Why I do not have a firm position on origins

[Gregory Matthews]

Just a note on Mr. Wyatt. Not that I agree or disagree with him on anything. I think it should be noted that one of the top Archeologists in the world and from down under no less, John Gray, wrote a book about John Wyatt, called the Ark of the Covenant. I thought it was very interesting. John Gray was trying to disprove Wyatt but couldn't. I think many archeologist disliked Wyatt because he was not a legit archeologist, and he seem to always be in the right place at the right time. And also he was a very religious man. pk

Ron Wyatt: An intersting person!

Yes, he was untrained, yet, he has claimed to have solved many of the Biblical puzzles!

So, John Gray was unable to disprove Wyatt, claims in regard to the Ark of the Covenent? Well, the truth is that many of his claims can not be logically disproved! Why? Read his claims. The reason that many can not be disproved should be quite clear.

I first became aquainted with Ron Wyatt when I heard a sermon in which it was stated that Ron Wayatt had discovered the living blood of the crucifed Christ! Astounding. I checked it out, and Wyatt did make that claim. In fact he posted on the Internet a slide of he living blood of the Crucified Christ. He claimed that the fact that the blood was alive at the time he discovered it proved it came from a "God source" and therefore must have come from Christ who as God could not die. NOTE: He discovered this underneath the site where Christ was crucified. NOTE: What Wyatt intrepreted as the living blood was actually Brownian Movement which I have observed many times under a microscope. Due to his lack of training he was not able to recognize what it actually was.

NOTE: The Wyatt website has removed the claim that Wyatt discovered the living blood of the crucified Christ, but he did make that claim prior to his death.

Wyatt has survived as an icon in part due to that fact that he proposed many of his claims in a manner that they can not be logically disapproved. They simply are not ammenable to rigorous evaulation and study. He has a "good" (he says) explaination for why then cannot be su[bjected to rigorous evaulation and study. HIs explaination fits the mold for those who hold to certain paranoid views of the world in which we live. Wyatt clearly was not dumb.

When I read his works I am reminded of Immanual Veiloskovesky (probably mispelled) of a few decades back who developed an audience among cerain groups of people.

Yes, Wyatt was a religious person--SDA, I believe.

Anyway, Wyatt was an interesting person who is a footnote in Biblical history.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Just a note on Mr. Wyatt. Not that I agree or disagree with him on anything. I think it should be noted that one of the top Archeologists in the world and from down under no less, John Gray, wrote a book about John Wyatt, called the Ark of the Covenant. I thought it was very interesting. John Gray was trying to disprove Wyatt but couldn't. I think many archeologist disliked Wyatt because he was not a legit archeologist, and he seem to always be in the right place at the right time. And also he was a very religious man. pk

Ron Wyatt: An intersting person!

Yes, he was untrained, yet, he has claimed to have solved many of the Biblical puzzles!

So, John Gray was unable to disprove Wyatt, claims in regard to the Ark of the Covenent? Well, the truth is that many of his claims can not be logically disproved! Why? Read his claims. The reason that many can not be disproved should be quite clear.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob said:

Quote:

Here is a claim that gets tested every time someone draws blood -- as it turns out. So arguing that "you can not test this" is beyond reason. . . . .

2. You don't get "brownian movement" to duplicate living blood cells in 2000 year old blood stains.

Bob, you have misunderstood my comment and misrepresented it. You have also demonstrated that you do not understood Browninan Movement. Brownian Movement is not related to what is on the slide. It is not related to whether or not the object on the slide is either alive or ever was alive. You can easily get Brownian Movent in a slide of a cross section of a geological rock. Brownian Movement is related to optics and the medium through which the light travels between the slide and the lens of the microscope. Ron Wyatt was simply ignorant of Brownian Movement and he mis-characterized it as evidence of life. That is what it looks like. But, it is not.

I also suspect that you have not widely read the works of Ron Wyatt. If you had you would be aware that his works often contain statements important to the validity of his thesis that he makes in a manner that prevents them from being tested and rigorously evaulated.

Science is based, in part, upon testability. Ron Wyatt often lacks that in important parts.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bob said:

Quote:

You can claim to find gold in your backyard -- and as much as you may not like it -- that claim is open to validation.

There are two parts to the above: 1) That something is gold. 2) That the gold was discovered in the back yard of the person making the claim.

Can that claim be tested and evaulated?

1) The claim that something is gold can be tested and evaulated only if it is allowed to be chemically/physically tested.

2) The claim that it was found in the back yard of the person making the claim cannot be tested if that person refuses to provide information as to the location of the back yard and refuses to provide information as to ownersip of the back yard.

Ron Wyatt often refused to provide information on one of the above and sometimes on the other of the above. Sometimes one but not the other. Sometimes he would refuse to provide informaiton on both. In any case, his refusal to provide information on part of the claim made his claim untestable.

NOTE: Ron Wyatt has often refused to provide information in regard to location. His asserted reasons for doing so fit quite nicely into the paranoia that some people have.

[Woody]

people want to have some material to worship

[Gregory Matthews]

From the Internet:

Quote:

Wyatt is so bad that other creationist and Christian groups have put up webpages debunking his work. Here are three major ones: Tentmaker, Christian Information Ministries and Answers in Genesis.

The Internet is full of information about Ron Wyatt--both for and against.

[Dr. Shane]

Some people actually enjoy watching Star Trek even though they know it is all fake. I think that is how a person has to read Ron Wyatt. His stuff is very interesting but I can't understand why anyone would take him seriously.

[BobRyan]

We would want science proof before taking his findings as facts.

We would want science proof before taking anyone's conclusion that his findings were definitely false.

The simple "harr harr harr" response to the topic is not that compelling - as it turns out.

in Christ,

Bob

[nuff sed]

I think that you will find that Anchorstone International is in Turkey right now doing scientific study on what Ron Wyatt said was the site of Noah's Ark. You will have to go to www.anchorstone.com over the next couple months to see what they report.

[phkrause]

Thanks gladussee, it looks interesting.

pk

[phkrause]

I know what you mean CoAspen, its interesting that it hasn't happen yet, but I'm not surprised. I've read somewhere or heard from someone, could've been DB, that when and if God allows them to find the Ark, it will be found. I have seen picture's that they've taken of the mountain and it looks like the Ark, but no one has said one way or the other.

pk

[BobRyan]

Indeed -- there is a time to simply say "I don't know". Without having the science that confirms it or refutes it -- that is what is left.