Can archeology answer_________________

[CoAspen]

So..according to you...when an expert calls something bogus and has the proof, you will continue to believe the originator of the untruth. Is that correct? You keeping saying that those who have proven Wyatt to be wrong are just 'naysayers'. Is that correct?

[Gregory Matthews]

It does not take an expert to know that Wyatt is wrong. People with an elementary knowledge of the subject will find some problems with his conjectures.

Yes, for some of the issues, some additional knowledge is needed.

[LifeHiscost]

So..according to you...when an expert calls something bogus and has the proof, you will continue to believe the originator of the untruth. Is that correct? You keeping saying that those who have proven Wyatt to be wrong are just 'naysayers'. Is that correct?

Why should I fly the plane when you are just waiting to blow it out of the air?

God cares!

[Bravus]

Must be convenient when one's every opinion and whim is backed up by a raft of texts that can be used to call any who, for example, present actual evidence fools, mockers and naysayers.

Much more convenient than having to actually support views with evidence.

[CoAspen]

If you defer from answering questions it can lead the person asking to assume the wrong answer. Do you want people to have the wrong impressions? Would you rather just leave everyone in the dark?

Not exactly a way to carry on conversation....at least any productive type!!

[Stan]

I do not know what all Ron Wyatt's claims were that were unique to him.

I do know this, when I was in Israel early this year, what ever Ron Wyatt said or did in one of the areas, by the Dead Sea and were govement credibility by the Israeli Gov't official tour guides. I had over heard his name, I did not bring it up. I was shocked to hear his name..

I do suspect some of this 'new stuff' might have some credibility to it, and others not.

[Gregory Matthews]

Few people are 100% wrong.

But, the issues with Wyatt go much deeper than surface issues.

[nuff sed]

"It does not take an expert to know that Wyatt is wrong. People with an elementary knowledge of the subject will find some problems with his conjectures."

Gregory:Please advise us as to what your abundance of knowledge has uncovered 'proving' that Wyatt was a fraud . Nuff Sed

[Bravus]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Where is the evidence to support Wyatt's claims?

[CoAspen]

I attended one of his lectures, I do not have an 'abundance of knowledge' on his claims, I did have 'some knowledge' and simple, plain understanding of his 'finds' to understand that I was in the presence of a salesman, not an amateur archeologist. I could not listen to his whole lecture and walked out!! One way a 'salesman' seeks to make their claims 'legitimate', is to be so outlandish that they become almost, I say almost, impossible to dispute. But that in and of itself, proves to be their downfall.

Renowned archeologists have disputed his claims and shown his errors, to put it mildly. But true believers will never be convinced!!! Archeology can and does answer many questions about the past. It is very sad when false archeology dilutes their work.

[Bravus]

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/06/30/ron-wyatt-collosal-fraud/

[Bravus]

If he was telling the truth, he would have shared the evidence for independent verification.

Without that, he had nothing. And the people who accept his findings, likewise.

Otherwise, I can claim with no evidence to have found the grave of the Rainbow Serpent, meaning indigenous Australian creation beliefs are true and Christianity is false.

[Bravus]

From the article I linked above, here are two specific debunkings from believing Christian ministries:

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/special-report-amazing-ark-expose

Want to call them 'naysayers' too?

I'll remember, next time you want us to accept some claim from Answers in Genesis.

[Bravus]

This is the kind of 'evidence' we're talking about - dowsing! Divination! (doesn't the Bible say something about that?)

Quote:

Metal detecting surveys using a ‘molecular frequency generator/discriminator’ mapped out these ‘iron lines’, which represent longitudinal and cross beams containing iron nails and /or brackets. (These ‘iron lines’ were marked out with bright yellow plastic tape for greater impact.)

A ‘molecular frequency generator’ consists of a pair of brass welding rods bent at 90 degrees near one end, which are placed in sleeves for ease of movement while hand-held, connected by wires to a set of batteries which are carried in the operator’s pocket. (This electrical source is supposed to make the device more sensitive!) A so-called frequency generator is placed on the ground within the area to be surveyed. The dials are set on this ‘instrument’ for it to emit the supposed inaudible frequency of whatever metal (gold, iron, etc.) one hopes to detect. As the operator walks along holding the brass rods out in front, one in each hand, the rods are supposed to cross or separate when the subsurface target is located. Such movement, however, will occur by simple physical principles even when there are no batteries connected. Just as a supermarket trolley (castor) wheel tends to trail behind the direction of motion, there is a tendency for the long arms of the rods to rotate so as to trail behind the direction of walking. The resultant crossing or separating may therefore easily be initiated by the conscious or unconscious expectations of the user.

Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed. Indeed, two of these scientists built and tested working models. The results of this technique can hardly be considered trustworthy, the brass welding rods being used in essence, as divining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick to search for water.* So the ‘iron lines’ on diagrams of the boat shape and the lines of plastic tape in photographs are only an interpretation based on ‘results’ from a pseudo-scientific ‘instrument’. They have not been able to be reproduced or verified by any reputable scientific survey technique, including standard metal detection equipment. This includes the highly sophisticated types of magnetometer used by mining companies (see later). (*Even Baumgardner, to his later embarrassment, was initially taken in by the false claims attributed to this ‘instrument’. Fasold still promotes its virtues and cries ‘foul’ when these ‘home truths’ are pointed out, yet if it were what he claims then every mining company and fortune seeker would own and operate one and be making hordes of money! No mining company uses anything like it.)

[LifeHiscost]

If he was telling the truth, he would have shared the evidence for independent verification.

Without that, he had nothing. And the people who accept his findings, likewise.

Otherwise, I can claim with no evidence to have found the grave of the Rainbow Serpent, meaning indigenous Australian creation beliefs are true and Christianity is false.

[M. T. Cross]

Oh! I really want to go to Martin Rundkvist's house.

[Bravus]

Quote:

If you wish to spend your time debunking anything that has any possibility of giving modern verifiable evidence as to the veracity of the Holy Word, I'm sure these people would be willing to help you out.

But this is exactly the point: I didn't quote that guy, I quoted Answers in Genesis! Pretty sure their mission is the *opposite* of "debunking anything that has any possibility of giving modern verifiable evidence as to the veracity of the Holy Word".

Sometimes, when someone points out you're in a hole, best to stop digging...

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Gregory:Please advise us as to what your abundance of knowledge has uncovered 'proving' that Wyatt was a fraud . Nuff Sed

I acknowledge your sarcasm.

1) I have never claimed to have an abundance of knowledge. If you are actually making that claim, it is without foundation. If you are making it as what you believe I am saying, you have clearly not understood a word of what I have posted.

2)The work "fraud" has legal implications and I have never said that he was a fraud, although others have made that claim. If you believe that I have claimed him to be a fraud, you clearly have not understood a word of what I have posted. If you do not believe that I have claimed him to be a fraud, you bear false witness in your message above. I have claimed Wyatt to be wrong. I have claimed him to be ignorant of basic facts in the field in which he makes his claims.

3) Read my post on the shed blood of Christ and Brownian Movement. That is basic knowledge that is quickly learned by lower division college students in some fields of study. Wyatt was both ignorant and wrong on that one. The same is true for other aspects of claims that he has made. But, as I have not identified such, I do not need to identify them here.

4) There is an interesting aspect of many of Wyatt's claims in which he refuses to identify elements of his claims which are needed to independently prove them. Without that information they cannot be disapproved, also. This habit of his strikes at the very foundation of his claims and indicates that until he releases his information his claims should not be accepted. With his death, it is unlikely that the majority of these will ever have that information released.

5)Wyatt has clearly been shown to be false in some of the aspects of the claims that he has made. That evidence of out there. Anyone who wants to be informed on this can be informed.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I attended one of his lectures, I do not have an 'abundance of knowledge' on his claims, I did have 'some knowledge' and simple, plain understanding of his 'finds' to understand that I was in the presence of a salesman, not an amateur archeologist. I could not listen to his whole lecture and walked out!! One way a 'salesman' seeks to make their claims 'legitimate', is to be so outlandish that they become almost, I say almost, impossible to dispute. But that in and of itself, proves to be their downfall.

Renowned archeologists have disputed his claims and shown his errors, to put it mildly. But true believers will never be convinced!!! Archeology can and does answer many questions about the past. It is very sad when false archeology dilutes their work.

True.

One does not have to have even minimal knowledge of the field of archeology to know that some of what he claims is without foundation.

[Gregory Matthews]

For those who do not know what Brownian Movement is, the following is a brief explaination:

Quote:

Brownian movement or motion, zigzag, irregular motion exhibited by minute particles of matter when suspended in a fluid. The effect has been observed in all types of colloidal suspensions (see colloid)—solid-in-liquid, liquid-in-liquid, gas-in-liquid, solid-in-gas, and liquid-in-gas. It is named for the botanist Robert Brown who observed (1827) the movement of plant spores floating in water. The effect, being independent of all external factors, is ascribed to the thermal motion of the molecules of the fluid. These molecules are in constant irregular motion with a velocity proportional to the square root of the temperature. Small particles of matter suspended in the fluid are buffeted about by the molecules of the fluid. Brownian motion is observed for particles about 0.001 mm in diameter; these are small enough to share in the thermal motion, yet large enough to be seen with a microscope or ultramicroscope. The first satisfactory theoretical treatment of Brownian motion was made by Albert Einstein in 1905. Jean Perrin made a quantitative experimental study of the dependence of Brownian motion on temperature and particle size that provided verification for Einstein's mathematical formulation. Perrin's work is regarded as one of the most direct verifications of the kinetic-molecular theory of gases.

Read more: Brownian movement | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/brownian-movement.html#ixzz2e19bDZeH

In short, Brownian Movement (also called Brownian Motion) is observed under high magnification by a microscope. A beginning student quickly learns to recognize it.

That is exactly what Wyatt presented as evidence that the claimed shed blood of Christ was alive. Nonsense. The particles in motion are not alive.

[Gregory Matthews]

In my post just above, there is a clue asto the problems that Wyatt had.

1) In looking at microscopic slides of the alleged blood of Christ, Wyatt saw something that moved. that cannot be denied.

2) Wyatt did not know what he saw.

3) Out of his ignorance, he decided that the motion that he saw was alive.

4) He then decided that if it were alive, it must be evidence of deity--God.

Wyatt was wrong.

The above is an example of the breadth of Wyatt's problems. He was ignorant. He did not correctly interpret what he saw. He reached wrong conclusions.

HE did this over and over.

[Bravus]

Yes, I was coming back to post that I don't think 'fraud' actually applies. I don't think he intended to deceive. He believed very strongly, and the first and main person he fooled was himself. He didn't try to trick people, he told them what he genuinely believed - but his genuine belief was in conflict with the evidence.

[BobRyan]

In short, Brownian Movement (also called Brownian Motion) is observed under high magnification by a microscope. A beginning student quickly learns to recognize it.

That is exactly what Wyatt presented as evidence that the claimed shed blood of Christ was alive. Nonsense. The particles in motion are not alive.

I have seen brownian motion experiments - you can too.