This is a critique of the 4th chaper in Wyatt's on-line book. After each question I note the basic problems with them. I'll list again here for our convenience the Biblical description by which we can identify Noah's Ark:

Description list from Genesis 6:14-16; (NIV)

1. made of cypress ( or gopher) wood
2. rooms
3. coated with pitch inside and out
4. 300 cubit long (450 - 525 ft)
5. 50 cubits wide (75 - 87.5 ft)
6. 30 cubits high (45 - 52.5 ft)
7. It has a roof
8. It has a window near the top
9. It has a door/way in it side
10. It has a lower, middle and upper decks
11. It landed in the mountains of Ararat (Urartu) Gen. 8

CHAPTER 4

QUESTIONS I AM MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT NOAH'S ARK

1) The "object" you claim is the remains of Noah's Ark is about 515 feet long and 138 feet wide. The Bible says the Ark was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. I always believed that would mean the Ark would have been 450 feet long by 75 feet wide. How do you explain this discrepancy with the Bible?

Answer: [snipped]

The ancient cubit could be 6 hands wide (18 inches) or the royal cubit of 7 hands wide (21 inches). One would expect the Ark to be measured using one or the other of these cubits. The length and width of Wyatt's anomaly appears to be close to what one would expect. That is only two of the above identification list.

2) I understand that other creationists have stated that what you claim to be petrified wood extending from the formation cannot possibly be wood. Isn't it a simple matter to prove something is petrified wood?

Answer: Yes it is, normally. Let me refer you to the section on "The Geology of the Earth" for an explanation on the petrifaction process. However, part of the identification of a petrified object is visual. If it looks like a shell, chances are it's a shell. If it looks like wood, then it's wood. But there's a problem with this wood - it looks like wood except for one thing; it has no growth rings. Now, if we truly believe the Biblical description of the earth before the flood, we know that there couldn't possibly be any growth rings in pre-flood wood⁴. In "The New Larousse Encyclopedia of the Earth", page 369, we read:

"To support trunks of six-foot base diameter and 60-to 100- foot height, tissues must have increased in thickness from year to year. There was, as we have already said, secondary- bark and wood, similar to that of modern trees but lacking the spring and winter rings which correspond to seasonal alternation of moisture and dryness."

This is in reference to ancient sigillarias found without any growth rings. But isn't it a pity that I had to go to a book that refers to the earth's age in "millions of years" to find a reference corroborating the fact that these fossils have been found without growth rings? If growth rings were in the wood of the Ark, it would be a fake or replica.

Either Wyatt is completely ignorant, or he is deliberately misleading the people. Sigillaria and lepidodendron: Unlike in any other type of tree which all have secondary growth concentrated in the xylem (wood), the secondary growth of arborescent lycopods mainly took place in the cortex (bark). The proportion of xylem (wood) is relatively small. During their life the trees shed parts of their outer bark and basal parts of the trunks and larges stems typically show various stages of decortication. Since the yearly growth is not in the xylem (wood) but in the cortex (bark), So, yearly, spring or winter rings would not be made in the wood and fossil wood would now show those rings. This does not mean that all fossil wood would not show rings, but that for these plants there would be no rings.

The Calamite's, very similar to horsetails, trunk lacked substantial mass, being composed mostly of pithy reed-like tissue, with about the strength of a rolled-up newspaper. Such a structure would not have growth rings.

I have many samples of petrified wood, some with growth rings, some without. Wyatt's claim that if growth rings were found in the wood of the Ark, then that ark would be fake, is either a deliberate lie or a wildly ignorant statement.

3) What about laboratory testing of samples from the Ark; have you had this done?

Answer: Yes, I obtained samples from the boat itself and from the land around the Ark. I had several of these samples tested at Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee. Just like medical tests, these results have to be read and interpreted by people trained to do so, so I will quote William Shea, M.D. PhD., Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity, in his report to the Turkish government dated February 20, 1987:

"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."

Since then, I have had numerous other specimens tested with similar results, which I will publish at a later date. Also, these tests revealed extremely high metallic contents, which caused me to wonder if there might not be metal in the Ark itself. This led to the future metal detection testing which revealed the fantastic structure of a massive boat.

These tests will not and cannot explain how the organic carbon nor minerals got into the samples. It is purely Wyatt's interpretation of the data by which he claims that this data came from the Ark.

4) Explain the metal detection tests and how it could prove any internal structure. Couldn't it just be trace metal in the soil?

Answer: No. On the Ark, the metal detecting equipment gave positive readings on its calibrated dial and by sound at numerous points all over the boat. We were able to determine that there was significant amounts of metal present and that it appeared to be in a pattern. The testing of the surrounding area was completely negative. [much snipped]

High mineral content of the soils is not indicative of how that soil got highly mineralized. The soils without the anomaly is obviously different than the soils within the anomaly.

Besides, If the mineral content were supposedly from oxidized metal, it is completely irrelevant to Noah's Ark. Iron fittings are not listed in the Bible's identification list.

5) What about the radar scans you mention? What exactly is sub-surface interface radar, and what did the use of it prove?

Answer: This radar scan confirmed, with astounding detail, the same pattern demonstrated by the metal detectors. Where it was remotely possible to have incorrectly connected the lines resulting from the metal detectors, the radar scan showed what can only be identified as a keel, keelsons and bulkheads from a boat of tremendous size.

The identification process is different that obtaining the data. The radar only shows differences in density. What causes those changes is speculation unless fully identified though excavation. This has not happened, so nothing has been proven.

6) What do the scientists and other experts you have taken to the "boat" say; do they believe it is the Ark?

Answer: [Irrelevant opinions snipped]

Opinions are of little value. We don't need opinions, we need facts which correspond with the identification list from the Bible.

7) I don't see how these anchor stones prove it's the Ark. If they are several miles from the site you claim is the Ark, how does that prove anything?

Answer: The anchor stones have tremendous significance in more ways than one. [snip of a lot of words without one explanation of their significance]

Anchor stones are totally irrelevant to the search for Noah's Ark. They are not mentioned in the identification list from the Bible. One might postulate that anchor stones might have been used, but since they are not mentioned by the Bible, anchor stones cannot be used to identify the Ark.

8) If the Turkish government has really agreed with your finding and declared that this is really the Ark, why hasn't the whole world heard about it? Why are the other ark searches still going on?

Answer: The Turkish government will make the announcement as soon as they are ready. [as of 1989]

It has now been 11 years. They have not made any announcement because their advisers are likely urging caution so they are not embarrassed. But again, the opinion of the Turkish government is irrelevant. Where are the facts which fit the Biblical description?