Ron Wyattと同類だと思われたくない創造論者たち

Ron Wyatt[1999年死去]とは何者か?

wiki:Ron Wyattによれば、聖書の重要な地点や人工物を発見したと主張する、論争のまととなる自称考古学者である。

Ron WyattのサイトWyatt Archaeological Researchが主張するところでは:


Israel Antiquities AuthorityのJoe Ziasは1996年8月に[Source]:

Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It's amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been throughly discredited by various Christian organizations such as Creation Research in Calif.

Ron Wyattは考古学者でもなければ、イスラエルやエルサレムで法的に公認された発掘もしたことがない。発掘するには、少なくとも考古学の学士である必要ががる。彼はそうだと主張しているが、彼は考古学の学士を取得していない。我々は、彼の主張が不条理なものであり、まったく科学的基礎を持っておらず、学術誌に論文を載せたこともないことを知っている。それらは、National EnquirerやSunのようなタブロイド紙に載っているようなゴミ箱カテゴリに入るものだ。誰かが彼を信じるなど驚きだ。

1986年にRon Wyattの箱舟調査にに同行したDr. Baumgardnerは1996年9月に[source]:
Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form. My position on the many other claims and questions is accurately represented in the article in the September 1992 issue of Creation Magazine, Volume 14, Number 4, entitled 'Amazing Ark Expose' by Dr. Andrew Snelling that critiqued assertions by Ron Wyatt, David Fasold, and others that the site indeed contained remains of the Ark. I refer people on the CRSnet who are interested in the controversy to this article. The footage of me in the video that has been shown several times on U.S. and British television during the last three years reflects my early enthusiasm about the possibility of a connection of the site with Noah's Ark, but it does not accurately represent my very firm conclusions reached after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in 1987 and 1988. I realize this answer is brief, but I hope it is clear I am convinced the remains of the Ark must be somewhere else, that such remains are emphatically _not_ associated with this boat-shaped formation. The central claims Wyatt and Fasold have been making about the site are bogus.

Durupinarサイト[トルコにあるノアの箱舟のような地形]についての私のポジションは、我々が1988年に行ったコアドリルによって、私に関する限り問題は解決した。サイトは自然にできたもので、それ以上何もない。いまも地形の内部に残っている、舟形の岩のまわりに流れた泥によって出来たものだ。私のポジションは、あのサイトがノアの箱舟の残骸を実際に残しているというRon WyattやDavid Fasoldたちの根拠なき主張を批判した、Dr. Andrew Snellingによる'Amazing Ark Expose'と題した Creation Magazineの1992年9月号 v14n4で正確に示されている。この記事に異論のあるCRSnet上の人々に触れておこう。この3年間に何度か米国と英国のテレビで放映されたビデオで私は、ノアの箱舟とあのサイトが関連する可能性への熱意を表していた。しかし、1987年と1988年にあのサイトで実行した広範囲な地球物理学的調査の後での、私の断固たる結論を表現したものではない。答えは簡単だが、私は箱舟の残骸がどこかにあると確信していることは明らかだが、それは決して、舟形をしていない。あのサイトについてのWyattとFasoltの中心的主張はまったくのまがいものだ。
さらに続けて、ジョージア州Graysvilleに住むJoel Davenportとの一問一答を載せている:

1. Did you witness evidence of the metal rivets in this "igneous rock?"

--none whatsoever.

I have seen pictures of these rivets and wonder, based on what you state above, if they're from another site or from that location. Do you have any comments on that?

--I am almost 100% certain that Ron 'planted' them.





2. As a layman, it sure looks like petrified wood that he found (and I've seen a sample of it in Nashville). Is it your contention that Ron Wyatt fabricated this evidence or that he brought it from another location?

--Yes. I have spent weeks at this site and never once saw any sample that even remotely resembled petrified wood.

素人として、それは確かに彼が見つけた石化された木のように見えます。そして、私はナッシュビルでそれのサンプルを見ました。その木はRon Wyattがこの証拠をでっち上げた、あるいは、別の場所から持ち込んだというのがあなたの論ですか?


3. Are the "beams" (or "rib timbers") which I have seen in the video and on pictures not actual formations there at the site?

--The dark, weather-resistant rocks are genuine parts of the formation. They are of igneous composition. Calling them "beams" or "rib timbers" is something that comes from (Wyatt's) human imagination.



4. Do you believe that the object at that site, which you yourself have tested, is a natural phenomenom, or is it man-made? (I ask you this as an expert in your field.)

--it is the natural product of a geological process (a catastrophic mud slide)

And if so, were there not metal rivets throughout the object?

--absolutely not!





5. Were you misquoted or misrepresented in David Fasold's book which quoted you as testing the brackets and finding them at regular intervals throughout the formation?

--One sample we collected in June of 1985 was mostly iron oxide. But this was the only sample of this kind ever found there. And there was nothing about it to argue that it was not natural, especially given the fact that the underlying rock formation is a strip of igenous seafloor.

ブラケットを検査して、あの形状を通して一定間隔であると言ったというあなたの言葉を引用したDavid Fasoldの本の引用は歪曲ですか?


6. Was the article in that Fasold quotes in his book just a fabrication of David Fasold, or did you really "using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals. Baumgardner says he believes that metal is at the points where these lines intersect, giving rise to the speculation metal was used in the infrastructure of this craft?"

--The method was a type of dowsing that David Fasold introduced and I naively copied. Upon discerning what it was, I forsook it.

Fasoldの本の引用の記事が、David Fasoldの創作だったとするなら、あなたは本当に「金属探知機を使って、Baumgardnerは一定の間隔で金属の存在を確かめることができました。Baumgardnerは彼が金属がこれらの線が交差する点にあり、この構造物の内部構造に推定される金属が使われたことを示していると思っている。」

−方法はDavid Fasoldが言い出した一種のダウジングでした。そして、私は素朴にコピーしました。それがダウジングであるとわかったとき、即座に、私はそれを見捨てました。

Ron Wyattと同類だと思われたくない創造論者たち

Ken Hamが主宰する"若い地球の創造論"サイトAnswers in GenesisはRon Wyattを徹底して批判している。

==> Answers in Genesis: Has the Ark of the Covenant been found? And Noah’s Ark? Pharaoh’s drowned army? What about the Garden of Eden?
==> Special report: Amazing ‘Ark’ exposé

==>忘却からの帰還:創造論者が使ってはいけないRon Wyattのノアの箱舟 by AIG
==> 忘却からの帰還:擬似考古学者Wyattを斬る"若い地球の創造論"サイトAiG


The Wyatt/Gray claims are truly astonishing. Unfortunately, reputable Bible-believing archaeologists and other experts willing and capable of giving an objective assessment are never able to check out the claimed artifacts. There is generally a plausible-sounding story as to why that is impossible, or why the time is not right. The alleged finding of the Ark of the Covenant is associated with claims of supernatural intervention, photographs mysteriously getting fogged or vanishing, and ‘Men in Black’ style government cover-ups.

Wyatt/Grayの主張は本当に驚くべきものだ。しかし、残念なことに、評価の高い、聖書を信じる考古学者やその他の専門家たちなど、客観的な評価をする意志も能力もある人々は、決してその主張された人工物を検査できない。通常、それが不可能であるか、時間が正しくないというもっともらしく聞こえる説明が為されている。契約の櫃の発見という主張は、超自然的な介入があったり、写真が不思議とくもっていたり、なくなったり、"Men in Black"のような政府の隠蔽があったりという主張が伴っている。

Are the claims true? If they are, such a staggeringly impressive list would mean that Ron Wyatt had been almost as miraculously assisted by God as the patriarch Moses. If, however, a careful examination of just one or two of these claims reveals them to be false, fanciful or fraudulent, the ‘divine leading’ option evaporates, and it is clear that Christians are being seriously misled.



さらに、創造論者であり、Los Alamosの研究者でもあるDr Baumgardnerとのインタビューを掲載している:

[CM]: We published a careful expose of the claims made by a Ron Wyatt, and more recently by one Jonathan Gray, concerning an alleged ‘Ark site’an almond-shaped formation in Eastern Turkey. In trying to attack our article, they often quote statements from you supporting this possibly being the Ark site. This was before your research at the site caused you to definitely conclude this could not be the Ark. They say you now oppose their claims for fear of losing your job.

私たちは、トルコ東部のアーモンドの形をした構造物を根拠なく"箱舟サイト"とするRon Wyattや最近のJonathan Grayによる主張を慎重な暴露する記事を発表しました。私たちの記事を攻撃しようとして、彼らはしばしば箱舟サイトかもしれないという、あなたのステートメントを引用しています。これは、あたたに箱舟ではないと決定的に結論させたサイトでの調査以前のもです。彼らは、自分が職を失うのを怖れて、彼らの主張に反対しているのだといっています。

[JB]: Ron’s claims here are just as bogus as his claims about that site. Far from hiding my creationism, I’m well known for it (especially through letters in the local newspaper) in this scientific community, which has more Ph.D.s per capita than any other place in the U.S. My employer and my colleagues know exactly where I stand.



創造科学のかつの本拠地Institute for Creation ResearchのDr. John D. Morrisも徹底して否定している:

  • On my two field studies and the investigations by many others, and in the microscopic study of samples gathered at the site, no petrified wood has been found. The rock types are somewhat exotic, but I have found neither wood nor cemented reeds. (By the way, petrified woods from before the Flood do have tree rings. Evidently, while the seasons may not have been as pronounced, they were sufficient to produce rings in the woody trees, as is obvious by studying petrified wood from numerous geologic layers.)

  • The reliable subsurface tests do show distinct buried layers, but core drilling identified these layers as rock surfaces natural to the area.

  • The drogue stones are found at some distance from the site, the nearest one, to my knowledge, being fourteen miles away. They are not dissimilar to many tombstones in the area, and are currently found in graveyards.

  • The metal "fittings" are a serious overstatement. Much metallic ore is present in the surrounding hillsides and on the site. Furthermore, igneous cobbles are frequently present, which contain high concentrations of naturally occurring magnetic minerals. A metal detector will indicate this high concentration, which could be mistaken for a metal object. The sporadic cobbles were not found in a straight line, according to those present at the time, but ribbons connecting the locations of these cobbles did obviously appear in a line. Subsequent metal-detector surveys by several independent parties, including Baumgardner, have not discerned any pattern.


なお、Dr. Baumgardnerの発言として、Dr. John D Morrisが:
Although formerly convinced that this formation was probably the remains of the Ark, Dr Baumgardner now believes there is less than a 10 percent chance that anything man-made is present.

この構造物が箱舟の残骸だろうと納得していたDr. Baumgardnerは、今では何らかの人工物が存在する可能性は10%もないと言っている。

と書いているが、上述のようにDr. Baumgardnerはメールやインタビューで、Ron Wyattの主張を完全否定している。まあ、ちょっとゆるめにDr. John D. Morrisは書いてしまったのかもしれない。
とはいっても普通の英語では「there is less than a 10 percent chance that anything man-made is present.」というのは、"ありえねえ"と言っているに等しいのだが。


たまには、この状況でもRon Wyattを持ち上げている人々もいる。

Seventh Day Adventistsの信者にして、創造説再評価HPの主宰者
==> http://homepage3.nifty.com/newSDA/hyatt.htm



posted by Kumicit at 2006/08/22 01:21 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Creationism | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]