Posted by Covert [CovertXJW] on April 09, 1999 at 05:45:11 {qzNMJDwJ.2Rsyhp1gUYkyRXgo.3W/s}:
Hiya, Godfroi. I don't know why, but it seems like you've had a recent surge of religious zealousness, and I'm wondering if a recent event in your life triggered it. I got this impression after looking at your recent posts about the flood account and creationism... I could be wrong...
I also took the time to check out that site you provided a link to. I wasn't very surprised... While Mr. Wyatt may have meant well (I personally doubt it), he certainly does
a good job of shooting himself in the foot. For example, under the heading "Understanding the Remains of Noah's Ark," he elaborates on how the common notion of the Ark landing on Mt. Ararat is wrong, and that there is no evidence for it
whatsoever.
What I found amusing is that contrary to the chagrin of Mr. Wyatt, the Bible clearly states that the Ark's final resting place was Mt. Ararat according to Genesis 8:4.
"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." (AV)
So, um, basically what this self-proclaimed "Christian" is saying is that the Bible is wrong... I wonder how Mr. Wyatt gets around this? :o)
Also, he denounces the Mt. Ararat argument because, quote: "...not a single sighting is accompanied by any evidence."
Now, I'll agree that the alleged sightings of the ark are either false or highly doctored-up, but this doesn't disprove that the ark didn't land there. After all, according to Mr. Wyatt's words, Ararat would have effectively destroyed the evidence! So, how can he really dismiss it on those premises?
If you're interested in the "con" as well as the "pro" in regards to the flood account, I've provided a link at the bottom of the page for your benefit. Let me know what you think.
Covert