This is photo is found at the following URL: http://www.wol.pace.edu/grendel/projs4a/sutton.htm
The on-line article which is critiqued here is largely a summary of what has been present before. However, I'm going to take each point below and critique it as I have done before. After a sentence or two or perhaps a whole section I note the basic problems with them. And I 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
------------------------
The entire key to understanding the evidence which confirms that this site DOES in fact contain the remains of Noah's Ark, is understanding the condition of the remains.
And right here in the first sentence, Wyatt displays the logical fallacy which he uses throughout his proof. The anomaly is assumed to be 'remains.' The remains of what? Noah's Ark. Thus Wyatt starts with the assumption the anomaly is Noah's Ark rather than start by saying we don't know what the anomaly is. By starting with the assumption of Noah's Ark and then interpreting gathered data as proof that it is the Ark, Wyatt, commits the logical fallacy of trying to prove what you assume. To be logically valid, you must gather the data, see if the data fulfills some or all of the known description of the Ark (from the Bible). If you can show that the object fulfills all or nearly all of the Biblical description then you can postulate that you may have found the Ark. Wyatt has not done this, as will be seen below. He ALWAYS starts with the assumption that the anomaly is Noah's Ark, and thus invalidates all his evidence when he tries to use that evidence to prove the Ark. Wyatt's data might be interesting IF it were first proved that this was the Ark. However, this is not the case.
The continued use of the word "Ark" to refer to the anomaly, is a form of brainwashing. By the end of the paper 'everyone' will refer to the anomaly as Noah's Ark. With that idea in mind all the time, it is east to be convinced that this is indeed Noah's Ark, despite the fact that no evidence has established if fact.
The "world" has a preconceived notion of what they will accept, and that is: a recognizable wooden ship, (still intact after 4,300 years), and the ship MUST be on the volcanic mountain known as Mt. Ararat.
The reason that people think that the Ark may still be intact on Ararat is not because of some preconceived notion, but rather because of collected reports from many sources by people who claim to have seen something on Ararat that is recognizable as a ship. These reports may or may not be valid, but that is the source for the current state of thought about Noah's Ark. It is not because of some vague, ephemeral notions.
The concept of the ark's appearance has been further enhanced by those who interpreted the fact that the ark had rooms to mean that it had to look like a barge-shaped houseboat instead of a ship. This concept has been based on the many claimed sightings of the ark on Mt. Ararat- and not a single sighting is accompanied by any evidence.
It is true that physical evidence does not exist to back up the reported sightings. However, there is an odd consistency in the descriptions of many of the reported sightings. They keep mentioning that the object they saw was shaped like a barge. This goes against nearly all illustrations from back even before medieval times down to the present, especially in Children’s books about Noah's Ark. These past and present illustrations nearly all show a streamlined vessel, not a barge. If any preconception should hold it should be that these sightings would be of streamlined vessels and not a barge.
I don't know of any argument for a barge shape because the Ark had rooms.
The Ark- NOT Barge-Shaped
First of all, a barge-shaped vessel could not survive on the open seas. Any sailor can tell you that. In fact, the idea is preposterous. The oil tankers of today, which traverse the open seas, have a hull which is NOT flat on the bottom, but instead is rounded.
I can't speak for sailors but I can speak of what I have seen and read in books on Naval Architecture. The only oil tankers of today which may have rounded bottoms are the small insignificant tankers. All supertankers and the large container ships in constant use today are basically flat bottomed, flat sided, gargantuan barges with just enough streamlining at the immediate bow and stern to make them easier to push through the water. Besides these ships, there are large ocean going, unpowered barges which are towed across the oceans.
The wave action of the stormy seas today cannot compare with the turmoil of the open seas of the flood, which extended the entire surface of the earth- if a barge-shaped ship today cannot sail the ocean, erase the idea of a barge-shaped ark from your mind. This simply IS NOT a possibility.
Supertankers, containerships and barges travel the farthest reaches of the oceans everyday. It is possible and is happening.
If you want to research the subject yourself, go to the library and look up "ships and ship-building" and/or "fluid dynamics" or "hydrodynamics".
I have done far more than that. I have studied and read books on Naval Architecture. I have corresponded with Naval architects. The barge is the STRONGEST design of all, bar none.
The "boat-shaped object" is not barge-shaped- it displays the shape of a sea-going vessel. Therefore, from the beginning of its discovery in the stereo-photo, it had this one feature already in its favor.
The shape of Noah's Ark is not given in the Bible. All we are given are the dimensions. Neither streamlined nor bargeshaped are an identifying feature. Since all we can go by to determine if we have found the ark is the description given in the Bible, whatever shape of the object we are trying to identify is basically irrelevant. We can only go by the dimensions.
The Ark Would Not have Survived on Mt. Ararat
If the ark was a reality, then so was the flood (which destroyed the entire face of the earth), and this means that the ark, IF it survived until today, is the oldest structure on earth. Considering the fragile state of wooden homes that were built even in the last century, could we expect to find an intact ark, or even any remains at all?
This depends upon the environment that the Ark has been in. If it had landed in Egypt, the dryness of the region would have been a great preservative as it has been to the remnants of the ancient Egyptian culture. Another good environment would be a very cold, icy environment. And isolation from humans would also be required. The region surrounding Ararat (and the anomaly) is semi-arid. A location within the permanent ice cap of Ararat would also help. And, the mountain provides excellent isolation from human intervention.
The anomaly site, while in a semi-arid environment, is within easy access of human intervention.
Certainly not in the ever moving glaciers on Mt. Ararat, which continually flow and grind everything in their path into minute pieces.
Some of the proposed sighting locations are under ice cover, but are not within moving glaciers
Even if an object survived in the glaciers, could it survive the incredible blasts of the past eruptions, the most recent of which blew out an entire section of the mountain? Again, go to the library and research "volcanoes" and "glaciers". Read up on Mount St. Helens, whose last eruption was similar to the last eruption which Mt. Ararat experienced, even leaving a similar blown-out hole in the mountain. You will see the total devastation suffered by everything on or around the mountain at that time.
Wyatt's tendency to exaggeration is well shown here. The volcanic explosion of Mt. St. Helens did not completely alter the remaining bulk of the mountain. Rock formations identified on photos of pre-explosion St. Helens can be located and traced up to the very top of the existing mountain. Any reasonably sound, man-made structure could have survived the explosion. It is still identifiable as St. Helens but with a large hole in it's side. The same thing can apply to Ararat. [I was living near St. Helens when it blew up. My house and yard was covered with nearly 1/2 inch of volcanic ash. I have also been to St. Helens before and after May 18, 1980]
In addition to this, the Turkish military has been training their commandos on Mt. Ararat for many years, and they know every inch of the mountain. They KNOW there is nothing up there.
Where is the documentation for this assertion? My published research on the weather data for a 120 year time period in the Ararat region indicates that if an object were covered by ice, it would likely be exposed only once or twice a century for a few days or weeks at a time. If this is so, one would have to be there under the exact weather conditions to observe anything like the Ark.
How was the Ark Preserved?
The evidence found at the "boat-shaped object", which we will, in complete confidence, refer to as "the ark",
It is completely irresponsible to call the anomaly Noah's Ark, until one has proven that it fulfills all or nearly all the identification point from the Bible. The constant calling of this object 'the ark' unfairly places in the mind of the reader, the idea that the anomaly has truly been identified when in fact this is what has yet to be done. And it is what this paper is supposed to be doing.
shows that the ark was only preserved at all because it was covered in lava flow which effectively sealed it in a sort of "time capsule". However, the mountain it is on is NOT volcanic- the evidence shows that the lava resulted from an eruption of a volcano many miles to the south in present-day Iran. The lava from that mountain was ejected into the air and carried to the top of the ridge above the ark's present location. The existence of this volcano is proven by the broken stele Ron found in 1984 upon this ridge which showed the unique limestone ridge with a volcano positioned next to it to the south. Today, this volcano is collapsed and cannot be seen except from the top of the ridge, not from the viewpoint of the artist who inscribed the stele.
Lava shooting up into the air flying past the anomaly, landing only on the ridge and them flowing down across the anomaly? Talk of a fertile imagination!! No one has ever seen such a thing happen at any volcano anywhere in the world.
The Ark Covered in Lava
The lava reached the top of the ridge and began to travel down the side of the mountain, covering the ark. The path of the lava can be distinctly seen in the present mud-flow area. One way mud flows are formed is when water is trapped over a long period of time in the slowly decaying lava. Then, when the lava finally deteriorates into soil, the tremendous amount of water captured and retained in it, begins to flow, sometimes quite rapidly and catastrophically, which is called a mud-slide.
What is needed is a geologic report by a real geologist, rather than these rather inane ramblings.
The weight of this tremendous amount of molten rock (lava) flowing upon the ark caused the 2 top decks to collapse. If that is so, why wasn't the ark burned up? There are 2 possibilities as to why it wasn't burned up- the first is this: assuming the lava was the type which would have caused a wooden object to catch on fire, if the ark was completely covered by lava rapidly, this would cut off the oxygen supply and combustion would not be possible. But, supposing it was covered more slowly,- it is a documented fact that lava does not always cause combustion. I will use a quote from a "good old evolutionary science book: "It might be supposed that the high temperatures of the lava would give off an enormous amount of heat, This is not so, however, and it is quite usual for a flow to pass through a forest or town without causing a fire. One flow from Paricutin even piled up against oaks and cotton-woods without destroying them.... How can we explain this anomaly of high lava temperature and absence of fire and flames? To begin with, lava consists of a vitreous mass which is a poor conductor of heat. It also cools quickly at the surface, becoming covered with a crust which in some measure prevents further heat radiation from inside the mass. This a lava flow has, as it were, a constantly forming insulating case around its molten interior, so that the front of the flow is preceded by a protecting crust." From The New Larousees Encyclopedia of the Earth, pub. by Hamlin Publishing Group Limited, copyrighted 1961, revised edition 1972, page 158.
You have to first assume that this anomaly was made of wood before any of this has any relevancy. It has not been shown that any wood was here to begin with.
Either way you choose, the fact that the ark was covered by lava DOES NOT in any way mean that it had to be burned up. The fact that the decks seem to be uniformly collapsed indicates that it was covered rapidly, which would have cut off the oxygen supply. We do have specimens which display some burning, but it seems to be very limited in extent.
Pure speculation, for it has not yet been determined that the anomaly had any wood, nor that it had any decks.
The Ark Revealed when Lava Deteriorated
The lava covered the ark and sealed it in an air-tight "capsule". So why is it now visible- why isn't it still encased in the lava? Because lava deteriorates and breaks down over time into fertile soil. Let's again go to the same book we referred to above: "The soils which develop from the decomposition of the lavas, cinders and ashes are exceptionally rich in potash, lime and phosphates..... Many districts of the world with a high agricultural population owe the richness of their land to volcanic material." page. 173. Hawaii is an excellent example of this- their wonderful soil which produces the beautiful exotic flowers we associate with this paradise, are a result of the decayed lava, so rich in the nutrients necessary for perfect growth. But it takes lava a very long time to deteriorate- how long depends on the type, etc., and we cannot know exactly how long the ark was covered. However, over time, as the lava began its deterioration process, it was no longer air-tight.
This is all useless speculation, because it has nothing to do with the list of Biblical identifications.
The Remains Were Fossilized
The ark is situated on a mountain side and it slopes. The front end is at about a 6,350 foot elevation while the lower end is at about the 6,250 foot elevation. The lava deteriorated over time, and being no longer air-tight, it was no longer water-tight. The region experiences several months of snow with the accompanying cold temperatures. In the spring, the snow slowly melts and as it does, the water flows down the mountainside. This means that as the lava began to deteriorate, this water began to flow through the material which covered the ark. As the water slowly seeped over the preserved structures of the ark, it began to wash away minute particles of the wood and metal fittings of the structure. This took place on a molecular level- molecule by molecule was washed away. But as each molecule broke loose and washed away with the water, it left a "hole" the exact size of the molecule that had broken loose. As the water flowed over the structure, some of the molecules it picked up from materials it had passed over prior to arriving at the ark, lodged in the "molecule holes" left in the structure.. The process I am describing is called "petrification", or "mineral replacement". For an object to become petrified, 2 things are ALWAYS required- first, that the object be buried rapidly, and second that it have water flowing through it. If it is not airtight and has no water flowing over it, it suffers from decay and is not preserved. The evolutionists will be quick to tell you that petrifaction takes millions of years to occur, but this is a bald-faced lie. If petrifaction does not occur at least a rapidly as the decay rate, the object simply decays away.
Again, this assumes that there was a wooden vessel here. This has not yet been shown to be true. It also has to be shown that there is petrified wood here. Geologists have visited the sited and have never found petrified wood in the anomaly.
Petrified- Literally "Turned to Stone"
As the water flowed down the mountain into the soil and then reached the ark, the structure members nearest the top were petrified with molecules of the substances in the earth ABOVE the ark, which were minerals. As the water flowed over the midsection of the ark, it had picked up molecules from the ark structures it had flowed over prior to reaching the midsection. Therefore, it began to be petrified with substances from its own structure in addition to the substances in the soil above it. At least that is what SHOULD have occurred if the object really is the ark.
"IF" there were wood there and "IF" there were petrified wood at the site. If wood, or petrified wood were found at the site that would fulfill one of the Biblical identifications points
The evidence at the site shows that this IS exactly what happened. The deck timber which Ron obtained from the approximate mid-section of the ship contained over 13% iron- iron which came from the metal fittings of the structure above mid-section.
It is pure speculation that the iron-oxide originated from metal fittings. It is because Wyatt first assumes that this anomaly is Noah's Ark, that he concludes that the iron-oxide came from metal fittings. And since he first assumes that the metal fittings come from the Ark, he cannot then use the proposed fittings as evidence that the anomaly is the Ark. That would be using the logical fallacy of circular reasoning -- trying to prove what you assume.
It is also pure speculation that the "deck timber" is fossil wood. And it is because Wyatt assumes that the anomaly is Noah's Ark, that he calls the rock he found "deck timber." And he cannot use this "deck timber" to try to prove that the anomaly is Noah's Ark, because he has already assumed it to be the Ark from which he took the "deck timber."
The majority of molecules involved in the petrifaction process are molecules from the natural substances in the earth and the lava. The first analyses Ron had performed on his specimens from the site showed an approximate 51% silica content. That's fine- The "Encyclopaedia Brittanica", 1985 ed., vol. 19, page 506, (under "volcanoes") states: " Magma consists of a molten-silicate mass within the earth, of various composition..." In fact, all petrified objects contain a great deal of silica simply due to its abundance in the soil.
Silicate Fossils are usually closer to 90+% of silica forming chalcedony, jasper, chert, opal, etc.
The Sure-Fire Test
But there is one substance that is NOT found in natural minerals, which we will now discuss. As I began to study the subject of "carbon", which involves the study of chemistry, which is a little involved for me, I learned some very interesting facts. Compounds of carbon can be analyzed to determine whether they are composed of matter that was non-organic, or organic, which means it can be determined whether they were once living-matter or not. It's that simple. Therefore, the one test to determine if an object was organic (once living), or not is to determine its carbon content- whether it contains organic carbon or not.
When Ron brought the petrified deck timber home, he, as well as all who saw it, knew that it LOOKED like a piece of wood turned to stone (petrified). However, looks CAN be deceiving, so he took it to Galbraith Labs to be analyzed. Chiselling a sample from the specimen (on camera), they analyzed it and found that it did contain inorganic carbon (.0081%). However, it also contained .7019% ORGANIC CARBON, which is over 100 times more than the amount of inorganic carbon! Every petrified object ever found that was once living,- tree branch, bone, sea shell, etc.,- will show organic carbon in its analysis. So, the deck timber specimen WAS once composed of living matter! Since it didn't look like a bone or a shell, we feel pretty confident in stating that it is petrified wood.
Such traces of organic carbon do not mean evidence of Noah's Ark. Organic carbon at these trace amounts can also come from plants which have grown in the soils and washed down into the rock below. It is not proof that the organic carbon came from wood from a ship.
OK, we have decaying lava which is revealing the presence of petrified objects that look like wood and contain large amounts of iron and other metals. Remember we discussed how the substances found in the petrified object got there by being washed in from flowing water which had first past over other substances? So where did the iron come from? In order for there to be such a high percentage of iron in the petrified wood, the water which effected its petrifaction had to pass over a large amount of iron prior to reaching the petrifying object. The soil above the ark does not contain that much iron. One control specimen taken from the area OUTSIDE the ark, but within 50 or so yards, revealed a .54% iron and .77% ferric oxide content. If we are to believe that the petrified wood received its iron content from the naturally-occurring iron in the region above the ship, we would have to believe that the entire iron content of the region was gathered up by the waters and deposited ONLY in the petrified wood. In other words, it's impossible. The large amounts of metals in the petrified wood could only come from one place- from the water passing over a LARGE amount of metal in the ark's structure- metal which we now know, composes the thousands of fittings which held the timbers together.
The source of iron oxide in the rock and soil of the anomaly is not restricted to iron fittings nor restricted to the surrounding rock and soil. The anomaly may also be understood as an outcrop of sedimentary rock deposited by the Flood containing these quantities and formations with high concentrations of iron oxide. The surrounding rock and soil is part of a pyroclastic flow which flowed down and around the outcrop and covering or removing much of the original exposure of the sediment.
"In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron, the black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of geothite (Crystalline limonite, a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. But magnetite and geothite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal."
"If Noah’s ship builders had forged this supposed iron bracket in a primitive smelter, the bracket would not consist of iron that was thoroughlmixed with clay, quartz, calcite, and anthophyllite particle but would have been solid iron. ..."
" This variability also rules out the idea that the iron was formed by smelting because smelting would homogenize the molten metal and produce a nearly constant composition. The high and variable titanium contents occur because the limonite grains were derived by hydrous alteration of ilmenitic magnetite granules, eroded from different volcanic sources having variable TiO2 contents." (Collins, L.G. Ph.D.. [Prof. Emeritus of Geology, California State University, Northridge.] , Fasold, David, 1996, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a common Geologic Strucure", Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 44, pg. 441,442)
The Ark Hidden for Many, Many Years
And so the ark sat for many, many years- its presence unknown since its being covered by the lava flow, which incidentally carried it down the mountain until it was impaled on a massive outcropping of bedrock. But we'll get to that later.
All this is pure speculation.
In the late 1950's, the high-altitude photo taken during the NATO survey showed this incredible outline of a ship high on a mountainside in a mudflow. The first expedition to the site in 1960 didn't see anything they could recognize as being a man-made object because all that was visible was the decayed lava which was now a layer of rich, fertile soil. Oh, here and there a "rock protruded through the earth which was actually petrified wood, but its weathered condition camouflaged its true identify. The early expedition didn't understand what to expect- they were looking for an intact boat.
This is Wyatt's spin on the results of the expedition, not what the opinion of the original expedition.
"Truth Shall Spring out of the Earth"
Then, in late 1978, an earthquake cause the soil surrounding the mysterious "shape" to fall away from the sides, giving the effect that the "capsule" had literally popped up from the earth. With the soil removed from the sides, the object took on even more of the recognizable shape of a ship. The sides displayed indentions at evenly spaced intervals, which were actually the empty spaces where rib timbers once were. But why are they empty- what happened to the rib timbers if they were petrified? The answer is: "due to the effect of weathering".
Identification by What is NOT Present
Let's again return to our favorite science book, "The Larousee Encyclopedia" from which we quoted above: "Whenever rocks are exposed to attack by weathering process, loose material forms, sometimes in large quantities.... Mass wasting is almost inseparable from weathering and the many other agents of gradation. Water, for example, aids its work considerably.... In mountain areas daily freeze-and-thaw action, or frost wedging, plays its part. Fissures in the rocks fill with water which freezes and expands at night. Under the pressure of the innumerable wedges of ice, the rock cracks. Next morning, the ice melts in the sun and no longer supports the rock fragments, many of which roll down the slope to join other rocks and debris at the foot.". page 41.
Keep in mind that the structures of the ark were petrified and now turned to stone. When the soil around the sides of the ark was still in place, the ribs were preserved. We know this even though they are now gone. The way we know is simple- the empty indentations, evenly spaced, are all the evidence we need. Like a footprint in the mud, they wouldn't be there if a foot hadn't been there earlier. The weather extremes of the region had accomplished this process of "frost wedging" which fractured the rib timbers which were now turned to stone. They remained in place as long as the surrounding soil held them. But when it fell away, the fractured "turned to stone" timbers fell into pieces and specimens of the petrified wood lie all around the site.
Wyatt's interpretation of the "evenly spaced" indentions as weathered away rib timbers is not based on the evidence of timbers but rather on Wyatt's assumption that this anomalous object is Noah's Ark. After all, what else could they be? Right?
"The layered samples of rocks in the mud that Fasold recovered and believed to be cavity-fillings [in the above mentioned indentions] are andesite and basalt pebbles, typical of conglomeratic mud-flows in volcanic terranes. Similar samples recovered by him from areas claimed by other to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood." (op. cite. pg. 441). [note: pebbles or boulders may be angular and flatsided].
Color Difference of the Petrified Ribs
The INTERNAL structure members are in a much better state simply because they have not been exposed to the elements. On the east side of the ark is a section in which the rib timbers are exposed but have NOT completely fallen away and left holes where they once were. However, these ARE fractured, having suffered from "frost wedging". It was on this section that Ron and Richard performed the "mini-excavation" in which the ribs were able to be seen due to the color difference, even though the ribs are in a fragmented state. They are still held in place by the soil, probably due to their angle and also some Divine assistance.
What Caused the Color Difference
This above section is at the front of the ship on the uphill section. The substances in the water which was flowing over the ship's structures and which effected its petrifaction were minerals from above the ship. These minerals consisted of silica from the soil, lime and calcium, to name a few. This gave the petrified structure a "whitish" appearance, compared to the petrified remains of the lower section of the ship, which featured a darker color due to the large amount of metals in them. We have 2 specimens of petrified wood, both about 6 inches long, both 2 inches wide and 1 1/2 inches deep. They are identical except for one thing- the piece which came from inside the crack near the front of the ship is very light colored, while the other piece is dark. They are both petrified wood pieces from the ship, only one piece's molecules were replaced by lighter colored substances than the other.
As mentioned above, there has never been petrified wood found in the anomaly. Wyatt does not seem to know the difference between Andesite or Basalt (both lava formed rocks) and petrified wood. Surface colorization differences is simply due to weathering. This is common to ALL rocks.
Other Exposed Structure Members
The timbers which extend out through the ground surface, such as the deck support beams and the deck joists, today look like ordinary rocks. Why? Because they ARE rocks- petrifaction, or mineral replacement, turns objects into rocks. And these petrified timbers have been exposed to the elements and have suffered extreme weathering. However, the deck joists, being located high on the sides of the ribs, are located in a position where the surface water flows past them. This limits the "frost wedging" to a degree, which other structure located in a lower section where the surface water tends to collect, suffers. What this means in simple language is that the petrified structure members which are near the surface are more vulnerable to fracturing into small pieces if they lie in an area where surface water stands. In the winters, the water, which has seeped into its tiny cracks and crevasses, subjects the petrified structure to continual expansion due to the water freezing, fracturing it into pieces. Once the soil surrounding and supporting this structure is removed, the fragments collapse into a heap. Voila- no more visibly identifiable petrified structure- only a heap of what looks like rocks. But lab analysis still reveals what these "rocks" once were by the presence of the organic carbon which is NOT present in objects (natural rocks) which were not once living matter.
Organic carbon can be found in most sedimentary rock. Wood fossils (petrified wood) is not identified because is has organic carbon. Petrified wood is identified as petrified wood because it looks like wood but it is rock instead.
Another Similar Boat Excavated
In 1939, a very unique excavation took place of an ancient burial boat known today as the "Sutton Hoo" boat. When carefully excavated, they discovered that, "yes", there had once been an ancient burial boat there- however, the wooden structure had long ago decayed. What was STILL present were the decomposed and siliconized iron fittings which held the timbers together. As they removed the soil from the area, they discovered that the decayed wood had left a color difference in the soil which distinctly showed the structure of the ship in the earth. The iron fittings, still in place, combined with this coloration in the soil, allowed the excavators to preserve the perfect imprint of the ship. On a very small scale, this is similar to the condition of the ark except for the fact that the ark does still contain a large amount of internal petrified structures.
This is more Wyatt half-truth. The photo below show the excavation in 1939 of the Sutton Hoo boat. There is far here more than decomposed iron fittings and soil stains.
This
is photo is found at the following URL: http://www.wol.pace.edu/grendel/projs4a/sutton.htm
The Internal Structure Revealed
But how do we know about the internal structure? The radar scans. The sub-surface interface radar revealed a pattern of internal structure which the makers of the radar determined to be "not of natural origin". The radar doesn't tell us precisely what the internal structure is made of, although limited distinction is possible because of different densities. However, it definitely reveals its shape and location. And whatever it is, the specialists declared that it is "man-made" because of its organized pattern. Nothing in nature occurs in the perfect pattern of a ship's internal structure.
The radar merely reveals differences in densities. It is interpretation which claims "orgaized pattern" etc. Only excavation will prove that these density differences are man-made. Opinion and interpretation will not do so.
This, combined with the pattern of evenly-space metal detector readings on the ship, prove that the structure contained metal at the intersections where the timbers were joined together. The "rocks" which displayed the metal readings may have looked like "rocks", but we now understand why. The exposed timbers which contained the metal fittings were fossilized. When exposed to the elements, they fragmented which left them looking like weathered rocks. But, the metal content is so concentrated at these precise spots that lab analyses revealed the presence of metal in concentrations and forms which is not natural.
"Althought
these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate
that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist,
can show that all these features could be formed by natural
processes. Joining of lines in concentric shells at the
structures pointed end is consistent with the structure being an
eroded doubly plunging syncline...."
Taken from Figure 4, Cross-section of
an eroded syncline with landslide channels on both sides. (op.
cite., pg. 442)
"Limonite concentrations in the "dividing walls" can be formed naturally because stresses applied to rocks that are folded into a boat shape commonly produce fracture patterns that cut across sedimentary layers. Water moving through these fractures and coming in contact with ilmenitic magnetite (or pyrite) granules in the layers, would produce the limonite concentrations and stains" (op. cite, pg. 442,443)
Another Evidence Which Shouts the Truth
The remains of the ark are resting on a mountainside with a very large section of bedrock limestone extending through its midsection. Radar has confirmed that the limestone is bedrock and not a loose boulder which rolled down the hill- it is a part of the foundation rock.
What explanation is there for the presence of this huge mass of rock extending into the ship? In 1984, Ron and Orhan Baser found what they now are certain is a 120 by 40 foot section of the bottom of the ark, a mile or so above its present location. For a moment, let's take our thoughts back to the time the water receded and the ark first rested on the earth. At that time, the face of the earth would be extremely muddy. As the water slowly receded and the ark was gently lowered to the earth, it sank into the mud by increments. The very bottom kept extending deeper and deeper into this mud. The evidence indicates that there was probably a "bilge keel" of some description on the bottom of the ship. A bilge keel is a "fin-like" projection extending downward from the center keel along the bottom, as is seen on sailboats. This "fin" would have provided the ship resistance to sideways tilting, but it would have had another advantage. As the ark slowly sank into the mud, this "fin" would have held the ship in an upright position after it was on the ground. Then, when God "made a wind to pass over the earth", which caused the mud to dry out, the ship was held fast in an upright position. Hopefully, we can scan this area with the radar to determine if a bilge keel is present, but for now this is only Ron's theory. And even it there wasn't a bilge keel, the ark still would have sunk down in the mud and be held fast. When the lava carried the ship down the mountainside, this section of the hull remained in the earth. This left a very large hole in the hull which David determined existed by his use of the MFG, and which Ron later found to exist with the radar scans. The fact that Dave was able to determine this with the MFG is a tremendous evidence that the device is highly reliable despite the bad name it has received.
Pure speculation. We don't even know if this is the Ark yet.
The Crash into the Limestone Outcropping
When the ark, sliding sideways down the mountainside, hit the large outcropping of limestone, it was literally impaled on the large rock. It extended into the midsection of the ship and was the only thing which held the ark at its present location.
Pure speculation. It has not been determined if this is the Ark, nor that it has moved anywhere. The limestone layer is simply one of the underlying layers in the area, including under the sedimentary layers of the anomaly.
Since the decks had collapsed, the timbers which held the ribs in their upright position (the deck joists) were broken, and there was nothing to keep the sides from falling outward. As the ark rotated into alignment with the direction of the lava flow (after becoming lodged on the rock), the ribs were thrown outward to some degree, around the midsection. This is a splaying effect. The end that made the widest swing outward suffered the most outward collapse, and this is what gives the ship its appearance of being wider than it should be.
Pure speculation. It has not yet been determined that this is the Ark.
Keep in mind, however, that the ribs did not fall completely outward, but only splayed enough to give the ship a 138 foot width at the widest point, and the original width was 87 feet. The Biblical width of 50 cubits was found to be the width indicated by the internal structures, such as the bulkheads which displayed this width instead of the full width of the splayed hull. The metal detector scans done in August of 1985 showed how the internal structure near the surface was literally "wrapped around the rock", similar to a car that is wrapped around a telephone pole.
Pure speculative interpretation. It has not yet been determined that this is the Ark.
The Ballast- Preflood "Slag"
The "strange material" Ron and Orhan found scattered all over the bottom section of the ark, at the site further up the mountainside, proved to be identical to the "strange material" found falling out in massive amounts from the hull on the northern end. This is ballast material and is what first attracted John Baumgardner's interest after Jim Irwin sent him the specimen Ron had given him from the site above the ark. It contains a negligible amount of inorganic carbon, as contrasted with the petrified wood, but it contains an incredible amount of manganese dioxide (over 80%) and titanium. One analysis revealed a 74% titanium content. The importance of this specimen is that it displays attributes which indicate that it is slag, or the waste product of some type of metal alloy production.
More speculation. It has not yet been determined that this is the Ark, nor if "the bottom section" is of the Ark either. The "ballast" is only called that because Wyatt has first assumed that this is the Ark. These rocks are called slag only because it is thought they are associated with Noah's Ark. The percentages of oxides does not indicate it's origin.
What is Ballast?
Ballast is an absolute necessity for any ship. It is any material of weight which is placed in the hull for purposes of stabilizing the ship, keeping it trim, etc. For more information on this subject, look up shipbuilding. You will find that it is not something that a ship "may or may not" have,- it is a necessity. And a ship the size of the ark would definitely had ballast of some type. The evidence at the ark shows that the builders of the ark used a most ingenious substance for their ballast.
A barge does not need ballast. A barge shaped Ark would not need ballast. These rocks are called ballast because Wyatt has assumed that this anomaly is the Ark.
Metal Alloy Production
To find a ship wreck on the side of a mountain with a massive amount of heavy substance falling out of it's hull,- material which is identical to slag-, indicates that probably as the metal objects used in the ship construction were fashioned, the waste product was gathered and placed in the hull. This makes an incredible amount of sense. A ship of this size would have required a great deal of ballast and this is the perfect source. But what makes us think there was metal production before the flood? Aside from the presence of a great deal of metal at even intervals in the ship.
This is a speculation based on the assumption that this is the Ark and that it needed ballast. It has yet to be shown that this is the Ark.
Manganese
Manganese, which is found in extremely high concentrations in these ballast specimens, is used in the production of many alloys: "More than 95 percent of the manganese produced is used in the form of ferroalloys by the metal industries, chiefly for steel manufacture.... Produced without manganese, steel breaks up when hot-rolled or forged. Steels generally contain less than 1 percent manganese. Manganese steel (12-14 percent manganese) is used for very rugged service; it presents a hard, wear resistant, and self-renewing surface over a wrought unbreakable core. Manganese produced electrolytically is used mostly in steelmaking but also in the production of nonferrous alloys of copper, aluminum, magnesium and the nickel-base alloys and in the production of high purity chemicals. Practically all commercial alloys of aluminum and magnesium contain manganese to improve corrosion resistance and mechanical properties." "Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1985 ed., vol.vi", page 563 under "manganese".
On one analysis of the ballast material, John Baumgardner wrote: "tailings of aluminum alloid production" and signed his name and wrote "Los Alamos". This particular specimen contained 31.44% manganese, 41.95% titanium, no iron, 11.33% silicon, and 7.19% aluminum, among other constituents. This indicates that there was perhaps more than one type of alloy included in these various ballast specimens- and this one was the waste product of aluminum production:. "Aluminum-manganese alloys are popular for cooking utensils, heat exchangers, chemical equipment, storage tanks,... Adding major amounts (about 10 percent) of silicon to commercially pure aluminum yields an alloy with a relatively low melting point.... Because silicon imparts great fluidity to molten metal, this alloy is used in castings. The addition of up to 5 percent magnesium yields an alloy with good tensile strength, weldability, hardness and corrosion resistance in marine atmospheres.... Adding both silicon and magnesium to aluminum produces alloys that are easily formed, machined, welded, and finished, have good resistance to corrosion, and are of medium strength." "Ibid., vol. 1, page 644, under subject "Aluminum Products and Production"
The ballast materials, under electron microscope, display the appearance of slag and can therefore be identified with confidence. The exact type of metal production they resulted from cannot be stated with precision. But because of the content of the specimens, which are consistent with present day processes of metal alloy production, it can be stated with confidence that these ARE slag. The large amount of manganese was expended as waste product because, although required in the production of the alloy, only a small percentage remained in the resulting product. The excess was spun off as slag, along with a small amount of the other elements used in the alloy production.
Where is the documentation for the electron microscope study of the rocks? Where is the quotes which show that slag can be identified as such under the electron microscope? Baumgartners opinions are less than convincing since he has since repudiated everything he previously said about the Anomaly.
Titanium
The discovery of titanium in such a high concentration is of special interest. The process by which titanium could be produced as a metal has only been known since 1936. "Although the element titanium had been known since its initial discovery in 1791 by William Gregor in England, and its identification inrutile in 1795 and in ilmenite in 1797, it was not until William Justin Kroll, a German refuge in the US, invented a magnesium-reduction process in 1936 that the production of metallic titanium became feasible. The process, which Kroll gave to the US Bureau of Mines for development, remains in its original form or modifications thereof, the principle method used today for winning titanium metal from its ores." "Ibid., vol. 18, page 455, under subject heading "Titanium Products and Production".
The advantage of titanium as a metal is its tremendous strength and light weight, which is why today it is used in medical and space age technologies. The quantitative elemental analyses of the rivet-head Ron found in 1991 revealed 8.62% aluminum, 10.38% iron, 1.33% magnesium, and 2.7% sodium, as well as 1.92% titanium. Interestingly, the process for refining titanium involves SODIUM AND MAGNESIUM and sure enough, there they both were! "The high-purity titanium tetrachloride produced is reduced to metallic titanium by reaction with magnesium or sodium. The Kroll process, which uses magnesium, and modifications that used sodium, as the reducing agents, are batch processes conducted in larger reactors." "Ibid., p. 456.
The combined analyses of the fossilized rivet provide more than ample evidence that it was composed of an alloy which contained aluminum, iron and titanium; an alloy which would be extremely strong, lightweight and resistant to the corrosion of the sea waters. Is all of this coincidence? The ballast contains elements which are completely consistent with that of aluminum, titanium and iron alloy productions. The rivet contains elements which are consistent with a very high-tech alloy. For further evidence, "The major alloying elements that are added to titanium are aluminum, vanadium, molybdenum, manganese, iron and chromium." "Ibid." ) All three analyses of the rivet show iron, aluminum, and manganese, vanadium and chromium. Perhaps one or two of these things could be accepted as "coincidence", but the entire picture is one that cannot be denied.
Ballast and rivets are not mentioned in the Biblical identification list and therefore are entirely irrelevant with regard to identifying Noah's Ark.
Hand-Wrought Iron
In June of 1985, when Ron, Dave Fasold and John Baumgardner all surveyed the site with metal detectors, Dave found a specimen which John stated, on camera, displayed the appearance of wrought iron. Dave Fasold wrote about the results of John's later analyses of the iron specimens in his book, "The Ark of Noah", p. 255: "I hurriedly opened the first-class envelope labeled 'Los Alamos National Laboratory.' It contained the semiquantitative analysis of the iron samples were had recovered from the Ark. The stoichiometric results were impressive, with the seven running from 60 percent through 91.84 percent FE2O3. The highest reading was obtained from an angular bracket." The angular bracket was the specimen John had identified as having the appearance of wrought iron.
The large iron content of the petrified timbers again verifies the fact that the flowing water which effected the petrifaction process had traveled over a large amount of iron objects before it arrived at the timber being petrified. Where did this iron come from? Certainly not the surrounding terrain which displayed an only negligible iron content. The evidence indicates that probably various alloys were produced for use in different objects, depending on what properties were required. In fact, the evidence is TOO circumstantial to be interpreted any other way except that it shows conclusive proof of metal alloys used in the ark.
The Bible makes no mention of 'iron brackets' in it's identification list.
"In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron. The black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite, a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the 'structure' with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite and pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. Both magnetite and geothite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal." (op. cite. pg. 441,442)
These pieces of goethite, mis-identified as metal fittings are irrelevant to the identification on Noah's Ark.
The "Manganese Nodules" Theory
One "learned scientist", this one proclaiming to be a Christian, rejects all the evidences found at the site. Why? Because after he was made aware of it, he continued to raise money to continue searching on Mt. Ararat, a project which was his favorite. While he hasn't bothered to present any legitimate reasons refuting most of the evidence, (preferring to state simply that he has investigated it thoroughly 3 times), he DOES present an argument against some of the ballast material. After all, these specimens are some of the most incredible and important evidences, and to speak out against them requires an alternate explanation. He attacks the analysis of one particular specimen- the one which contains 84.14% manganese dioxide, stating simply that it is nothing but a "manganese nodule", something that is found all over the ocean floor and is therefore quite common.
Let's look at that claim. First of all, this site isn't the ocean floor- it is 6,300 feet above it, and thousands of miles from the Pacific Ocean, which is where these nodules are commonly found. But let's not take that into consideration. Let's check into these "nodules" and see what characteristics they have. "...these manganese nodules contain as much as 2.5 percent copper, 2.0 percent nickel, 0.2 percent cobalt and 35 percent manganese. In some deposits, the content of cobalt and manganese is as high as 2.5 percent and 50 percent respectively. Such concentrations would be considered high-grade ores if found in land,..." "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 ed., vol. 13", page 503, under subject heading "Oceans and Seas".
OK, 50% manganese content, we have just read, is considered the highest percentage to be found in these nodules, as well as in land ores. The average is considered to be 35%. Yet, our analyses of these ballast specimens show 87%, 84% and 80%- far above what is found in these nodules. Also, the nodules contain cobalt and nickel, yet these are not present in the ballast specimens. In addition, there is the size to be considered- the nodules are stated to be an average of about 4 centimeters (slightly less than 2 inches)- yet some of THESE specimens are 10 inches in diameter and more. These factors, combined with the fact that the ballast specimens contain other elements NOT found in the manganese nodules is more than enough evidence to rule out that little theory.
This is all completely irrelevant because, ballast is not on the Biblical identification list and ballast is not needed in a barge. This is why Dr. Morris does not need to address all this proposed evidence. The exact source of the rocks with high contents of manganese or titanium is irrelevant to the Biblical identification of Noah's Ark.
"I Don't See Any Petrified Wood?"
One would think that trained scientists would be able to recognize the fragments found scattered all the way around the ship as pieces of petrified wood- but they don't. Why? Because they are trained evolutionists- they are taught, and firmly believe, that all petrified wood displays growth rings. But without a belief in the Biblical account, they do not understand or believe that prior to the flood, (which they don't believe in) conditions were such that growth rings DID NOT OCCUR.
All rock hounds and geologists of any philosophical persuasion know and can show you pieces of petrified wood with growth rings. Petrified wood is usually known to be petrified wood because of the growth rings. There are some petrified wood which does not have growth rings. This is not because of the previous climate, but because of the particular petrifaction environment the wood was buried in. Wyatt's assertion that the Preflood environment was such that growth rings did not occur is patently and provably false.
GEN. 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD GOD HAD NOT CAUSED IT TO RAIN UPON THE EARTH, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But THERE WENT UP A MIST FROM THE EARTH, AND WATERED THE WHOLE FACE OF THE GROUND. This Scripture has just told us that there was no rain before the flood, which is probably one of the reasons that the world would not believe there was a coming flood. The laws of nature which would be in effect in order to have no rain, but to have this "mist" which "watered the whole face of the earth" would include a very constant temperature. This temperature would not have varied over more than 10 or so degrees. This relatively small variation in temperature would not have been great enough to cause the water in the air to totally condense into raindrops, but would instead produce an effect similar to a greenhouse or a terrarium. Each day, in the cool of the evening, dew would appear on the ground. In the morning, this dew would evaporate as the temperature rose. Day after day, this cycle would continue, keeping a perfect balance of moisture both in the air and on the soil.
Pure speculation.
What Causes Growth Rings?
Growth rings in trees and other plants are caused by a variation in the water supply to the plant. Annual rings today occur when the temperature drops and the sap in the tree fails to rise. The leaves of the deciduous trees turn color and die, soon dropping off. In the spring, the warmth releases the tree from its state of "hibernation" and the sap begins to flow again. Even though there may be water in the ground, when the temperature drops, the tree does not continue its cycle until it is again spring. Therefore, a ring results when the growth is temporarily halted and begins when spring arrives. Sometimes, weather conditions, such as a drought, can result in numerous rings in one season. During a severe drought, the tree is deprived of its water supply and growth halts temporarily. Then, a rain comes along and growth resumes during the same season- and here we have 2 rings in one year. There is no way to determine the number of rings which belong to one year, so this method is not reliable in determining a tree's age.
The petrified wood which contains rings, such as that found in Arizona, is post-flood.
Petrified wood from all over the world show growth rings. All Creationary geologists consider the strata in which fossil wood is found in Arizona, specifically from Petrified Forest N.P., to be Flood deposition. Fossil wood with rings is found in Oregon and Washington in Flood deposition layers.
Even the evolutionists admit the absence of growth rings in wood from what they call the "Carboniferous" period: "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 a further proof that the Carboniferous climate was fairly uniform." Larousse Encyclopedia of the Earth, p. 369.
Lacking 'spring and winter rings' is not saying that the fossil wood did not have rings, but that they did not have rings of differing widths which would record wet and dry seasons. Rather the rings are uniform. But they still had rings!
The "Blind" CANNOT See the Truth
Before the flood, without an annual cessation of water supply and with a constant temperature, the trees grew at a uniform rate continually. No growth rings were formed. But try and tell this to an evolutionist scientist. He simply will not accept it and therefore will never recognize the petrified wood at Noah's Ark as being wood.
Pre-flood wood that has become fossilized has rings! I have fossil wood, buried by the flood which have fossilized rings. Almost any Christian rock hound can show you fossil wood from Flood deposits which have rings. Wyatt is simply ignorant and is spreading falsehood (and those too, who continue to promote his ideas after his recent death)!
So here we have a perfect example of a promise given in the Bible: ROM 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, GOD GAVE THEM OVER TO A REPROBATE MIND, to do those things which are not convenient;. When man rejects God and His Truth as HE told it through His Holy Word, God gives him over to Satan, that he will not be able to recognize truth. He will absolutely not accept it because through his rejection of Truth, he is blind. 2TH 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Sadly, this is a fact, so don't ever expect the world at large to accept the evidence God has so mercifully provided. But for those who DO want the truth, even though they may have been taught lies, their eyes will be opened. JOH 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
You cannot counter falsehood with falsehood! Wyatt retreats to Bible-bashing, because his arguments are so patently weak.
It would be foolish to expect a 4,300 year old wooden ship to remain intact today, unless it was buried in the hot, dry sands of Egypt, like Cheop's sun boat.
Or, it if were buried in a stationary snow field like what can be found on Ararat.
It could not be expected to survive at all in the extreme seasons present in the Ararat region, if it were left exposed to the elements all these years. The wood would have long ago rotten and the metal fittings would have oxidized. But protected in the lava flow, its presence was preserved in timbers turned to stone. Then, the simple outline of its shape was the only clue to its nature in the 1950s. At that time, no evidence was visible or understood. In 1978, the small earthquake dropped the soil from around its sides, revealing on one side, empty holes where rib timbers had fragmented and fallen away after suffering "frost wedging". On the other side, rib timbers which remained in place in the earth, but which are still fragmented, could be seen by the color difference between them and the surrounding soil. It's length is exactly 300 royal Egyptian cubits, the only cubit Moses would have known. The "Hebrew" cubit was of varying lengths at different times, and wouldn't come into use for many years after Genesis was written. In 1984, metal detectors revealed the presence of a regular pattern of metal readings both along the top and sides of the ark. In 1985 this pattern was plotted out the entire length of the ship, revealing the perfect pattern of a ship. In 1986 and 1987, radar scans showed internal structures which were completely consistent with the inside of a ship containing rooms and chambers, as well as 3 decks. Analyses of specimens from the ark show metals which display evidences of being wrought and alloyed. The hull is full of material which is precisely consistent with slag of very advanced metal production- some of whose technology wasn't known to us until 1936 and 1948. And, it is in the mountains of Ararat, in a mountain configuration which matched the crescent-shape of Ron's experiment of building mountains in a stream and floating a miniature boat past it, of almost 30 years ago. Coincidences? No, I'd stake MY LIFE on it.
It is all irrelevant because none of it is mentioned in the Biblical indentification list. All these evidences are can only be understood as such because it is first assumed that this is Noah's Ark. These evidences cannot therefore be used to prove that this anomaly is Noah's Ark, because that is assumed in the first place. It is a logical fallacy, called circular reasoning, where on tries to prove what you assume.
It does not speak well of the logical thinking of the many people who have been persuaded by the illogical ramblings of Wyatt. It is likely the desire for Noah's Ark to be found, and the continual brainwashing by Wyatt that this is the Ark, that most have acceded to this otherwise illogical position.
Wyatt went to his grave ever confident in his 'discoveries,' so I guess he did stake his life on it.