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
------------------------
As time goes on, we face more and more opposition and obstacles, but as this increases we find that the work goes forward with more and more power. All of God's workers must expect this as we near the end. But we must also know that His work WILL be accomplished and not allow ourselves to be discouraged, and felt this subject needed to be addressed. On page 2, we discuss "Opposition" and our beliefs about it -- please read it.
... For example, some of the fiercest opponents of Noah's Ark are some who once had a part in the research. Some participated in independent research which they now claim disproved the site; however, their original reports of that research tell a different story. We will share some of these with you in this issue.
...
The opposition to the evidences of Noah's Ark and all the other discoveries which God has provided to vindicate His Word is fierce. We have grown used to it and, in fact, actually use the level of opposition as a sort of "thermometer" -- when God's true workers are faithfully doing His work, they WILL experience opposition in some form. If the workers get remiss in their duties, the opposition lessens or even disappears.
The following are 2 examples of what we can expect as the time of Christ's return nears:
[snip of material related to Noah's Ark]
[snip of material umrelated to identifying Noah's Ark]
[snip of Bible-bashing of the opposition]
During the course of Ron's work on the various projects, numerous people have wanted to become involved. Some have felt Ron was unqualified to continue the work because of his lack of credentials and they pursued independent research without Ron.
While initially, some of these people declared a belief in the validity of certain discoveries, they today have changed their opinion. And we fully believe everyone has a right to their own opinion. However, sometimes all of the facts concerning some of the independent research isn't made available along with the "change of opinion", so we felt it was needful at this time to discuss some of these matters. Although we meet our persecutors with meekness and the same Spirit as Christ displayed, we are obligated to state the simple facts concerning His Work, that people may have the means to make an intelligent decision as to what they believe.
The reason people who change their minds is because they begin to look at the evidence without the pressure of the presence of Wyatt. Wyatt was convinced that the anomaly was the Ark, with out ANY Biblical evidence. He has been persuasive and had a forceful character in person, but when people have time to reflect on their own, they find the evidence is lacking. As I have been pointing out, Wyatts arguements are mostly circular -- trying to prove by evidences thought to be from the Ark, that the Ark exists.
The 1987 Radar Scans
Jointly Sponsored by
Ataturk University and
Staff of Los Alamos National Labs
[snip of information about radar.]
Radar data does not prove the Ark. It is Wyatt's interpretations which he sites as proof of the Ark.
[unrelated material snipped]
Interestingly, it was the 1984 specimen of "ballast material" which Col. Jim Irwin sent to Los Alamos Labs for analysis as a favor to Ron which first captured John Baumgardner's interest and led to his participation in researching the site.
[snip of information about core drills same as previous information]
Conclusion
Both the radar scans and the core drills, we are told by the writer of the independent research results, do not rule out the possibility that this is a man-made structure.
The independent researchers took four 3 1/2 inch core drill specimens from an area roughly equal to the surface area of 1 1/2 football fields. In that extremely small sample of the material of the site, they found evidence which could represent the remains of rusted man-made objects; but they found no evidence of petrified wood. This lack of petrified wood in this extremely minute sampling, in their own words, does not rule out the possibility that any is present in the site.
Today, most of the researchers involved in these independent surveys state publicly that they do not believe the site to be that of Noah's Ark. That is certainly their privilege. But the results of the radar and core drills remain valid. If their data did not rule out the possibility that the site contained man-made structure in 1987 and 1988, it certainly does not today. Opinions are different -- those change; but facts don't.
The facts do not indicate a man-made structure. It is interpretation of the facts which Wyatt has made which is claimed to be evidence of Noah's Ark. Interpretations change. An interpretation is not proof.
One scientist involved in the above work, when he examined the deck timber, told Ron it wasn't petrified wood because it didn't have any growth rings. As recently as this last month, we've heard that same belief expressed by another educator. Yet, even evolutionist geologists all over the world recognize that what they term "Carboniferous" wood HAS NO GROWTH RINGS:
...If we can imagine horse-tails enlarged from their present 3 feet to trees 60 to 100 feet high, we reproduce the Calamites of the Carboniferous forests. In their youth these trees had exactly the same structure as the horsetails; only as they grew older did they acquire wood and the secondary bark that supported them and led the sap to all parts of the plant.
The giant club mosses Sigillaria and Lepidodendron, the main inhabitants of the Carboniferous forest, raised their tufts of leaves 60 to 100 feet above the ground....
To support trunks of six-foot base diameters and 60- to 100-foot height, tissues must increase 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 further proof that the Carboniferous climate was fairly uniform.
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.
... In 1951, Baxter, in his publications of the transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, made something into print which many geologist already knew, which happens to be true all over the world as far as I've been able to find. He says this, "It has been shown that a lack of annual rings is characteristic of wood of all carboniferous plants the world over". It's true here; it's true of the trees I've looked at in America and everywhere else. They just don't have any annual ring system.
The trees and plants to which eovlutionary geologist refer to during the carboniferous are those like the Calamites, Sigillaria and lepidodendron which simply do not have wood rings because of the way they grow. When it comes to fossil wood from conifers and broadleaf, growth rings are found everywhere.
FACTORS THAT REGULATE GROWTH
The environment. Temperature.[snip of description of how tree rings are made]
[snip of description of Pre-Flood climate]
Amazingly, one 1931 geologic textbook describes these very conditions when describing the climate of one portion of the "Carboniferous" period which they termed the "Pennsylvanian":
Pennsylvanian Climate. Many years ago the plant life of the great coal period was thought to imply a warm to tropical, very moist, uniform climate. More careful study, however, clearly points to a temperate, only relatively humid, but remarkably uniform climate. Some of the criteria favoring this latter view may be stated as follows: The great height and size of the plants together with their frequent succulent nature and spongy leaves indicate luxuriant growth in a moist, mild climate; absence of annual rings of growth shows absence of distinct change of seasons; the presence of aerial roots, by analogy with similar modern plants, implies a moist and warm climate; the nearest present-day allies of the coal plants attain greatest growth in warm and humid climates; at present the greatest accumulations of vegetable matter in bogs and marshes take place in temperate climates where decay is not too rapid and thus suggests a similar climate for the accumulation of the coal deposits; and the remarkable distribution of almost identical plant types in Pennsylvanian rocks from Arctic to tropical regions clearly show a pronounced uniformity of climate over the earth.
(Elements of Geology, by William J. Miller, pub. By D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., NY, 1931, p. 352.)
The plants and trees of the "Pennsylvanian period" are the Calamites, Sigillaria and lepidodendron, the kind which do not make rings because of the way they grow. Conifers and Broadleafs, which have rings galore, are not found in the 'Pennsylvanian era.' The 'Pennsylvanian era' is just one small part of the Flood deposits.
The Battle Intensifies
[Unrelated to identifying Noah's Ark]
The Pope and Darwin...
[unrealted to identifying Noah's Ark]
UNIQUE FLOOD DISCOVERY
Many evolutionary geologist mock Noah's Flood, claiming one flood should have produced one massive layer of rock world wide. Now a unique Creation Research discovery is real mud in the eye of such theorists. The worst flood this century in parts of Washington State, USA, during February 1996, has also produced the best flood deposits. Discovered by Creation Research during February field work in west and windy Washington these flood bed contained 150 or more layers produced from one week of flood waters.
(A photograph accompanied the article.)
Various Strata Laid by the Flood
John MacKay's wonderful discovery is absolute evidence that a flood lays down NOT one single strata, but in this case 150 IN ONE WEEK! And this Washington State flood was small, even minute, when compared to the universal flood of Noah's time.
This has been know for a long time. It wasn't discovered by MacKay.
[contact data snipped]
A Point to Ponder
When we rush to blindly accept the "word" of learned men, scientist, scholars and theologians based on the fact that they are supposed to possess higher knowledge and are men of "good reputation", keep one thing in mind -- there were certainly "wise men", scholars and scientists BEFORE the flood; but how many got on the ark?
"Reshit, the Kurdish Farmer"
[The finding of Reshit]
ANOTHER "TALL TALE"
[The false story of George Jammal from CBS's The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark.]
Dr. Ekrem Akurgal
One question Ron has been asked numerous times is “What do real archaeologists say about the Noah’s Ark site?” In our video, “Discovered -- Noah’s Ark”, Ron is seen discussing the evidence with Dr. Ekrem Akurgal in March of 1985. Dr. Akurgal states, “At any rate, it is a ship, an ancient ship... It must be preserved...” Who is this “Dr. Akurgal?”[
[more about the professor]
ARCHAEOLOGIST
EXTRAORDINARY
Ord. Prof. Dr.
Ekrem AKURGAL
By SABAHATTIN BATUR
[Biographical sketch]
Dr. Akurgal -- One Last Note:
[a respected person]
[not related to Noah's Ak.]
[not related to Noah's Ark.]
From Where You Least Expect....
[Not related to Noah's Ark.]