This is a critique of the 1994 article by Mary Wyatt which is also on-line. 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

NOAH'S ARK-

by Mary Nell Wyatt

(Originally published in Newsletter # 8, dated July 1994- see photo page # 8)

From 1973 to 1975, he and the children lived in Hawaii, where he was able to study volcanoes first hand. This convinced him that if the ark had landed on the volcanic peak called Mt. Ararat, that it would have long ago been destroyed.

If the Ark had landed on an active volcano, then there might be some validity to this statement. High on the upper slopes of Ararat are found pillow lava formation. These are made UNDERWATER ONLY. The very fact that they are found on the surface of Ararat now shows that most if not all of the mountain had been formed underwater and may have been past it's active stage before the Ark arrived.

Despite the fact that there are those who have written elaborate explanations of how the ark could have survived on the volcanic peak, within a few years, the eruption of Mount St. Helens would soon show that NOTHING could survive on a volcanic mountain such as Ararat. If the ark had ever been there, he concluded it would have long ago been destroyed.

Wyatt is prone to exaggeration. It is true that much was destroyed when St. Helens blew up. however it was less that 1/4 of the mountain which was destroyed. The rest of the mountain remains pretty much the same. One can find (and trace) rock formations on pre-explosion photos of St. Helens that still exist on the remaining bulk of the mountain all the way up to the rim top and along the sides to the very edge of the chasm. St. Helens was NOT completely altered as to be unrecognizable from it's former self. While there is now a gaping hole where part of the mountain used to be, the mountain is still recognizable as St. Helens. If there had been a man made structure on some part of St. Helens that not blown away, it would still remain intact, but likely the worse for wear.

"But it would NOT come to rest on that steep mountain side. It just wouldn't happen. And if that mountain peak were directly under the ship and the waters slowly descended, the ship STILL wouldn't land on the mountain side (such as on Mt. Ararat). The water displacement and movement around the underwater mountain would still cause the ship to be removed from the mass (of the mountain) with the water.

Part of Wyatt's rejection of Ararat as the landing place is because the Ark is thought to be on the steep sides of Ararat. However, It is very likely that the upper reaches of Ararat formed a crescent-shape making a safe harbor. Perhaps after being acquiescent for sometime after the Flood, part of that crescent may have been blown away fairly resulting in the vast Ahora canyon. (St. Helens had not been active in over 200 years before blowing it's top.) That blast may well have left the Ark resting by the side of the canyon.

How Wyatt found the Anomaly!

"Very few people speak English. How would they ever find the boat-shaped object when they got there? Many people may find Ron's method of getting information strange, but again he did the only thing he knew to do- he prayed about it. He told the boys to say a prayer that the taxi would stall at the place where they were to begin looking. ... they didn't know if anyone in the town would speak English- and even if they did, would anyone know where this boat-shaped object was? It had been 17 years since the expedition had come there- perhaps the townspeople had forgotten all about it.

Was there ANY attempt to communicate with the locals who know their own country? It does not look like it. It does not matter where you are in the world, there is ALWAYS someone who can and who is eager to speak English. I sense a fear of the locals. He didn't even bother to see if anyone remembered the previous expedition. How could they forget?!

Praying is fine, well and good. But why should God answer a prayer which could just as easily have been answered by just a little communication and a show of friendship with the locals. This sounds like the typical ugly American.

So, they all prayed- not some great elaborate prayer, but just short, silent prayers for help. To Ron's way of thinking, if Noah's Ark was real, then the rest of the Bible was surely just as reliable, including everything said about prayer. And as they approached the town, the taxi stalled. [not just once, but 3 times]

The Devil loves to answer prayers too. How can you tell the difference? If the Devil can sidetrack someone he is very happy to answer a prayer. Nothing of what Wyatt found helps in identifying nor locating the Ark. It is interesting, but beyond that ........

In 1977, there weren't any tourists to speak of in this region. It is desolate and very foreboding. ...Once they were safely out of town, they realized how truly dangerous the region was. The boys would never go there again-

Fear and distrust. That is probably what the Wyatts emanated by their every motion and act. It is no wonder that bandits, or who ever, attempted to bully them.

Much of the rest of the article covers information already addressed in my previous notes.

And while this isn't something I'm happy to write about, it happened- Ron took this man by the collar and told him in no uncertain terms that if he did not keep his mouth shut, he would knock his teeth out. The man only replied to Ron, "YOU'RE CRAZY!" to which Ron then replied, "I'M NOT CRAZY ENOUGH TO LET YOU DO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO." ... There was no more trouble from him that trip, but this man let it be known that he would do anything from that time on to discredit the site- and that is exactly what he has tried to do.

This attitude was apparent in 1990 at the SDA General Conference in Indianapolis. My father stopped by Wyatt's booth to look it over. Wyatt talked for a while and my father started to move on saying that his son didn't think there was anything to what Wyatt was promoting. Wyatt got right in my fathers face and said that his son (me) didn't know what he was talking about. My father was most impressed. This same attitude is evident in Wyatts books and in the way he treated many of the other Ark researchers.

The strange looking "rock" he found within this perimeter was very similar in appearance to "rock" he found just below the lower section of the ship- the broken off section. He theorized that this was ballast material placed in the hull of the Ark,

Again, Ballast is not on the Biblical inditification list. The Ark may have or may not have had ballast, but unless it is mentioned by the Bible, it cannot be used as an identification factor.

Besides that, it is pure speculation that these rock are ballast anyway. The only reason they would be considered ballast is because the anomaly is thought to me the Ark. It is not the other way around. Thus one is again up against the logical fallacy of attempting to prove what you assume.

With all of the evidence thus far, the "ark hunters" who had dedicated their efforts to finding the ark ON Mt. Ararat were getting very frustrated and peeved with the attention given the site on what is called locally, "Doomsday Mountain". It was time for "damage control", to try and discredit the site as much as possible. And, if they couldn't discredit the site, they would discredit the man. Ron became very unpopular.

Utter nonsense! Wyatt just cannot accept the fact that the other research would not accept his anomaly because it was not logical and that there is no evidence. So, the problem must be personal.

If, at the time the ark "rested" in the "mountains of Ararat", the tops were not even visible, the only explanation he could visualize was that it came to rest within a group of mountains that formed a similar crescent shape- even though they were underwater, the water action still drew the ship into such a protected area.

When the Bible says that the tops were not visible that is not likely referring to the site on which the ark itself was. The fact that other tops of hills or mountains were not seen actually speak for the arks landing place being much higher than the surrounding region. The area of the Anomaly does not qualify at all. There are several mountains visible from the site of the anomaly which are much higher.

He believed with every iota of his being that this was Noah's Ark- if he didn't gather the evidence for all those people who had been taught that the Bible was full of fables and myths, who would? His reasoning was simple- he believed the Bible was absolutely factual,

The problem is that Wyatt can point to only 2 possible fulfillments to the list of identification points actually mentioned by the Bible. On what was his strong belief based? It certainly cannot be because of the overwhelming correlation between the anomaly and the Biblical identification points. I think it must be based solely on the basis of the supposed answers to prayer from his first trip. And I find that very suspect. I believe that the Devil found a real dupe.

I hate to tell you folks, but it would be like finding a lost grain of sand in the ocean to find a scientist who would step forward and say that Noah's Ark had been found.

When Scientists can get evidence which corresponds with the Biblical identification list, then they will step forward. So far, Wyatt has not shown any thing more but very basic correlation on only a couple points.

But, he has these analyses done at reputable laboratories. The results are FACT, untainted by "managed results". If the tests show evidence of decayed or petrified wood, that is FACT. If the metal detector scans show the presence of iron at regularly-spaced intervals, this is FACT. There is scientific FACT and then there is THEORY.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, laboratory tests only give data (facts) about what the samples are composed of. The data is NOT EVIDENCE of decayed or petrified wood. It is Wyatt's interpretation of the data by which he proposes the sources of the measured elements and compounds.

And the possible presence of iron oxide concentrations, supposedly at regularly spaced intervals is not proof that this is Noah's Ark. Possible iron fittings are not found in the Biblical identification list. It is only after one has identified an object as Noah's Ark because it has fulfilled all the identifications, that one might begin to speak of iron fittings. The anomaly has yet to fulfill more than just a couple of the list items.

Wyatt's identification of these iron-oxide concentrations as traces of iron fittings is based on Wyatt's assumption that this is Noah's Ark. Therefore Wyatt cannot use these 'iron fitting' to prove that this is the Ark. That would be attempting to prove what he already assumed -- a logical fallacy.

Circumstantial evidence. Like a court case, YOU decide, after sufficient evidence is presented, what it is. Just be very careful to separate the THEORY from the FACT. We believe this is Noah's Ark and we are so convinced based on the tremendous amount of evidence that we will state our belief without hesitation. Others will state without hesitation that it is NOT the ark. It will ultimately come down to the fact of whether you believe it is within the realm of possibility for something to "look like a duck, quack like a duck, give birth to baby ducks, swim like a duck, and yet NOT BE A DUCK". (Thanks to David Fasold for the metaphor).

Wyatt's "tremendous amount of evidence" is not in accord with the Biblical identification list above. Most of his evidence is interpreted as such from the data because of his assumption that this anomaly is the Ark. None of it would be interpreted as evidence for the Ark, if He had not already determined the data to be associated with the Ark. Others are waiting for information matching the Biblical identification list which shows that this duck can be identified as the Ark. Otherwise it just looks like a duck, looks like a duck, looks like a duck, looks like a duck, but is only a decoy.

The important thing to determine was if the specimen contained organic carbon. A rock doesn't, but petrified wood does.

Petrified wood does not have organic carbon in it. The organic material is replace by silicates.

IF the ark had landed on Mt. Ararat, it would have had to have been a much smaller mountain at that time, because it would have been impossible for all of the animals to have walked down off the mountain as it is today.

Pure speculation. Most of the mountain is walk up. And the missing part of the mountain, which blew away forming Ahora gorge, may well have provided even easier access down.

And if THAT did happen, then the ark would surely have been destroyed in the passage of time and numerous explosions of the, at times, extremely active volcano throughout history.

Other than the explosion which formed the Ahora gorge, there is no evidence that the mountain has been active since the time of the flood.

The tour group witnessed this, and was astonished when Ron showed it to them. One side bore the shape of a very large head of a rivet with a washer around it.

Where in the Bible is there mention of rivets being a part of the identification list? There may have been or there may not have been rivets on the Ark, but they are not mentioned in the Bible, so they cannot be used to identify the Ark. It is because Wyatt has already concluded that the anomaly is Noah's Ark, that he identifies this "rivet" as being part of the Ark. He again attempted to prove that the anomaly in the ark because of the 'rivet'. This is attempting to prove what you assume.