Credibility of Ron Wyatt's Research

[ElElohe]

First off, have you heard of Ron Wyatt. If not, goto: anchorstone.com.

Secondly, after reading some of his research, how much are you able to believe that he has made these archeological discoveries?

 

[sfs]

First off, have you heard of Ron Wyatt. If not, goto: anchorstone.com.

Secondly, after reading some of his research, how much are you able to believe that he has made these archeological discoveries?

What's lower than zero?

 

[notto]

Their are several reasons to question his "research", including the fact that he is not an archeologist, and often refuses to cooperate with the professionals or listen to them. There are also personal testimonies of those who have worked with him that he is a fraud, conman, and a liar.

In my opinion, he is a con-man, bilking people out of their money.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/526.asp
http://www.ldolphin.org/wyatt1.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/wyattark.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1154.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n2_ark.asp
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm

 

[lucaspa]

First off, have you heard of Ron Wyatt. If not, goto: anchorstone.com.

Secondly, after reading some of his research, how much are you able to believe that he has made these archeological discoveries?

Whether you accept his research or not depends on whether his methodology is accurate and reliable. Also whether his data fits his conclusions. IOW, just like you evaluate any other research. Ikester posted a while back some pictures of Wyatt supposedly discovering the Red Sea crossing. The pictures were clearly fraudulent.

In science, even more than in some areas, once you have been shown to have fraudulent data, you are never really believed again. Fabricating data is the most severe crime within science. Once you cross that line, it's all over for your career.

 

[bagfullofsnakes]

In science, even more than in some areas, once you have been shown to have fraudulent data, you are never really believed again. Fabricating data is the most severe crime within science. Once you cross that line, it's all over for your career.

No question about it.

A "recent" (one year ago) example of this: Element 118

July 17, 2002
Element 118 Dropped from Periodic Table
Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) have formally retracted their claims for the discovery of the most massive chemical element. The synthesis of the "superheavy" element 118, comprising 118 protons and 175 neutrons, was announced in a 1999 paper in Physical Review Letters. The results appeared to confirm theories from the 1970s that predicted heightened stability for nuclei containing around 114 protons and 184 neutrons.
The retraction, published in the current Physical Review Letters, follows failures to reproduce the reported results by the Berkeley researchers and also by scientists in Germany and Japan. After re-analysis of the original data using different software codes, the team was forced to admit that their evidence for element 118 was spurious, prompting all but one of the original paper’s authors to endorse the retraction.

Another relevant link: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/8/1

Good scientists should get their work through peer review first, THEN publish.

A good "red-flag" rule of thumb is, whenever scientists go to the media before they submit their work for peer review, be skeptical.

Oh, and I'd be remiss not to mention the entire "cold fusion" fiasco.

 

[ElElohe]

I am not much of a reader (as much as I am a hands on type) and haven't studied a lot of Wyatt's research. Perhaps, as well, I am more of a conspiracy theorist than a skeptic.

I don't disagree with any of the replies to this thread, although I am curious as to the hands down rejection of almost ALL types of these reports within the Christian general public. Wyatt or not. Some of what Wyatt has done impresses me in comparison to others. In a sense, I believe that in a lot of instances people not trained in a certain field come with less of a bias. However, no one can come completely without bias.

In repsonse to the last post claiming that the pictures of the red sea crossing were frauds, please elaborate on how this determination was arrived at. We are all aware of how easy it is to manipulate photos anymore, but I am no expert and would like to know how to distinguish this.

 

[BWSmith]

He's a kook and a con man.