The truth behind Ron Wyatt's archaeological discoveries.

[columbus]

Indoctrination involves teaching a particular doctrine, while education is objective about the subject matter.

I was taught Christian teachings.
I was also taught science teachings.

The reason I adopted science is because I realized that there are no objective teachings about religion.

I was being educated about science. I was being indoctrinated about religion.

That's the difference. Nobody can teach objective anything about religion. It's all indoctrination. Science is different, the standards for objectivity are quite high.

That's why religionists don't teach science. Science and Religion are different magisteria. Science is about objective data and Religion is about subjective data.
Tom

 

[Ebionite]

First, let's debunk that famous rock formation.

What rock formation? The Durupinar formation is mud, not rock.

 

[sooda]

What rock formation? The Durupinar formation is mud, not rock.

Proving a myth is always tricky.

 

[Ebionite]

Nobody can teach objective anything about religion.

You can be objective in the sense that you can describe what groups of people believe or believed. If I say the the doctrine of the resurrection is central to Christianity, then that's an objective statement about religion.

 

[Ebionite]

Proving a myth is always tricky.

The Durupinar formation isn't a myth. You've already made up your mind that Wyatt is a fraud, regardless of the actual evidence.

 

[columbus]

You can be objective in the sense that you can describe what groups of people believe or believed. If I say the the doctrine of the resurrection is central to Christianity, then that's an objective statement about religion.

It's also an objective statement when I say many 7 y/o believe in Santa Claus and unicorns.
That many Muslims believe Jesus moved to India after escaping Roman crucifixion.

Etc. Etc.

Objectively describing subjective beliefs is easy. But not important in the grand scheme of things.

I have subjective beliefs about God. I don't bother talking about them much, because I see no reason for anybody else to be interested in my personal faith beliefs. Why do religionists think I'm interested in theirs?
Tom

 

[Ebionite]

Why do religionists think I'm interested in theirs?

Ego, probably.

 

[sooda]

The Durupinar formation isn't a myth. You've already made up your mind that Wyatt is a fraud, regardless of the actual evidence.

There was no global flood, theo.. Wyatt found some millstones which are common all over Turkey and the ME and claimed they were anchor stones for the Ark.

Durupinar - Noah’s Ark Search
www.noahsarksearch.com/resources/durupinar
As the current view goes, Durupinar is no longer the actual remains of Noah’s Ark where Ron Wyatt stated it contained trainloads of wood inside of the formation, but rather Durupinar is an imprint at the location where Noah’s Ark stopped after the 500 foot long boat slid down the hill several thousand feet via a geologic flow which amazingly, did not turn the boat over or destroy its shape whatsoever.

 

[sooda]

You're assuming that the photo was taken in a deep part of the Red Sea, the lighting suggests that it wasn't.

LOLOL.. Its a myth .. If there were chariot wheels in shallow water the Egyptians or the Saudis would have retrieved them. The drop off in Nuweiba is nearly vertical.. How do you think Moses got three million people and their herds straight down and across? Think!

 

[columbus]

Ego, probably.

That's what it looks like to me as well.
People so convinced that they are smart and motivated and educated enough to understand God.
Tom

 

[sooda]

But you are a sore loser.


Why would anyone believe that?
Pointing out that there's evidence to support the Biblical account of the Red Sea crossing doesn't make me gullible.

 

[Ebionite]

There was no global flood, theo..

You were there when it didn't happen?

LOLOL.. Its a myth .. If there were chariot wheels in shallow water the Egyptians or the Saudis would have retrieved them.

You have full knowledge of the diving habit of the Egyptions and Saudis as well !?!

Tell me more about Ron Wyatt's Walmart fish finder, and how coral randomly forms shapes that look like a wheel attached to an axle.

 

[Ebionite]

That's what it looks like to me as well.
People so convinced that they are smart and motivated and educated enough to understand God.
Tom

As far as I can tell the God construct is based on real historical interactions between deity and mankind, but has so much attached doctrine and ambiguity that it's of little value for communicating anything more than religion.

 

[columbus]

As far as I can tell the God construct is based on real historical interactions between deity and mankind,

Which God?
Hindu? Muslim? Shinto? Christian? Jewish?

Which God had "real historical interactions" with humans?
Tom

 

[night912]

So someone in the year 3500 writes a story about the year 2000
and they describe a nation called America and a city called New
York. It's fairly detailed, but yeah, it's just a story. We all "know'
there never was a place called America, let alone a huge city
on the East Coast called New York with 20 million people and
a giant statue in the harbor.
And then someone stumbles upon the city, and the statue.
Wait a minute.... didn't someone write a well known fiction
account of New York and the culture of the people? How did
they get it so accurate?
That's the situation with the bible.
At the moment it's the cultic center of Shiloh which is coming
to light - destroyed by the Phillistines, home of the ark of the
covenant of the tabernacle which the Hebrews employed in
the wilderness on their journey to Israel.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of "myth." A myth is a story. Your example about New York and America is evidence of you not knowing what is a myth. You start out by saying someone writing a story about the year 2000. Then you talked about New York and America. The myth is about the year 2000 and not the city and country.

So the "Exodus myth" is the story about Moses and how he lead his people out of Egypt. The myth is not about Egypt. There can evidence of a place called Egypt as described in Exodus, but doesn't make that story historically true if there is no evidence of Moses and his people being slaves in Egypt and of their journey traveling out of Egypt. Information about the land is not evidence for the Exodus story. Evidence are information that support the event(s) that took place.

In the example of the Spiderman myth, it's about him being a hero in New York, and not New York itself. So if 2000 years from now, archeologists find the ruins of an ancient city fitting the city's description, that's not evidence for the myth of the hero named Spiderman. That's the difference between information being evidence supporting the myth(story) and information not does not support the myth(story).

Today we have evidence to support that was a ship that sunk into the bottom of the ocean. That doesn't mean that it's evidence for the event when Rose choosing not move over just a bit so that Jack could climb on the board, and didn't had to freeze to death. That's what is known today as being the genre called, "historical fiction."

 

[PruePhillip]

Apparently you don't know the meaning of "myth." A myth is a story. Your example about New York and America is evidence of you not knowing what is a myth. You start out by saying someone writing a story about the year 2000. Then you talked about New York and America. The myth is about the year 2000 and not the city and country.

So the "Exodus myth" is the story about Moses and how he lead his people out of Egypt. The myth is not about Egypt. There can evidence of a place called Egypt as described in Exodus, but doesn't make that story historically true if there is no evidence of Moses and his people being slaves in Egypt and of their journey traveling out of Egypt. Information about the land is not evidence for the Exodus story. Evidence are information that support the event(s) that took place.

In the example of the Spiderman myth, it's about him being a hero in New York, and not New York itself. So if 2000 years from now, archeologists find the ruins of an ancient city fitting the city's description, that's not evidence for the myth of the hero named Spiderman. That's the difference between information being evidence supporting the myth(story) and information not does not support the myth(story).

Today we have evidence to support that was a ship that sunk into the bottom of the ocean. That doesn't mean that it's evidence for the event when Rose choosing not move over just a bit so that Jack could climb on the board, and didn't had to freeze to death. That's what is known today as being the genre called, "historical fiction."

Read this three times and not sure if we are on the same page.
Yesterday I read about Pliny's account of the eruption of Vesuvius.
Pliny wrote something that was not believed until recently - it's
called "pyroclastic flow"
This adds credibility to the Vesuvius account - not that it happened
but that Pliny, writing 20 years after, was more accurate than some
thought.

With excavations at Shiloh we have added credibility there was a
cultic center there, and that the priests were sacrificing in the way
they were instructed to in Leviticus - one of the Exodus books.
A bit like Pliny.

We are missing tons about the ancient world. Until recently the
story of Edom's population was not believed. And slowly, towns
and structures from Israel monarchical days are coming to light.
We have no evidence for Hebrew slavery - I accept that, but with
the caveat that any Egyptian archaeologist digging up Hebrew
relics might need a change in career. This happens even in our
Western culture.

Absence of evidence doesn't' render something a "myth" but
that it has "qualities of myth." Only the Hebrews admitted to
once being slaves.

 

[night912]

Read this three times and not sure if we are on the same page.
Yesterday I read about Pliny's account of the eruption of Vesuvius.
Pliny wrote something that was not believed until recently - it's
called "pyroclastic flow"
This adds credibility to the Vesuvius account - not that it happened
but that Pliny, writing 20 years after, was more accurate than some
thought.

So let us compare it. The pyroclastic flow does not give credibility to whether or not the eruption occurred. It gives credibility to what occurred as described by Pliny. His description is part of the "story," detailing the event. If he hadn't written it down, the pyroclastic flow would be irrelevant information and is not evidence for the eruption.

With excavations at Shiloh we have added credibility there was a
cultic center there, and that the priests were sacrificing in the way
they were instructed to in Leviticus - one of the Exodus books.
A bit like Pliny.

The difference here is that the excavations at Shiloh shows nothing about the Exodus story. And certainly not Leviticus because it's basically an instruction manual. But in context to the story, what is considered as evidence would be things showing Moses telling his people the commands of god. There's no evidence to support that that event took place as in the story. But the most important thing here is that there's no findings of animal sacrifice being done by the Israelites. What you are referring to, are findings for the Caananites. Those all date to the caananite period, before the arrival of the Israelites.

We are missing tons about the ancient world. Until recently the
story of Edom's population was not believed. And slowly, towns
and structures from Israel monarchical days are coming to light.
We have no evidence for Hebrew slavery - I accept that, but with
the caveat that any Egyptian archaeologist digging up Hebrew
relics might need a change in career. This happens even in our
Western culture.

This goes back to the Spiderman in New York example. Just because the city exist, it doesn't mean that Spiderman exist. It all comes down to the story. If we found evidence that Jesus existed and that he was beheaded instead of being crucified, then that would make the myth story of Jesus being crucified, wrong. It never happened. The significance of this in relation to information being considered as evidence is important. There may be some details that were true, but the story itself is false. So any information regarding the existence of Jesus is irrelevant and therefore dismiss as not being evidence. Only information regarding him being crucified can be use as evidence to support his crucifixion.

Absence of evidence doesn't' render something a "myth" but
that it has "qualities of myth." Only the Hebrews admitted to
once being slaves.

Again, you are showing your ignorance of what is a myth. Myths are tradition stories of certain groups or culture that has been passed down. They concerning about truth. Myths doesn't automatically mean that they are not true. And parts of the stories may have been true while some were not true. All religious scriptures from all religions are equally treated as myths. It's not about being a myth or not, they're all are. It's whether they are true or not, that matters. Absent of evidence does not necessarily render them as being false, but they are also not true as well.

False = wrong/did not happened
Not true = unsolved/mystery/I don't know
True = right/did happened

 

[Ebionite]

Which God?
Hindu? Muslim? Shinto? Christian? Jewish?

Which God had "real historical interactions" with humans?
Tom

Like I said, as soon as you use the word "God" you're pretty much unable to communicate meaningfully.