what Tentmaker Ministries says with more than just a grain of
What possible difference does his death make? He was around when this other site was up. What could he possibly say today that he hasn't already
said? Why would it even matter, since you are rejecting their analysis because it doesn't agree with your 'worldview', which you explicitly stated