The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

There is evidence for Noah's flood narrative

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 48243
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Genesis 6:13 13 " And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. "

The Hebrew word for Earth in this passage is most often used for a local land, not the whole planet (1). Thus, Noah's flood was a local disaster, not a global one. Not all animals and humans on the globe were killed. In this debate, i will present scientific, archaeological, and historical evidence to prove that Noah's flood narrative is factual.

There is evidence for a great Catastrophic flood in the last ice. William Ryan and Walter Pitman presented evidence that there was a great flood in the Black Sea about 56000 B.C through the Bosophorus (2). Though some would argue that it's unlikely to rain for 40 days and nights as recorded in the Bible, however in Texas, there was an incident of a flood and rain which occurred during the length of 45 days (3).

In the mountains of Ararat, the size of an ark was discovered in ice and volcanic rock (see 1st link below). According to Ron Wyatt and his team. A team of Geologists scanned the ground using radar and found that there was a man-made structure under the ground. The proportions were measured and were found to match exact the measurements described in the Bible.

A report by Galbraith Laboratories on the material found at the site show that it is man-made, not natural elements. The report can be found here:

According to Dr. Bill Shea, an Archaeologist, he found an ancient piece of pottery having a bird, a fish, and a man with a hammer with the name "Noah" on it.

Animal dung, petrified antler, and cat's hair were found, suggesting that animals were living on the Ark. Large stones were found several miles from the Ark. Some stood straight and others were lying down. They weighed several tons and had holes carved into them. Scientists determined they were anchors used in the ancient world as many were made of stone (4).

The ancient historian Berossus (275 B.C) writes "...grounded in Armenia some part still remains in the mountains of the Gordyaeans in Armenia, and some get pitch from the ship by scraping off, and use it for amulets."

Josephus (50 A.D) mentions the Ark of Noah 3 times in "The Antiquates of the Jews". 1 was when a group was afraid to come from the mount to Mesopotamia because of another flood. He writes about the time when Noah left the Ark:

".. after he had staid seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark; and both he and his family went out, when he also sacrificed to God, and feasted with his companions. However, the Armenians call this place, The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.." (Antiquities 3:5)

When writing about other authors, He writes:

"The Armenians call that spot the Landing-Place, for it was there that the Ark came safe to land, and they show the relics of it to this day. This flood and the Ark are mentioned by all who have written histories of the barbarians. Among these is Berosus the Chaldean, who in his description of the events of the flood writes somewhere as follows: 'It is said, moreover, that a portion of the vessel still survives in Armenia on the mountains of the Gordyaens, and that persons carry off pieces of bitumen, which they use as talismans.' These matters are also mentioned by Hieronymus the Egyptian, author of the ancient history of Phoenicia, by Mnaseas and by many others. Nicholas of Damascus in his ninety-sixth book relates the story as follows: 'There is above the country of the Minyas in Armenia a great mountain called Baris, where, as the story goes, many refugees found safety at the time of the flood, and one man, transported upon an ark, grounded upon the summit: and relics of the timber were for long preserved.' (Antiquities 3.6 1.93-95)

"... the country called Carrae: it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also in it the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them" (Antiquities 20.1.2 (20.24-25)

Nicholas of Damscus writes:

" "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote."

Theopilus of Antioch in early christian writings of his letter to Autolycus, he writes:

"And of the Ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains" (Book 3 Chap. XIX)

Epiphanius of Salamis writes:

"Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point, when even to this day the remains of Noah's Ark are shown in the country of the Kurds? Why, were one to search diligently, doubtless one would also find at the foot of the mountain the remnants of the altar where Noah, on leaving the Ark, tarried to offer clean and fatly animals as a sacrifice to the Lord God"

He mentions the location of Noah's Ark in other writings and in "The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis book 1 2:1, he writes

" After the flood, since Noah"s ark had come to rest in the highlands of Ararat between Armenia and Cardyaei on the mountain called Lubar,1 the first human settlement following the flood was made there. And there the prophet Noah planted a vineyard and became the original settler of the site."

C John Chrysostom writes in "Homilies of Thessolonians, 8

"Do not the mountains of Armenia testify to it, where the Ark rested? And are not the remains of the Ark preserved there to this very day for our admonition"

Isidore of Seville writes in "Chronicon":

" Ararat is a mountain in Armenia, where the historians testify that the Ark came to rest after the Flood. So even to this day wood remains of it are to be seen there"

Jehan Haithon writes:

"Upon the snows of Ararat a black speck is visible at all times: this is Noah's Ark" (5)

Adam Olearius in "Voyages and travels of the Ambassadors" writes:

"The Armenians, and the Persians themselves, are of opinion that there are still upon the said mountain some remainders of the Ark, but that Time hath so hardened them, that they seem absolutely petrify'd. At Schamachy in Media Persia, we were shown a Crosse of a black and hard Wood, which the Inhabitants affirmed to have been made of the Wood of the Ark"

According to an account of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, he climbed Jabal Judi in order to see Noah's Ark. This is taken from Historia Saracenica 1:1

"Heraclius then came to the village of Thamanin (where Noah, of pious memory, built his Ark and afterward came out from it), and in order for him to see the place of the Ark, he ascended the mountain of Al-Judi, which rises above all these lands, for it is very high. (my trans.)"

Benjamin of Tudela, a 12th century historian writes in his work "the travels of Benjamin Tudela":

"I traveled two days to Jezireh BenOmar (modern Cizre), an island in the Tigris, at the foot of Mt. Ararat...on which the Ark of Noah rested. Omar Ben al-Khatab removed the Ark from the summit of the two mountains and made a mosque of it." (Pg. 402)

Marco Polo wrote in his work "The travels":

"In the heart of Greater Armenia is a very high mountain , shaped like a cube (or cup), on which Noah's ark is said to have rested, whence it is called the Mountain of Noah's Ark. It [the mountain] is so broad and long that it takes more than two days to go around it. On the summit the snow lies so deep all the year round that no one can ever climb it; this snow never entirely melts, but new snow is for ever falling on the old, so that the level rises."

Dr. Friedrich Parrot wrote in his work "Journey to Ararat" (pg. 162)

"all the Armenians are firmly persuaded that Noah's ark remains to this very day on the top of Ararat, and that, in order to preservation, no human being is allowed to approach it"

These are several of many historical accounts of Noah's Ark, thus making it less likely for the Ark to be a hoax and more likely to be authentic.

Dr. Arthur Brandonburger, professor of Photogrammetry examined photos several ancient foundations and found ruins being excavated, possibly a human settlement. An altar was also found, believed to be built by Noah.

This is all powerful evidence that Noah's flood narrative is highly accurate.

Sources & Links:

Noah's Ark discovery

1. Gleason Archer, Survey of OT Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1964), 194.

2. Ryan and Pitman 1997.


4. Johnstone, Paul and McGrail, Se"n (1989). The sea-craft of prehistory. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-02635-2, p.82.

5. Jehan Haithon (13th century) as cited by Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Legends of the Patriarchs and Prophets, Hurst and Co., New York, p. 142, n.d.; in LaHaye and Morris, p. 22.


My position is that there is currently no evidence for the flood narrative as described in the Bible. There are elements of the story which might be based on real life events for example floods, people in boats, etc. However, we have to be careful to not jump to conclusions and assume that the story itself is true because there was a flood.

Pro brings evidence of two kinds.

1. Ron Wyatt and the Durupınar site.
2. Writings about the ark.

The Ron Wyatt account has been analyzed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars [1] and they have concluded that his claims and have concluded that the site is simply a geological formation.

In 1985 David Fasold went to the site with geophysics John Baumgardner they were at first excited that the site might be the ark. They conducted more expeditions to the site later in the 90s. They then started to change their mind and conclude that the site is not a petrified boat, but simply a natural formation[2].

Fasold wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins about the site and how it is not the ark. [3] The title of their research paper is "Bogus "Noah's" Ark from Turkey exposed as a common geological structure".

Ron Wyatt used something called a "Molecular Frequency Generator" which is essentially a dowsing rod, to conclude that the ark was below ground.[4] Fasold tried to replicate Wyatt's results and this is what he wrote:

"...A great deal of effort was put into repeating the radar measurements acquired in 1986 by Wyatt and Fasold. . . .After numerous attempts over a period of one and a half days we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way. . . I was never convinced the site was the remains of Noah's Ark. In fact the more time I spent on the site, the more skeptical I became."

The second part of Pro's strategy is to present as much writing as possible from ancient times about the ark. However, these texts alone are not evidence of the ark. They are not first hand accounts of what happened. The texts he references are written by people living thousands of years after the estimated time Noah lived. They tell accounts of people claiming to have seen the ark, or claiming that a certain site is where the ark has landed. This is not evidence of the story, these are just rumors of the ark being there. If the Wyatt account is not valid, and there have been other claims about the ark being found [5]. We cannot assume that the accounts of ancient writers are solid evidence that the story of the ark happened as described in the bible.

Debate Round No. 1


While it is true that David Fasold was skeptical about the site, according to Wikiquote and Wikipedia, he later changed his views and believed that it was Noah's Ark before he died (1).

I will respond to several objections made in the article in It says:

"Reality: 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."

This statement is false. According to Wikipedia, Metal-detectors are used by Archaeologists to search for artifacts.

"Claim: The pattern of 'iron lines' that was located by the metal detecting surveys and marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar surveys.

Reality: This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat, namely Noah's Ark."

This site claims that this is false, however gives no reason for why it is false.

"..A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) indeed found 'hot spots,' but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines.."

While yes it is true that the team used metal-detectors to survey the place, they then used Ground-Penetrating Radar to scan the object.

"These walls are simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel."

According to geologists, the object is encased by an outer shell of mud which explains why locals reported of a "sudden appearance" of the object.

"It is true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils. "

This is true, however Dr. William Shea, professor of Archaeology and history wrote:

"The formation was struck by an earthquake in December of 1978. As a result it was cracked lengthwise and partially split open. This opening made it possible for Wyatt to obtain relatively fresh internal soil samples from it when he returned to the site in September of 1979. In a test run on this sample, along with another sample taken from the field outside of the formation, the organic carbon content was measured. The soil from the formation tested at 4.95% while the soil from the field around the formation tested at 1.88%. This degree of difference is consistent with the prior presence of some organic matter (like wood) in the formation."

The degree of minerals found in Noah's Ark is different from that of natural minerals found in soil.

"No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these 'trainloads' of petrified wood. Geologist Dr. Bayraktutan has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood."

This claim is false. Reg Lyle was a team member and a geologist. He writes:

The object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers " I really need to keep an open mind about this."

This has been tested in labs and confirmed to be petrified wood (2). Moreover, it's only Geologist Bayraktutan's opinion that come from another place.

"No sample containing pitch has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses."

Tests done on the pitch samples by Galbraith labs show that it has been submitted for proper scientific analysis.

"No microscope thin section has been produced to show whether the samples collected and claimed to be slag do in fact have the internal texture and mineral composition of a true slag."

According to a recent publication by Mary Nell Wyant on shows that microscopic inspections were made and that it was a man-made structure.

Con misuses the term rumor. A rumor can be described as a story, maybe exaggerated and circulating in society, however the writings presented were written by historians and professionals, not mere locals. Thus it is inaccurate to call these writings rumors of the Ark. Con misrepresents the argument being given. I did not use these writings to prove that Noah's flood narrative as a whole is true, since in the 1st half of the argument i presented evidence to support the flood.

Sources & links:

1. Dawes, June (2000). Noah's Ark: Adrift in Dark Waters. Belrose, NSW: Noahide


2. Howse B.S., Noah"s Ark? For Real,


ergodicsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


What fails to point out is that there are no sources given to back up their claims. The claim is that 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." No sources, names of scientists, etc. were given to back up their claims.

Ron Wyatt used a device he called "Molecular frequency generator." Although this would appear to be fake, according to Mary Wyatt's site (1), this device has been verified to be professional. Terry Johnson is the electrical engineer who tested this device and explained how it works and Cochran and Associates bowling green, Ky manufactured it. It costs $6500. Ray Brubaker asked an electrical engineer in 1988 to research about Ron Wyatt's device and wrote the following:

"The device is essentially a frequency generator (Ron's first was a HeathKit) that is linked with a frequency counter - this enables the user to set different frequencies for the different types of metal the user wishes to locate. The signal is then amplified and propagated electromagnetically through the ground."

This was also used by H.G heranimus.

There are several objections presented to discredit this finding, however, according to, a newsletter presents scientific analysis to confirm it's validity (2).

According to NATO survey of the site in the 1950's, it is claimed "...this particular boat-shape is far from unique. The Turkish Air Force released another photograph several years ago showing three similar boat-shapes in the mudflow material on the footslopes of nearby Lesser Mount Ararat."

Every inch was scanned at high altitude, thus it could be determined if missiles moved from the Soviet and Russian base to the current area by examining current photos with earlier ones. Dr. Arthur Brandenburger, a geophysicist of Los Alamos national lab.s in new Mexico said ""I have no doubt at all that the object is a ship. In my entire career I have never seen an object like this in a stereo photo" (Rene Noorbergen's "The Ark file).

Brandenburger and his team surveyed the site again and he said:

"We feel the formation is quite unique. There's several formations that have a superficially similar shape and we've investigated several of them. And they, uh, as we investigate them, we find they do not have the special characteristics we find in the site we've been focusing on.."

According to the Christian broadcast network, Brandenburger was able to confirm that there was a man-made structure under ground:

"...Using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals."

It's also claimed that the metal readings were random.

In the newspaper article "Noah's Ark found?" The reporter wrote:

"Showing aerial slides which showed a striking boat-like shape, Baumgardner noted the Americans found an organized pattern of metal at the 6,300 foot elevation site with the aid of metal detectors. 'For me, it was quite an amazing discovery to find the pattern of metal..'

A video tape of the 1985 field expeditions including David fasold, Ron Wyatt, and Brandenburger himself using the metal detector and confirming that there was a man-made structure.

According to the article "Archaeologist is certain he's found the ark" on August 3,1986, Apendix H says that GSSI sent out information packets interested in the sub-surface radar scanners. The article also says:

"Although Rosetta would not reveal his opinion about Wyatt's claim, he said of the buried object, ~You'd never see anything like that in natural geology....Some human made this structure, whatever it is."

Another ad of GSSI radar says:

"GSSI systems have traveled to Egypt to search for underground tombs 4,000 years old, to Turkey to locate the true resting place of Noah's Ark, and to the Arabian peninsula to find the site of an ancient city that was a spice-trading center.."

Joe Rosetta writes:

"This data is not, does not represent natural geology- its a man-made structure. These reflections are occurring very periodic, too periodic to be random natural-type interfaces."

It is also claimed that the rivets are basalt.

According to a lab report by Teledyne Allvac, the paragraph reads:

"It is interesting to note that location 1 (presumably fossilized timber members) was found to contain much higher carbon (- 1.9%) than location 2 (presumably fossilized metal)."

A sample was taken from the actual rivet and tested twice, showing carbon content around .14 and 13.% and another sample was taken around the metal having carbon content of 1.88-1.97% in 2 tests. This is 15 times more carbon than the 1 cm adjacent to it.

It's claimed that numerous of scientists examined the anchor stones and discovered them to be made by the Armenians, however no names and no evidence was given to verify this claim. In a video, ultraviolet paint was used to photograph the cracks not visible to the human eye. Kodak of Rochester sent complete information on the procedure. The team used a special light for viewing the stones with ultraviolet sensitive liquid on the stones. Egyptiologists have used this process when checking for earlier inscriptions on ancient Egyptian monuments. The liquid seeps into microscopic cracks. No evidence showed that there was an earlier defacement as skeptics claim.

One of the Anchorstones Ron found partially buried in the earth is becoming visible. There are 3 of these in existence and none have crosses inscribed on them with holes at the top of them. This is evidence that the Armenians did not fabricate these stones. The crosses engraved on these stones are of Byzantine and Crusader markings. The upright stone in the village of Kazan has more than 8 crosses on it. When they are examined closely, the crosses were engraved at a later date as the algae isn't growing on these later crosses as it does with the original ones.

Dr. Baumgardner and Bayraktutan have attempted to prove that this site wasn't Noah's ark, however according to one of his newsletters, it says "Another notable discovery was the presence at three locations in the mudflow layer of nodules of the bright yellow mineral limonite. Limonite is a hydrated oxide of iron, and its occurrence in this environment appears to be anomalous. Just how anomalous is the crucial question, since the minerals in the rocks in the source area of the mudflow have a moderate iron content. However, during the months now that I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay. Because earlier investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in the site, these occurrences of limonite are of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."

Sources & Links:




Pro claims that gives no references for this claim that the gadget used was not scientific. However Pro failed to notice that this was not actually claim made by but a direct quote from Andrew Snelling. All that Pro had to do was carefully read the sentence before that said "summarized briefly as follows: " and he can click on the link on Andrew Snelling's name on to read the full article.

Pro then probably accidentally included an article in his sources ( that talks about box that could contain the bones. The rest of his argument is essentially a series of paraphrasing and quoting from the article from written by Mary Wyatt without any references. It is interesting to note that Pro is keen on the need for references when it comes to snopes. However if you look at the article there are no references. Why the double standard?

He takes two topics from the article:

1. The Molecular Frequency Generator
2. The claims of Arthur Brandenburger

The Molecular Frequency Generator

Pro attempts to make it seems as the "Molecular Frequency Generator" is legitimate. He claims that it has been verified to be "professional". If you do a simple google search on "Molecular Frequency Generator" you will find several sites that describe how these devices are claim too work. Here is an explanation of why they seem to work:

Even in Pro's link they describe the device as follows:

"The user receives this electromagnet wave back onto his body. In this device, the human body is used as a living conductor or antenna in the same way your reception improves when you touch the rabbit ears or antenna contact on the back of your television. The receiver holds in his hands, two wands that attract to each other when the electromagnetic field of his body is disturbed in the proper direction. The human body has two electromagnetic fields- one positive, one negative. In Ron's case, he used a battery and coils to increase this body field. In the "Filter King" device,...the wands are specially selected to be more responsive to the electromagnet disturbance"

You can see that this is describing a dowsing rod. You take the antenna in your hands and the antenna "attract" each other when you find what you were looking for. Here is a more in depth description of what dowsing really is:

Claims of Arthur Brandenburger

Pro incorrectly paraphrases the article. Pro makes the claim: "Dr. Arthur Brandenburger, a geophysicist of Los Alamos national lab.s in new Mexico said ""I have no doubt at all that the object is a ship. In my entire career I have never seen an object like this in a stereo photo"." However, if you read the article carefully you will see that the geophysicist from Los Alamos is not Arthur Brandenburger, but John Baumgardner. Arthur Brandernburger is actually a professor of photogrammetry from Ohio State University.

Pro needs to do a better job at not confusing these people and presenting a clear history of what happened.

According to wikipedia ( Arthur Brandenberger saw photographs of the site and conclude that it was not a man made structure. He later went to the site in the 1960s and found nothing but soil and rocks after blasting. I have tried to find out more about Arthur Brandenberger online but he only mostly comes up in quotes by site claiming that the site is Noah's ark.

In the 80s David Fasold and John Baumgardner the geophysicist. Both David Fasold and John Baumgardner eventually reached the conclusion that the site was not Noah's Ark. In 1996 John Baumgardner wrote a letter explaining his conclusion that the site is just a natural formation (

The fact that Baumgardner conclude that this was not the resting plac of the ark was ommited from the article that Pro linked to. Later Pro quotes from the pilgrimpromo article that Baumgardner wrote in a newsletter in 1988. I ask Pro to give us a link to this newsletter by Baumgardner.
Debate Round No. 3


The sites that i used do give references contrary to what con claimed, the writer tells you where to find the information. Even if you are not convinced that Molecular frequency generators found metal underground at the site, David fasold himself used a metal detector in his video "Field studies" which can be found on youtube. Thus we still have evidence that a man-made structure was found.

This was taken from a newsletter entitled "A search for the Elusive ark" by Dr. John Baumgardner:

"...Between July 28th and August 7th we succeeded, praise God, in drilling four holes to a depth of ten meters and recovered reasonably good cores from each of the holes. Three of the holes were near the centerline of the site while the fourth was near the outer flank of the longitudinal hump....

Another notable discovery was the presence at three locations in the mudflow layer of nodules of the bright yellow mineral limonite. Limonite is the hydrated oxide of iron, and its occurrence in the environment appears to be anomalous. Just how anomalous is the crucial question, since the minerals in the rocks in the source area of the mudflow have a moderate iron content. However, during the months now that I have worked at the site, I have never seen this bright yellow material anywhere in the fissures or exposures in the mudflow clay. Because earlier investigations led us to suspect unusual amounts of iron in the site, these occurrences of limonite are of special interest because they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects.

A final observation concerning the core samples was the absence -- apart from the limonite nodules -- of possible evidence for man-made structure. There was, for example, no evidence for wood, petrified or otherwise. However, core drilling is severely limited in its ability to find buried archaeological structure, especially if it is sparsely distributed and has been significantly altered by decay and chemical weathering."

Con shifts the focus from the evidence presented in round 1 and in the refutations, ignoring the sources which say that David Fasold changed his views on the Ark to what i did or did not present.


ergodicsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Con claims that the device used by Ron is a dosing rod, however Scientific principles were applied to the molecular frequency generator. According to the product review, the Dell systems Geo surveyor uses the concept of harmonic induction to find metals and minerals. It was designed by electronic engineer Vernon Rose. It is very accurate. It uses a magna wave to give more precise readings through antenna. It was designed to utilize soil and/or water to receive wavelengths to up to 1/2 miles. The signals are received through an analyzer which rejects some frequencies and accepts those desired by the user. The Geo-surveyor comes factory programmed to identify or locate silver or gold, but can find 58 other elements.

Two small ground probes were used to conduct a survey. A color-coded transmitter with negative plugs on the face of it. The 2 position switch on the transmitter lets the user set it to search for gold or silver and other elements have been custom programmed. The antennas have a plug connected to the magna wave receiver. Power comes from the 9-volt battery. A battery test on the top of the receiver. The transmitter is powered by 4 C batteries that may be replaced by removing the plastic panel cover on the rear of the transmitter. The user holds the rods which indicate the signal received by the belt mount receiver. The antenna align themselves with the signal. When a target has been found, the operator can adjust it with a rotating anomaly qualified knob mounted on the transmitter face.

As we can see, this device applies Scientific principles. According to the review site below, contact info. has been given in case anyone wants to learn more about the Molecular frequency generator from the company itself. Furthermore, the metal detectors used confirm the presence of a man-made structure underground. John Baumgardner was present when this happened.

We cannot trust John Baumgardner simply because he reached the conclusion that it wasn't the Ark without any solid explanation on his part. He either denies it or hasn't seen the evidence being presented above and in the sources. Baumgardner claims these "ribs" are apart of a natural formation, however this couldn't have been natural for the following reasons. Water flowing from the mountain would create a horizontal mark on the Ark, not vertical by erosion. Secondly, the mudslide more openly revealed the sides of the Ark. Rivets found at the sides of the Ark matching the outer plane of the ribs is evidence that these are ribs.

Ultimately, Ron Wyatt hid nothing, he captured videos and pictures of the Ark, plus allowed the site to be open to further Scientific investigation. There is more evidence given to support that Noah's flood narrative is scientifically, historically, and archaeologically accurate than Con claims.



ergodicsum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF