Why don't established religions care about Ron Wyatt's archaelogical findings confirming the Bible?

by Kosonen 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Kosonen

  "Because most people have a working bullshit detector, that's my guess. Particularly those who follow established scientific methodology."-Leolaia

  So you there defend the stand point of the established religions rejecting Ron Wyatt's archaeological findings? Are you also defending their oppinions about where the Mount Sinai, Christ's tomb etc are truly located?

  Do you mean that the estabished religions have scientific proofs for their claims where Christ's tomb, Mount Sinai, Jesus' execution site was contrary to what Ron Wyatt?

  And you discrediting Ron Wyatt, come with valid facts showing he is wrong in these matters. Otherwise your words are in no way scientific!
• 

  Kosonen

  And to you requiring that Ron Wyatt needs diplomas from universities before he can say something:

  If a child sees the king is naked, he does not need diplomas to be able to convince.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  Sorry, who's Ron Wyatt?
• 

  transhuman68

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt Read it... and laugh!

  Ronald Eldon Wyatt (1933 – August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durupinar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelical Christians.

  Kosonen, get yourself a book about Bible archaeology written by a qualified archaeologist, and then you will be able to sort out fact from fiction. There is very little evidence for any of the events written in the Bible, and none for anything that supposedly occurred before 1000 B.C. - that includes King Solomon, the Flood, Adam & Eve etc .
• 

  Leolaia

  I could care less what "established religions" think. I have no idea why pointing out obvious BS is somehow a "defense" of established religion.

  Wyatt (who died in 1999) claimed to have discovered bones of Nephilim, Noah's ark, ballast from the ark, the tombs of Noah and his wife, Sodom and Gormorrah, the actual storage containers that Joseph used to store grain, chariot wheels at the Red Sea crossing, twelve altars built by Moses, the actual rock Moses struck to produce water, the ark of the covenant, the ten commandments, a chamber in Jerusalem containing artifacts from the Temple, even blood from Jesus Christ! As in the case of frauds and hoaxes in general, suspicions are aroused when claims are just TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE™ . What actual empirical evidence has he provided that demonstrates the validity of these claims? Do they support the weight of the extraordinary nature of the claims? Do they justify the identifications he makes (which often seem to rely on a kind of circular reasoning)? Does Wyatt follow proper scientific methodology in making his case? I've seen precious little of any of that. Just sensational claims with little evidence to back them up. I personally believe he was a serial hoaxer. Bible enthusiasts bring big bucks. And there's celebrity in finding biblical relics.

  And you discrediting Ron Wyatt, come with valid facts showing he is wrong in these matters. Otherwise your words are in no way scientific!

  Did you just say "valid facts" and "scientific"? What "valid facts" has Wyatt produced that constitutes legitimate "scientific" research? Let's take the claim about discovering Jesus' blood as an example. Where is the scientific report by the laboratory that supposedly tested the blood? And what laboratory was it? Does anyone know? What are the details about the methods used in the tests? How many tests were done? How do we know the results are replicable? How was the identification with Jesus scientifically made? Where have the results been peer reviewed?

  BTW, I'm not discrediting Wyatt at all. I have no desire to do so. The burden of proof is on Wyatt and his followers to substantiate the claims in the first place. If they can't be, then they rightly deserve little attention.
• 

  Joe Grundy

  Leolaia:

  Respect as always and thanks for this. I had never heard of this guy. Just one more 'nutter' who slipped under the radr, perhaps.
• 

  Leolaia

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

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

  http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/12/ron-wyatt-egyptian-chariot-wheels/
• 

  cantleave

  Kosonen are you alweays such a judgemental jerk?

  I have familiarised myself with Wyatts work and was aware of him when I was still a JW. The guy was not an archeologist, his "discoveries" were never validated and as leolaia so eloquently put it was a total bullshitter.

  I am an atheist, have science degree and have no interest in religion. If there were any scientifically verifiable proof of this charletons work I would give it some credibility. But there is not.
• 

  Leolaia

  LOL!!!

  Human cells normally have 46 chromosomes. These are actually 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. In each pair of chromosomes, one of the pair is from the mother and the other member is from the father. Therefore, 23 chromosomes come from the mother and 23 from the father. In each set of 23, 22 chromosomes are autosomal and one is sex-determining. The sex-determining ones are the X chromosome and the Y chromosome. Females are XX, so they can only contribute an X chromosome to their offspring, whereas males are XY, which allows them to contribute either an X or a Y. If they contribute an X, the child is female, whereas if they contribute a Y, the child is male. The fascinating finding in this blood was that instead of 46 chromosomes, there were only 24. There were 22 autosomal chromosomes, one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. This evidences that the person to whom this blood belonged to had a mother but no human father, because the normal contribution of paternal chromosomes is missing.

  So....Jesus apparently was a mutant and his Y chromosome came from, um, God?
• 

  unstopableravens

  kos, the only think i know about him which was mentioned, is that of jesus blood. if thats not enough to throw up a big red flag im not sure what is. it seems funny that you put thrust in this guys claims, but you deny the claims in the bible that jesus is god, thomas claimed him to be god, jesus claimed to be god, so did john, and paul,etc..