B22-Problems_of_Ark.txt
--
Graham L. Kendall
All these files are available on
http://www.grahamkendall.net/
Modified 10/10/2008
Email grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com
All are free to use any of this material without limit.
*******************************************************************************
This has been edited from the original version, for brevity.
HTTP://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/hols1.htm
===
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#building
===
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html   Wyatt "ark" exposed.


There is a consensus, however on when the "iron age" began.   The
amount of iron supposedly used by your Noah is impossible to account
for before the technology to smelt iron was invented.
And it post dates the supposed "Ark" by thousands of years.
Wyatt's study was never published in any scientific journal.  It included 
dowsing rods. Claiming that a cheap metal detector found large amounts of
iron, buried deep on the site of a BRONZE AGE boat - a boat that never
actually existed in the first place.

Guner, Y., 1986, Is Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat? Geomorphological
development on
the Dogubayazit-Telceker landslide which is assumed to be related to
Noah's Ark: Jeomorfoloji, Dergisi, v. 14, p. 27-37.

Where is the evidence of pre-flood iron making industries?  Where is the
charcoal pits, the vast amounts of slag, etc?

Smelting iron takes a much hotter 
fire, and much more fuel than an ordinary campfire can produce.    Producing
iron is very labor intensive, and even then, unless you use fairly modern 
techniques, the yield is very low.
The process is not easy, even in 
the 18th century, it took vast amounts of charcoal and ore to make a 
relatively small amount of  bog iron.   It wasn't until the industrial 
revolution that iron making became a large scale industry.
==
Lionel Casson's Ships and 
Seamanship in the Ancient World (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).
==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships
==
Also of interest is a graphic comparing Mesozoic &
Cenozoic mammals filling similar ecological niches,
despite not being closely related phylogenetically.
IOW evolution in action.

Besides the 1200 presently known extant genera, this
paper cites 4000 known fossil mammal genera, which of
course hugely understates the actual amount.
Certainly ten times this number must have existed, &
possibly 100.

Admiral Noah would have needed to devote at least one
Ark in his armada just to mammalian genera, many of
which were in the ten-ton class as adults. Our class
also has high air, food & water requirements.

Few genera persist throughout an entire geological
epoch, but are replaced by new forms in the same or
other families. A very few however do last for tens
of millions of years.

Even if they delusionally imagine that only one
species of each genus existed before the Flood, how do
creationists explain the presence all at once of so
many different "kinds" filling the same ecological
niches? If mammoths, Asian & Indian elephants,
mastodons, gomophotheres, all other extinct
proboscidean genera, giant rhinos, uintatheres,
indricotheria & all their kin, for instance,
co-existed with Mesozoic & Paleozoic megafauna like
sauropods, Triceratops, hadrosaurs, etc, how could the
earth possibly have produced enough of the right kinds
of plants for all these megaherbivores to eat?

The same applies to the ecosystems of oceans &
environments of flying animals.

Modern plants have evolved deadly defensive poisons
that would weaken or kill dinosaurs or Paleozoic
browsers accustomed to a diet of cycads, ferns & not
yet toxic conifer needles. I don't know when yew, for
instance, developed the lethal chemical harvested as
taxol to fight cancer, but I've seen it kill even
modern ruminants; also, pine bark causes abortions.

If, as seems necessary, pairs or more of these tens or
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of genera are
migrating under their own power Ark-ward, what are
they eating along the way, besides each other, given
all the carnivores? Are the naked African mole rats &
North American gophers burrowing toward Mesopotamia?
Who is collecting their special needs dietary plants,
such as the 11 different eucalyptus leaves koalas
require? Was there a long row of such trees
stretching thousands of miles from Australia to Iraq?
Did all extant & extinct plant species grow in one
place then? The zone of devastation around Ark, where
all the animals converged would have caused late
arrivals to starve, unless again God intervened
miraculously in His convoluted plan for wiping out
mankind.
==
the Hebrew word for ark is "aron", which designates any box-type structure.
A box is impractical for a huge seagoing vessel.
It will bend and leak. it will collapse.
==
The largest ship
historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at
110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah's ark, was found to be so
unstable that it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough
conditions further out in the sea. The huge structural stresses that
developed in the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked. Water
thus had to be pumped out constantly.

Wyoming, the longest wooden ship ever built (450 feet from jib boom tip to
spanker boom tip), was held together with 90 diagonal iron cross-bracings on
each side.  She used a donkey steam engine to raise & lower sails, haul lines,
etc. Because of her extreme length & wood
construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause her
long planks to twist & buckle, allowing sea water into her hold.  She had to
use pumps to keep her hold relatively free of water.  In March
1924, she foundered in heavy seas & sank with the loss of all hands.So the Ark
was far beyond the technological capabilities of the Bronze Age, nor was any
ocean-going vessel of comparable size built in antiquity.  The difference in
seaworthiness between 200 feet & 450 feet is huge.  Most researchers believe
that the largest junks of the Ming treasure fleet were more likely 200-250
feet long than 390-420 length based upon probably exaggerated contemporary
accounts.  But in any case, the Chinese oceanic fleet of 600 years ago could
not have been built 4500 years ago.
===
As I was musing on the problems of designing and sailing a tanker sized
wooden boat, I thought of three things that have only lightly been touched on
in these discussions. Ballast, bilges and bumps.
Ships of any size require ballast. It is important for stability. In our
yacht we have several tons of lead in the keel, so that when a big wave or
wind pushes her down or flips her over, she comes back up again. Ballast has
been omitted in most discussions of Ark design, but it must have had ballast,
or it would have rolled at the first sizable wave. However, ballast, even if
you are using solid lead, reduces your usable storage space, and no calculation
of Ark storage space I am aware of takes this into account.
Bilges are where all the extraneous water that leaks into a ship goes, and
bilge pumps are what you use to get rid of it. In a wooden boat of any size,
even a properly caulked and sealed one, twisting of the hull opens minute
spaces between the planks, and water leaks in. This leakage can be quite
large in even modestly sized wooden ships, so that the bilge pumps must be
operating continuously or your ship fills up and sinks (or wallows sufficiently
that she takes water from smaller waves, then sinks).
Then of course there is condensation, and any water shipped in heavy seas.
This raises another question, where were the loading hatches? The
illustration in my Sunday School Bible (after the Biblical description)
shows the loading hatch on the side. This can't be right, as it would leak
considerably in a decent blow, and would be stove in by any sizable sea. So
loading hatches must be on deck, preferably covered by tarred canvas to
minimise leakage, especially in big seas where water is coming across the
bows, or heavier seas where the bow buries itself in a wave. Lets not
forget the rain that is hammering on deck for 40 days solid. Even with
proper hatch covers, for a ship the size of the Ark, some one would have to be
constantly manning the bilge pumps. Also, no space allocation for bilges has
been mentioned in Ark design. Nor has the design of bilge pumps that can be
made from late bronze age (or even classical) materials that can keep a ship
that size dry been mentioned.

Bumps:
It had no source of power and no rudder. This certainly shows that it wasn't
designed by anyone who knew about the sea. Lets hope the Good Lord added a
sea anchor to the plans he gave to Noah, or in the first big blow would
have promptly turned side on to the waves, rolled over and sunk. For a vessel
of large inertial mass, it would have taken a few waves to turn it over,
providing there was enough ballast, correctly loaded, and your ballast hasn't
shifted. But for a ship with no motive power or steering, pointing your bow to
the waves (so that you aren't turned over) is difficult, if not impossible.
Even a sea anchor, a sort of wind sock you throw into the sea to stabilise
your boat and turn its bow into the waves, is of limited use, and
I'm not sure one would work for a ship the size of the Ark

Even if you keep your bow roughly pointed into the waves, your problems
aren't over. There is a place for everything and everything is in its
place, usually clipped in, tied down or restrained in some way. This is
because in a bumpy sea, anything loose goes flying. This is not only
inconvenient, but can be dangerous. Being knocked unconscious by flying
tackle is not fun. For the Ark, the problem is compounded because a fair
proportion of its load is animals in cages. Unless properly tied down, the
cages will slide (or worse) in a big sea, which would be disastrous for the
stability of the Ark. Many modern vessels have foundered because their cargo
has shifted. No treatment of Ark construction I have seen has addressed this,
and this is an important consideration, as lashings and attachment points,
especially in Bronze Age materials, would occupy a significant volume.

Very careful attention has to be paid to loading the Ark, weight should be
low in the vessel, and evenly distributed, but you can't stack cages of
animals like modern cargo containers. You can't stack the cages too high.
Herbivores have to be kept apart from carnivores, carnivores can't be placed
within paws reach of each other or they will attack each other. There also
has to be spaces for access to deliver food and remove waste, and all this
has to be factored into the balance. Food supplies have to be carefully
treated as well, not only because of their liability to be contaminated on
the lower decks close to the bilge waters but also the fact that they will
be used up during the voyage, and so the weight distribution of YOA will
change. All the Ark discussions I've seen assume that if there is X amount
of space for stores, that space will be totally filled with stores, ignoring
packing (especially water proofing from condensation and water from deck
leakage), lashing, access and distribution in the Ark
Once you have your load balanced, and your bow pointed to the waves, your
problems haven't finished. Larger ships plow through choppy seas
unconcerned. In larger seas, the tables are reversed, yachts surf down the
face of the waves (not totally comfortable, but better than chop), while
large ships wallow and the Ark thrashes and tries to bury her bow in the
waves. Under conditions like this seasickness
is almost inevitable, not just for the crew, but for the animals. Don't
underestimate seasickness. While it's not lethal in itself for humans, it
severely reduces your working capacity when half your crew is off somewhere
vomiting like crazy and working when you are severely nauseous can be
hazardous. During these episodes someone still has to keep the bow pointed,
man the bilge pumps, check the fastenings on the cages for slippage, and
pacify terrified animals. The latter means that someone has to go below
decks, and that's where the motion sickness is worst. How you control a
panicked elephant below decks when you are sick yourself is beyond me. For
animals the situation is worse, as many animals are stress sensitive and
will die from this stress, so a heavy sea would be lethal for many species.
Even apparently hardy species like Zebra can die from the stress of being
moved from one zoo to another under modern conditions. Animals like Koalas
and Platypus are much more stress sensitive.

Another problem is that ships the size of the Ark can get hung up between
the crests of two waves. The keel of the Ark has to be made of multiple
timbers, as it's just too big to be made from a single tree (and would
probably contain 4-5 joins). Jointed keels are reasonably strong, but
when your bottom is unsupported by water, the keel can break easily,
even modern steel vessels have had their backs broken by being caught on
two crests.

Consider lighting and air. Sky lights are poor ventilation systems, but
better than nothing. Skylights catch the breeze when you sailing, but
below deck is still stifling even with 10-15 knots of wind. Even with
the kind of scoop ventilators you see on movies (eg the Titanic), you
still need to be going at a fair clip to get good air flow, and for
passengers in steerage on the old windjammers, conditions were quite
dreadful.

On the Ark the conditions would be much worse, as its much bigger, with
more below deck levels, so air circulation is much poorer to begin with.
Also, for the first 40 days the lattice skylight method can't be used,
as the decks are being hammered with a rainfall that makes a tropical
cyclone look like a mild shower, so all deck hatches must be securely
battened and covered with waterproof materials. Even after the first 40
days, anytime a big sea comes up, the hatches must be sealed again, to
stop water coming across the deck going down the ventilator.

So the air below decks would be foul, especially on the lower levels,
near the bilges. Also remember you have lots of animals, with lots of
fecal waste to dispose of, adding to the reek. This is not a case of
wimpy modern westerners not liking smells, the below decks conditions
on the old ships revolted even people hardened to stenches. Furthermore,
the conditions would have greatly added to the disease communication. On
modern livestock transport ships, with modern hygene and ventilation, one
species to deal with and trips lasting a month or less mortality rates
range from between 5% to 20%. The mortality rates on the Ark must have
been much higher.

Below decks lighting is also problematical. Glass lanterns with high quality
candles or oil and wicking were unavaliable. The only available lighting at
that time was open oil lanterns of pottery or bronze using animal fat and
low quality wicking. These could be suspended (as they were in many houses
of the time), but gave low intensity light and were dangerous because of
the potential for spilling flamable fat/oil. Trying to work below decks
by the light of these lamps would be difficult, if not downright dangerous.
The late Bronze Age inhabitants of the Mediterranian shore were master
mariners and master boat builders. They made incredible voyages in small
but sturdy craft. But their largest vessels were only a fraction of the
size of the Ark, said to be built contemporaneously. No one ever built
an all wooden vessel of that size (450-500 ft long, the largest all wooden
vessels were about 300 ft long), even at the peak of wooden ship technology.
People did not build really big wooden ships because of the design limits
of wood, amongst other things. Consider a mental image of the lower holds of
YOA during a heavy sea, in the foul and noisome air, the crew struggle along
the heaving deck trying to check and tighten lashings and calm the
wild-eyed, panicking animals by the feeble light of wildly swinging oil
lamps. The largest late bronze age ships (about 1300 BC, around about
the time of the Ark), which were not much over 30 meters long, could carry
50 men. The Ark is supposed to be about 450 feet long. The Ark would be
subject to big seas. The sorts of seas I'm considering are the standard
ones that turn up in the Mediterranean. In reality, the seas should be
much worse during the initial 40 days, and when that is over, on a global
sea without topography.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
Seagoing Ships & Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, Shelley Wachsmann,
1998, Texas A&M University Press
Splendors of the Bronze Age, National Geographic, Bass, George F., 12/87 p.
693.
From Bronze Age Wreck, "More of Everything", National Geographic, May 1992,
Bass, George F.
A page on the underwater archeology of Shipwrecks, including a Bronze Age
wreck, Ulu Burun. A more complete account of Ulu Burun is here.
=========
Answers in Genesis: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First
Verse
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp
Special report: Amazing Ark expose

by Andrew Snelling
No matter where you live, if you havent already heard about it, the promoters
and the media have been making sure you will. What then is the massive
boat-shaped formation which rests at 6,300 feet above sea level in Eastern
Turkey, about 1215 miles (1524 kilometres) from the summit of Greater Mount
Ararat?
The Main Claims at a Glance
True/False?
Radar shows man-made (boat) structure..........FALSE
There is a regular metallic pattern............FALSE
Lab tests show petrified laminated wood........FALSE
Turkish scientists found metal rods............FALSE
Metal artefacts have been proved by lab........FALSE
There are ships ribs showing................FALSE
There is lots of petrified wood................FALSE
Turkish Commission says its a boat...........FALSE

Introduction
Apparently first seen by a local Kurdish farmer following an earthquake in May
1948, the worlds attention was drawn to this streamlined boat-shape by the
publication of an aerial photograph, taken by a Turkish Air Force pilot, in
Australian Pix magazine on July 9, 1960 and American Life magazine on
September 5, 1960. Another earthquake in December 1978 is said to have
enhanced the relief between the boat-shaped formation and the surrounding
terrain, although erosion has since scan actively modifying it.
However, this particular boat-shape is far from unique. The Turkish Air Force
released another photograph(click here to see picture) several years ago
showing three similar boat-shapes in the mudflow material on the footslopes of
nearby Lesser Mount Ararat. So in reality, if it wasnt for the fact that this
particular boat-shape is the approximate length of the biblical Noahs Ark*
then little attention would have been paid to it, even though it lies within
the region the Bible describes as the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). (*It
is much wider than the Ark, but proponents of the site say that this is
because the outside walls have been splayed out by the weight of mud.)
Claims about this boat-shape were previously discussed in Creation12(4):1619,
September 1990. The site is properly known as the Durupinar site, named after
the Turkish Army Captain who first saw the boat-shape on the aerial photograph
and who was involved in the first expedition in 1960. Some more recently have
called it the Akyayla site, after the region in which it is located. The site
has been vigorously promoted by self-styled archaeologist and explorer Ron
Wyatt since 1977, when he first visited Turkey and began investigations. Over
the years, particularly in the mid-1980s, Wyatt repeatedly tried to interest
other people in the site, such as former US astronaut Colonel James Irwin, and
ICR scientist Dr John Morris. Neither of these men were convinced after on site
inspections. In 1985 Wyatt was joined by former merchant marine officer David
Fasold and geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner. Both men have since parted
company with Wyatt, Fasold disagreeing with him over details, and Baumgardner,
while originally being cautiously enthusiastic, is now adamant the site does
not contain Noahs Ark.
Australian Dr Allen Roberts first visited the site in 1990 and thereafter
initiated the organization Ark Search in order to raise funds to work with
Wyatt on an archaeological dig. Their efforts came to world media attention
when they were kidnapped (with three others) and held captive by Kurdish
guerrillas for three weeks in September 1991.
Both Wyatt and Roberts continue to actively promote the site as the probable
remains of Noahs Ark. In recent years Wyatt was interviewed on a number of US
television programs, the footage of which he combined with his teams on-site
footage to make a video that has been widely marketed/circulated among many
Christians, who have thus become excited about the possibility that Noahs Ark
has supposedly been found. Meanwhile, during the first half of 1992, Dr Allen
Roberts embarked on a systematic Australia-wide lecture tour, and his Ark
Search organization produced a booklet summarizing their evidence and marketed
a video of his public lecture.
With this brief background we now evaluate the evidence claim by claim and
respond. Unfortunately, not one of these seemingly convincing claims stands up.

Metal Detectors and Hot Spots
It is Alleged That
Metal detector surveys found a regular pattern of hot spots which could be
joined to reveal a regular pattern of lines lengthwise and across the inside
of the formation only. These hot spots represent iron concentrations and could
be traced by the metal detector along these interconnecting lines or iron lines.
A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped
detector head on the end of a long pole) hot spots were indeed found, but
these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines.
Since this type of metal detector can only detect metal objects down to a
depth of about 1 foot (30 centimetres), these hot spots can only represent
objects with high metal concentrations buried in the surface mudflow material.
Such a description perfectly fits the numerous basalt (a volcanic rock that is
everywhere throughout the area) boulders found randomly buried in, and
protruding from, the mud. The basalt boulders are often weathered but contain
iron oxides that make the instrument respond positively in contrast to the
dead mud. Furthermore, this instrument did not detect iron lines between the
hot spots. That this distribution of hot spots was random was confirmed by at
least two such metal detector surveys.
Metal Detectors Mapping Iron Lines
It is Alleged That
Metal detecting surveys using a molecular frequency generator/discriminator
mapped out these iron lines, which represent longitudinal and cross beams
containing iron nails and /or brackets. (These iron lines were marked out with
bright yellow plastic tape for greater impact.)
A molecular frequency generator consists of a pair of brass welding rods bent
at 90 degrees near one end, which are placed in sleeves for ease of movement
while hand-held, connected by wires to a set of batteries which are carried in
the operators pocket. (This electrical source is supposed to make the device
more sensitive!) A so-called frequency generator is placed on the ground
within the area to be surveyed. The dials are set on this instrument for it to
emit the supposed inaudible frequency of whatever metal (gold, iron, etc.) one
hopes to detect. As the operator walks along holding the brass rods out in
front, one in each hand, the rods are supposed to cross or separate when the
subsurface target is located. Such movement, however, will occur by simple
physical principles even when there are no batteries connected. Just as a
supermarket trolley (castor) wheel tends to trail behind the direction of
motion, there is a tendency for the long arms of the rods to rotate so as to
trail behind the direction of walking. The resultant crossing or separating
may therefore easily be initiated by the conscious or unconscious expectations
of the user.
Qualified scientists have been independently consulted about this gadget,
which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific
journals. They are unanimous that there are no scientific principles employed.
Indeed, two of these scientists built and tested working models. The results of
this technique can hardly be considered trustworthy, the brass welding rods
being used in essence, as divining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick
to search for water.* So the iron lines on diagrams of the boat shape and the
lines of plastic tape in photographs are only an interpretation based on
results from a pseudo-scientific instrument. They have not been able to be
reproduced or verified by any reputable scientific survey technique, including
standard metal detection equipment. This includes the highly sophisticated
types of magnetometer used by mining companies (see later). (*Even
Baumgardner, to his later embarrassment, was initially taken in by the false
claims attributed to this instrument. Fasold still promotes its virtues and
cries foul when these home truths are pointed out, yet if it were what he
claims then every mining company and fortune seeker would own and operate one
and be making hordes of money! No mining company uses anything like it.)
Ground Penetrating, Subsurface Interface, and Radar Surveys
It is Alleged That
The pattern of iron lines that was located by the metal detecting surveys and
marked out by plastic tape was duplicated and verified by other subsurface
techniques including ground penetrating, or subsurface interface, radar
surveys, particularly the radar scans obtained by Fasold and Wyatt. These
radar scans showed an internal structure typical of a boats structural
framework (bulkheads, keelsons, walls, etc.). Tom Fenner of Geophysical Survey
Systems Inc. has thus designated the formation as a man-made boat.

In Reality
This claim is utterly false, yet it has been persistently used to give
credence to diagrams purporting to show the internal structure of a boat,
namely Noahs Ark. BothBaumgardner andDr William Shea were in Turkey in
June-July 1986 waiting to join Wyatt on site. Wyatt and Fasold told them that
they went to the site without a permit and in 30 minutes made 10 passes with
the radar scanner only over the southernmost portion of the boat-shape, the
so-called prow. Upon rendezvousing with Shea, Wyatt provided him with copies
of these radar scans. Shea has forwarded them to us.
The permit was eventually approved, but Wyatt, Fasold and their party were not
allowed back to the site with the radar scanner by the local police and
military, so the planned follow-up work to radar scan the whole formation
never came to pass, at least not at the hands of Wyatt and Fasold, from all
published accounts. Yet, Wyatt and Roberts have both published diagrams of the
boat-shape showing a supposed internal structure of transverse and longitudinal
divisions which they have labelled as bulkheads and gunwales over the whole
boat, the latter referencing Fasolds 1986 survey of only part of it.
Furthermore, both Wyatt and Roberts legitimize these claims by using the name
of Tom Fenner of Geophysical Survey Systems Incorporated in New Hampshire, who
they say looked at the 1986 radar scans and concluded that the formation is a
man-made boat.
So what did these radar scans really show? There are a series of laterally
periodic narrow reflections stacked in column-like structures at approximately
the same depth. Roughly equidistant, they may give a non-natural impression at
first glance. Fasold called these the subsurface walls he thought he had
initially detected with the molecular frequency generator and plotted them as
bulkheads and gunwales on diagrams. However, this interpretation of these
radar scans does not take into account the crucial topographic (surface)
variations across the site. If it did, Wyatt and Fasold would never have been
able to convince themselves, let alone anyone else, about these so-called
bulkheads, etc. Interestingly, Fasold admits on one of his published radar
scans that the radar missed some of these so-called walls.
Geophysicist Tom Fenner says, I was surprised and dismayed to learn that Mr
Wyatt was using my name as well as the name of Geophysical Survey Systems Inc.
(GSSI) in order to lend credibility to his unsubstantiated claims concerning
the so-called Noahs Ark site. Fenner goes on to indicate that neither he nor
GSSI believes the formation to be manmade. He writes, In 1987 I performed an
extensive GPR [ground-penetrating radar] study in an attempt to characterize
any shallow subsurface features in the boat-shaped formation at the site . A
great deal of effort was put into repeating the radar measurements acquired in
1986 by Wyatt and Fasold . After numerous attempts over a period of one and a
half days we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way. I was
never convinced the site was the remains of Noahs Ark. In fact the more time I
spent on the site, the more skeptical I became.
Instead of finding walls, Fenners 1987 radar survey indicated the presence of
a shallow flat-lying reflector likely to be bedrock underneath the surface
mudflow material. On the other hand, speaking of the data from the Wyatt and
Fasold survey (which could not be duplicated, anyway) Fenner comments, Their
records showed point targets, not walls. In other words, no boat structures
(for example, bulkheads or gunwales) were found in the survey that was
conducted by a professional ground penetrating radar operator. Wyatt even
claimed his radar scans showed stairs, which is absolutely unsustainable.
Walls of the Boat
It is Alleged That
In the walls that define the outline of the boat-shape is evidence of a former
ships ribs, presumably the timbers that formed part of the original keel
structure/hull (a few beams protruding out).
In Reality
These walls, in places standing 20-30 feet (69 metres) sheer above the
immediately surrounding terrain, certainly give the impression of the outer
hull of a boat. However, that is where all similarity ends. These walls are
simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They
contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the
outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel.
Furthermore, closer examination of the photographic evidence of a ships ribs
reveals that erosion gullies cutting into the walls at fairly regular
intervals, mainly in one area, have given the appearance at a distance of
thick beam structures; however, they are merely the hardened mud left behind
between these erosion gullies.
As the burden of proof rests with those who claim that these are a ships ribs,
one would have thought that they would have sampled this material and submitted
it for scientific tests. However, there is no indication that it has ever been
sampled by Wyatt or Roberts to see what they really are. On the other hand,
all the other eye witnesses who have been to the site insist that they only
ever saw mud, containing boulders (mudflow debris), forming these walls.
Trainloads of Petrified Wood?
It is Alleged That
There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all
in the boat structure. Furthermore, the prized exhibit Wyatt shows to
visitors, and photographs of which are regularly displayed, is a sample of
petrified wood identified as pecky cypress-removed from inside the hull in the
presence of the Governor of Agri.
In Reality
No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any
sign of these trainloads of petrified wood. GeologistDr Bayraktutan has
collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his
opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms
that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. Not one of
the other scientists (including geologists familiar with petrified wood) has
ever once seen any. Yet Wyatt continues to show untrained people samples of
what he claims is petrified wood from the site.
His prize sample, reportedly dug up in the presence of the Governor of the
Turkish province of Agri, is not only claimed to be petrified wood, but
alleged to be laminated and deck timber. Roberts too has made much of this
sample, being photographed with it, and claiming that this petrified laminated
timber is of major significance, since the Ark was made of gopher wood which,
he says, could mean laminated wood.
Both Wyatt and Roberts claim support for the identification of this sample by
citing Galbraith Laboratories of Tennessee, yet the laboratory assay
certificate shows that they only analysed for three elements-calcium, iron and
carbon-no basis at all for calling the sample petrified wood! When telephoned,
the laboratory was adamant that they were not asked to give an opinion on what
the object was and they were unable to do so.
The only other supportive evidence revealed by Roberts privately was a
typewritten statement claiming that the sample (which is said to have no
growth rings*) had been identified visually as pecky cypress by John Mackay.
That is all. No one should make such an identification without a microscope
thin section which would show, if the sample really was petrified wood, the
cellular wood structure. No such thin sectioning has been done, and when urged
by Roberts group Ark Search to do so (after Creation Science Foundation pointed
this out), Wyatt refused to submit the sample for such sectioning and proper
scientific testing and assessment. (*Ark Search literature has a photo of one
of Wyatts specimens of petrified wood which, in contrast to the above
mentioned, shows what look like growth lines. That specimen is also claimed to
show a tenon joint. To our knowledge, there is a total absence of supportive
documentation on that alleged find, which may explain why it is rarely
mentioned, in stark contrast to the other.)
A Christian who was researching these claims writes (in a document forming
part of Ark Searchs written evidence) that when he was shown this petrified
laminated wood sample, Wyatt told him that he had had it analysed by Galbraith
Laboratories and the tests indicated that it was silicate replacement (that is,
the wood had been replaced by a silicon compound). This cannot be truthful,
since the laboratory report, also in Ark Searchs possession, shows that
silicon was not even analysed for by Galbraith! No future compliance by Wyatt
to have the sample sectioned is feasible without the safeguard of
eye-witnesses who are familiar with this so-called laminated pecky cypress.
On the other hand, there are lots of chunks of basalt on the site and buried
in the surface mudflow material. Those people we know of with a trained eye
who have seen this particular sample of Wyatts have all identified it as
basalt. Furthermore, their testimony, plus photographic assessment and
microscopic examination of basalt samples from the site, strongly suggest the
alleged petrified adhesive is actually calcite veining.
Higher Carbon in Samples Coming From Within Vessel
It is Alleged That
Soil samples from the site indicate the residue of a decayed wooden vessel
with sophisticated metals used for bracing, the samples coming from within the
formation having a much higher carbon content.

Depicts an accurately surveyed outline of the site, showing the magnetic
contours. Far from confirming the pattern of regularity shown in the Ark
Search diagram, this magnetometer data is consistent with definite geological
features (see text.).
In Reality
Two soil samples were indeed collected by Wyatt in 1979 and the assay results
from Galbraith Laboratories were published by Dr William Shea. It is also true
that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such
elements are always to be found in soils. Indeed, the assay results of these
two samples are exactly what one would expect from soil developed from
basalt-the iron, aluminum and titanium originally being present in silicate
minerals within the basalt and not as exotic metal fittings as proposed by
Wyatt.

Furthermore, the laboratory assayed only for carbon and did not specify that
it was organic carbon, so Wyatt and others are wrong to claim that the carbon
in these samples comes from decayed wood. On the contrary, most of the basalt
boulders on and near the site (including samples collected by Roberts and
submitted for scientific assessment) contain abundant calcite, a very common
mineral composed of calcium carbonate; that is, it contains carbon in mineral
form-not organic carbon. No soil or rock samples gathered at the site are
supportive of Wyatts claims.
Pitch Found
It is Alleged That
Some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of
the Arks wooden structure).
In Reality
This claim appears to come primarily from Roberts and Mackay. However, no
sample has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses.
The only scientific procedure that could verify it as being pitch would be a
gas chromatographic analysis-the standard method used worldwide for studying
the chemical composition of all organic carbon materials. Tar and bitumen, for
example, are routinely identified in this way because gas chromatographic
analyses reveal the presence of the heavy, long-chain carbon molecules that
are the hallmark of these substances. Thus, until such analyses are performed
on verified samples from the site, this claim cannot be taken at face value.
Rivets, Metal Rods, and Cotter Pins
It is Alleged That
A rusted metal bracket and other fittings and metal artefacts, including a
petrified rivet and washer structures, have all been located on the site.
Furthermore, Turkish archaeologists came in and dug in three locations
recovering petrified wood plus eight pairs of long forked metal rods,
resembling cotter pins with washers.
In Reality
It is certainly true that samples found on the site has returned assays of
around 90% iron oxides. One of these samples appeared to be roughly in the
shape of a right angle and was initially conjectured to be the remains of an
iron bracket. Baumgardner (he and Fasold each still possess half of it) now
concedes that there is no evidence that it is a man-made item. The notable
discovery of iron oxide (limonite) nodules in the surface mud is entirely
consistent with the weathering of iron sulphide (pyrite) nodules and veins
(which are found in the rocks of the area) and not in any way with the rusting
of metallic fittings, brackets or artefacts.
The so-called fossil rivet is reported to have been found on June 27, 1991 as
witnessed by 12 people, in a gully within 50 metres outside of the wall on the
western side. Three independent assay laboratories are then cited as the proof
of an unusual metal content in the fossil rivet, which in turn is the
sophistication one would expect from those who manufactured them being
technologically advancedbased on the biblical reference to Tubal-cain being a
craftsman in brass and iron (Genesis 4:22).
However, photographs of the object show only an impression that vaguely has
the shape of a rivet head. A circular pattern around it has been taken to be
washers in the rock, but there is no evidence of any embedded metallic object.
Furthermore, the assays from all three laboratories returned results consistent
with the chemical composition of the major local rock type, basalt.* The only
metals present in any major amount were all reported as present in silicate
minerals. In two of the three assays all the so-called exotic metals were less
than the detection limits, while in the third assay the quantities were totally
consistent with a hydrothermally altered basalt. (*There were, of course, minor
divergences between results, but this is hardly surprising given that at least
one of the laboratories gave their results as semi quantitative only, with a
plus or minus factor of 50%!)
In other words, the results do not show any evidence of exotic metallurgy. Any
proper scientific assessment of this sample must involve a microscope thin
section being cut so that the minerals in the sample could be identified and
any evidence of metals be subjected to microscopic analyses using an electron
microprobe analyses. Such is not possible so long as Wyatt refuses to allow
sectioning of the sample and consistently violates proper scientific
protocol/procedures for verification.
As for the report of the Turkish archaeologists, finding eight pairs of long
forked metal rods, etc., the only source of that story is Wyatt himself. It
appears that the Turkish authorities sent in their own teams of scientists in
September 1985 after Wyatt and his team had left the site and the country.
Wyatt claims to have gone back to Turkey in October 1985 and to have seen the
field notebooks of the archaeologists, read them and interviewed the
archaeologists. Thus the claim about these long forked metal rods, etc. is
only as reliable asWyatt himself .
On the other hand, Dr Bayraktutan, a leading member of one of these Turkish
investigation teams, not only most emphatically does not support this and
other claims, but is at pains to dissociate himself from almost all of Wyatts
claims about the site, expressing grave doubts about how much of Wyatts
evidence actually found its way on to the site.
Rocks with High Manganese Content
It is Alleged That
Rocks found within the formation have a high manganese content and an
appearance that suggests that they were probably tailings/slag from metal
smelting/refining production by Noah and family. These rocks are inside the
formation because Noah used them as ballast within the Ark.
In Reality
Both Wyatt and Roberts make this claim and back it up with an analysis of a
sample by Galbraith Laboratories that returned an assay of 84.14% manganese
dioxide on a dry basis. However, no microscope thin section has been produced
to show whether the samples collected and claimed to be slag do in fact have
the internal texture and mineral composition of a true slag. Until that is
done this claim is far from proven.
Roberts has been given the opportunity to have his sample cut and
microscopically examined and photographed, but to date has not responded.
Morris has rightly pointed out that since the basalts in this area are
indicative of lavas that flowed out on to a subaqueous surface then these
samples could well be manganese nodules, which even today are found on the
ocean floor. Again, a microscope thin section carefully examined would
establish this.*(*In an interesting twist, Fasold has slammed Morris by
misquoting him, then used that to say that he didnt know the difference
between manganese nodules and the iron oxide rich samples that were also
collected from the site and analysed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. On
the contrary, it is Fasold who is confused because Morris is referring to these
manganese-rich samples collected by Wyatt and analysed by Galbraith
Laboratories. Again, any claim about these samples by Wyatt and Roberts
remains totally unsubstantiated until microscopic examination takes place.)
Animal Parts
It is Alleged That
Positively identified animal coprolite (fossilized animal dung), animal hair,
and animal antlers are all reported from the site and are thus further
conformation that this site contains the remains of Noahs Ark, because these
are the tell-tale signs of the animals that were aboard with Noah and family.
In Reality
Although we have not been shown these items, only photographs of some, it is
nevertheless likely that they have been correctly identified. The animal hairs
referred to by Roberts had, he told me, been found in the mud in the sides of
the walls. He said they had been identified by three independent scientists in
the United Kingdom as being animal hairs. Roberts also indicated that the small
fossilized antler tip (not animal antlers as reported in his booklet) was first
observed in situ projecting from the mud of the western wall of the formation.
The object was subsequently identified by two scientists, one a geologist and
the other a biologist, as a fossilized deer antler. Furthermore, Roberts
references the coprolites as being visually identified by Mackay in 1991.
It should be immediately noted that where locational details have been
supplied the items concerned have all only been found in the mud in the walls
not from deep within the formation or boat, as one would have expected. Yet
the finding of such animal residues in association with the site is hardly
surprising when one considers that animals are likely to have roamed across
these Turkish hillsides for thousands of years anyway.
Rock Slabs Near Boat Formation
It is Alleged That
A number of large rock slabs found across the valley within sight of the boat
formation are so-called drogue stones which were used to steer or anchor
vessels. Their proximity to the site suggests that they could well have been
giant anchor stones used by Noah to steer the Ark and keep it facing the wind.
The stones have carefully made holes and these would have been where ropes were
attached. Furthermore, some of these rocks have eight crosses carved on them,
one being larger than all the others, representing an iconographic depiction
of Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives.
In Reality
Wyatt, Roberts, Fasold and Shea all make much of these large rock slabs, with
photographs and drawings. They measure up to three metres high and each weighs
several tonnes. Wyatt on his video says these anchor stones are made of a type
of granite that is accessible in Northern Michigan, whereas both Roberts and
Shea insist that they were cut from basalt, a volcanic rock of which there are
copious amounts in the area (both Greater and Lesser Mount Ararats are
volcanoes). Noah would scarcely have used as anchor stones slabs of rock
indigenous to the area where the Ark came to rest after the Flood. If we are
to believe that these could have been Noahs anchor stones, then the onus is on
Wyatt and his colleagues to prove by scientific means (chemical and isotopic
analyses and mineralogical determinations) that these rocks are entirely
exotic to this area, which consists of late Flood and post-Flood strata.
Now it is claimed that between eight and ten of these stones have been found
in an area 1014 miles (1622 kilometres) from the boat-shape formation,
although one was reportedly found in a gully 100200 metres up slope from it.
One would think that the considerable distance of these claimed anchor stones
from the boat-shape itself must diminish somewhat their significance.*
(*In any case, one wonders why Noah needed such anchor or drogue stones on and
with the Ark. They are certainly not mentioned in the Scriptures, where there
is in fact no mention of any kind of steering mechanism given in Gods
instructions for the building of the Ark. Indeed, we are told repeatedly that
God was in total command of the situation. For example, we are told that God
shut Noah in the Ark. Then when he and his family were inside the Ark they
were totally at the mercy of God Who was providing for their safety in the
Flood Waters.)
Wyatt, however, counters by suggesting that as the Ark neared dry land at the
end of the Flood, Noah simply cut the ropes leaving the anchor stones behind
and allowing the Ark to run aground. This, of course, is mere speculation and
implies that Noah had something to do with the destiny and direction of the
Ark, contrary to the thrust of the scriptural account.
Besides, if these were anchor stones, the holes were carved too near the edges
of the rocks. Because of their sheer weight the rock around the holes would
have too easily broken off. Indeed, there is no sign of any wear of the rock
surface around the top side of these holes, which one would expect if ropes
had been tied through them to drag these heavy stones around in the water for
up to a year.
In any case, there is a far better explanation for these giant stones. To
begin with, the number of crosses on them varies from three to 20, the number
eight being conveniently overplayed for the purposes of building a connection
to Noah and his family. In Wyatts book where he has drawings of some of these
claimed anchor stones, one of them is shown with 20 crosses. The same stone is
shown photographed in the field by Roberts and Shea, in the latter case with
Wyatt himself alongside, and again the 20 crosses carved into it are clearly
evident.
Turkish Government Declares Site to be a National Park
It is Alleged That
The special Turkish Commission set up in conjunction with the Ataturk
University at Erzurum, to investigate the site, has concluded from evidence to
date that this is a huge boat. In 1987 the area was officially declared a
National Park by the Turkish Government because they believe that this is not
only the landing site of Noahs Ark, but that it contains its mortal remains.
Consequently, a visitors centre has been built overlooking the site, and an
eight-lane highway is being built to the site.
In Reality
The Turkish authorities really began to get interested in this site after the
Wyatt teams August 1985 work, when the team left the site marked out with
bright yellow plastic tape in square grids. Evidently, three independent
research teams of Turkish scientists were then sent to the site in September
1985. Some digging was done, but no artefacts were found. Two of the teams
were from Ankara, and both returned with a negative report.
The third team was led by Dr Salih Bayraktutan, a geologist at Ataturk
University in Erzurum, Agri Province, the same province in which the site is
found. His research team, while not declaring the formation to be a boat, was
far more cautious so as to keep its options open, and with good reason. The
Governor of Agri Province, Sevkit Ekinci, had by this time set up a local
Noahs Ark Commission with himself as the chairman, and made up of Bayraktutan,
the regional director of the central governments Department for Water Works,
the regional director for the central governments Department of Forests, and
three other prominent people from Agri Province.
Bayraktutan is a devout Muslim who is aware that Noahs Ark is also mentioned
in the Koran. As both a member of the Governors commission and as the chief
research scientist appointed by that commission, he has repeatedly
investigated the site, not only in 1985, but also in 1987 and 1988. He has
personally informed me most emphatically that as far as he is aware the
Governors Noahs Ark Commission has never declared the site to definitely be
Noahs Ark or a boat. Instead, the Commission has said that the site has
historical value and should be protected in case there is some object in the
mud of archaeological significance. Bayraktutan believes that there are
features of the site that still need to be investigated so as to settle the
claims and counter claims once and for all. Nevertheless, while he knows Wyatt
personally, he is at pains to dissociate himself from almost all of Wyatts
claims about the site, expressing grave doubts about the claimed artefacts and
about how some of Wyatts evidence actually found its way on to the site.
Wyatt and Roberts, in defense of this claim that the special Turkish
Commission has concluded this site to be a boat, have produced a single
newspaper clipping which says that a Turkish research team has concurred with
a Madison explorers claim that the remains of Noahs Ark are buried on a barren
mountainside in Eastern Turkey. Two minor Turkish Government officials are
referred to as saying the research teams report agrees with Wyatt that it is
the Ark, and that Department of Ministry and Tourism officials were discussing
the possibility of declaring a National Park. However, the same official also
said that No official confirmation has been forwarded to me yet.
Interestingly, this report appeared in a local newspaper of Madison,
Tennessee, which is Wyatts home town. Most of the details in the report appear
to have come from Wyatt himself. Neither Wyatt, it seems, nor Roberts when
queried has been able to produce copies of reports from any Turkish research
team or Government Commission, which even if they were in Turkish could easily
be translated. Roberts certainly had not known, before going public with
lectures and literature, of the existence of a 1987 research report in English
by Bayraktutan and Baumgardner on their geophysical surveys that year.
It comes as no surprise that the Governor of Agri, reputed to be a friend of
Wyatt, was featured on Wyatts video as conducting a ceremony on the site to
officially declare a National Park and, according to the narrator, announce
the Turkish Governments agreement with Wyatts findings that the site contains
the remains of Noahs Ark. This is the same Governor who chairs the commission
and who had the visitors centre built overlooking the site, as well as a road
sign erected directing tourists to the site. The same Governor has
consistently vetoed efforts to undertake a dig into the site to settle the
issue once and for all (see later).
As if to add credence to his claims of Turkish Government support for the
site, Wyatts video says that an eight lane multimillion dollar highway is near
completion which leads to the site. The pictures shown are of the highway into
neighbouring Iran, and not the one-lane trail of dirt, rock and mud which
tortuously winds its way from the village of Telceker to the site about four
kilometres away. There is no eight-lane highway to the site or close to it.
Wyatts video ends: Because these priceless remains lie open and unguarded, the
government hasnt made a major announcement yet, but hopefully it wont be much
longer before theyre all secured. Years later, we are still awaiting that
major announcement, and the Turkish officialdom that has the power to secure
the site and its claimed remains have not done so, nor do they seem willing
for outsiders to assist them. One is not surprised to hear that investigators
visiting the site in November 1989 found the road sign removed, the visitors
centre not operating, and sheep grazing on the site as they used to before all
the excitement!
Dr Snelling and CSF Have Their Own Interests in This Site
It is Alleged That
Dr Snelling/CSF is opposed to this Durupinar/Akyayla site containing Noahs Ark
because he/they has/have a vested interest in supporting Dr John Morris and the
Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Morris/ICR have gained their reputation
looking on Greater Mount Ararat for the Ark and thus have a lot to lose if the
Ark turns up some where else, as well as being rather peeved if the Turkish
Government declared this new area as the site of Noahs Ark based on the
research of an amateur. CSF would also want to protect Dr Baumgardner so that
he can continue to deny that this is the Ark in order to keep his job.
In Reality
Dr John Morris and ICR have always freely given advice and support to other
groups looking for the Ark, no matter who. Like all true Bible-believing
Christians, they would be ecstatic at the Arks discovery, no matter by whom,
nor where on the mountains of Ararat. Greater Mount Ararat itself has been the
focus of Dr Morriss search purely because the consensus among historical
eye-witness reports of those who claim to have seen the Ark is that the
remains were seen on that mountain, even though none of them is able to
pinpoint the exact location.
As for Dr Baumgardner, his job at the Los Alamos National Laboratory right
from the outset (which was seven years prior to his first trip to Eastern
Turkey) allowed him the time to work on geophysical modeling of the earths
interior processes as they might relate to the Noahs Flood catastrophe. For
similar research he received his Ph.D. at the University of California in
1983. His research at this laboratory continues while he is openly an
internationally respected creationist scientist, presenting papers at the 1986
and 1990 International Conferences on Creationism. It is Dr Baumgardners
achievements in his research work that protect his job, not any (alleged)
denial of his creationist beliefs or his (actual) repudiation of his early
cautious enthusiasm for Wyatts claims.
My/CSFs interest in these claims about the Durupinar/Akyayla site has only
ever been in order to establish their truth or otherwise. After all, false
claims made by professing Christians are shameful to the name of Christ.
Surely the public claims made by Christians about this site should be able to
stand up to rigorous scientific investigation? Yet those who have endeavoured
to test these claims scientifically in the past have since had their motives
questioned and their characters smeared by some proponents of this site. My/
CSFs opposition then to this site is because when all the so-called evidence
is put under rigorous scientific scrutiny it fails utterly.* (*Highlighting
our concern and the need for Christians to be fully informed is the discovery
that at least one major cult has begun advertising these claims to attract new
followers via public meetings.)
If it is Not the Ark of Noah, Then What is it?
In 1987 Bayraktutan and Baumgardner, with a suitably qualified team (including
Fenner), conducted systematic, detailed geophysical surveys of the type
routinely used by mining companies, involving sophisticated instruments in
order to find out what is below the ground surface. They completed a
magnetometer survey, the instrument involved not only being capable of
detecting shallowly buried magnetic/metallic objects, but also scanning deeply
through the surficial cover into the bedrock below. This was followed up with a
comprehensive ground-penetrating radar survey that systematically covered the
whole formation from north to south along grid lines spaced two metres apart.
In the time remaining the team completed three seismic survey lines
longitudinally north-south to cover the entire length of the formation.
The same two investigators returned with another team in 1988 and this time
brought with them a drill rig. Four holes were drilled and cored to a depth of
10 metres. Additionally, a much more detailed seismic survey with more
sophisticated equipment was carried out.
The data from this drilling, and from these and other surveys, combined with
geological mapping and sampling by these and other scientists, enables the
conclusion to be made that this site has a perfectly reasonable natural
geological explanation.
To begin with, contrary to the views expressed publicly by those who have
lampooned Roberts here in Australia, the central outcrop within the formation
on its western side is not an intrusion of igneous rock such as granite or one
of its equivalents. Rather, the rock is a limestone that contains abundant
microfossils (such as the tiny shells of the microscopic marine creatures
called foraminifera), and a further less prominent outcrop of the same rock
type occurs some metres to the north on the easterly side of the formation.
The same rock unit can be traced in a line, though offset in places, to the
east and west of the formation, including an outcrop just outside the
so-called visitors centre. This bed of fossiliferous limestone thus cuts right
across the formation in an east-west direction and appears to dip steeply to
the south. This can hardly be a rocky protrusion on which a boat brought down
by the surrounding mudflow from a higher elevation became snagged or impaled,
as some (e.g. Roberts) would have it. On the contrary, this limestone bed is
an integral part of the local geology and because it comes to the surface
right across this boatshape the latter, obviously, cannot be a petrified
wooden boat.
The other rock type on the site, and which predominates in the surrounding
area, is basalt, a rock that is produced by the cooling of molten lavas that
have flowed from volcanoes, such as Greater and Lesser Mount Ararats. In the
local area, including on Greater Mount Ararat, the basalt has features that
are evidence of it having cooled on the ocean floor (that is, under water).
While there appears to be no outcrop of basalt within the boat-shape
formation, there are numerous basalt boulders on the surface, half-buried in
the surface mudflow material, and also buried and later exposed in the
hardened mud which makes up the formations walls. Indeed, because of the
appearance of some of these boulders in the mud, to the untrained eye they
could easily be mistaken for petrified wood, as appears to have been done. Yet
every sample from the site that others have suggested might be petrified wood
has under the microscope always been basalt.
The magnetometer survey produced absolutely no evidence of any buried metal
artefacts, regular patterns or iron lines. But it did clearly show the
presence of three rock units trending east-west across the formation under the
surficial mudflow material, plus the presence of a fault trending north-south
right down the centre. Indeed, the fault has quite clearly offset the central
fossiliferous limestone bed, which is also evident from the outcrops already
mentioned above. The ground-penetrating radar scans also pinpointed this
fault, particularly in the northern part of the boat-shape. In the same area
the radar picked up a clear sub-horizontal reflector, representing a rock
boundary at a depth of between six and eight metres below the centre-line hump
within the formation. The seismic surveys confirmed the presence of that rock
boundary, and suggested that it was at a shallow depth in the central portions
of the boat-shape.
Finally, the drilling intersected basalt at between six and seven metres depth
in the northern portion of the boat-shape, exactly the depth predicted by the
radar and seismic work, and exactly the rock type predicted by the magnetic
response in the magnetometer survey and present in the mudflow material as
boulders at the surface. In the southern portion of the boat-shape the
drilling intersected a different rock type, as indicated by the magnetic
response in the magnetometer survey, which was very strongly deformed and
strongly folded. Between these two drill-intersected rock types is the
fossiliferous limestone outcrop, making up the third rock type cutting across
the site, as predicted by the magnetometer survey.
The significance of these drilling results should not be lost. Whereas the
investigation team were hopeful that the reflector indicated by the radar and
seismic surveys was in fact the petrified wood of the deck of the Ark, the
drill intersections of solid basement rock below the surficial mudflow and
weathered material immediately ruled out any petrified Ark or its remains
within this site. Indeed, if this site had contained the Ark one would have
expected the boat to have not only been covered in with all this mudflow
material, but full of mud inside, so there should not have been any basement
rock intersected before the bottom of the conjectured hull structure was
reached.
Then how could this rather convincing looking boat-shape have been produced by
natural means at this site, and how is it that it was only recently exposed to
view? To answer these questions we need to look at the broader perspective.
The boat-shape is situated in a sloping valley and is surrounded by deposits
of loose soil and crushed rock which is slowly sliding down hill, flowing much
as a glacier flows-a mudflow. As we have seen, the stable area around which
this mudflow material flows is an uplifted block and erosional remnant of
basement rock, including limestone and basalt. Just as water flows around a
rock in a river bed, the site has acquired a streamlined shape due to the
dynamics of the slowly flowing mud.
However, added to this is the fact that not only have the geophysical surveys
revealed a fault right down the north-south centre-line of the boat-shape, but
geological mapping indicates that there is a fault right along the western edge
of the boat-shape and other faults in the valley floor. It is thus significant
that this boat-shape first came into view as a result of an earthquake in
1948, and then its relief compared to the surrounding terrain was enhanced as
a result of a further earthquake in 1978.
This clearly implies that the earthquakes caused ground movements in this area
which pushed up this block of basement rock and some of the mudflow material
draped over it. Some of this movement occurred along the fault down the
western margin of the boatshape, thus giving the almost near-vertical walls
which now define so graphically that portion of the outline of the boat-shape.
Thus the walls at this point are really what are known in geological
terminology as fault scarps (that is, cliffs caused by earth movements along
faults).* (*A fuller treatment or the technical details and results from these
geophysical surveys, the core drilling, and the geological sampling and mapping
is planned for a future issue of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.)
So there is no mystery about this site and its boat-shape. For the many who
had their hopes built up that this may be Noahs Ark, it needs to be kept in
mind that the Bible in no way says that Noahs Ark would be preserved as a
witness to future generations. Nevertheless, it certainly would be an exciting
and powerful testimony to an unbelieving world for the Ark to be found, but if
that is to happen it will be unmistakably Gods doing in His time and in His
way to bring Him the glory. In the meantime, as Christians we need to always
exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any
claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If
that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted
by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been
more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims
would never have received the widespread credence that they have.
There is an enormous amount of evidence for creation and the Flood, so we dont
need the Ark to be discovered in that sense. Also, the opposition to that
evidence and to the clear teaching of the Scriptures, Peter reminds us, is
because scoffers are willingly ignorant (2 Peter 3:3-7)it is a spiritual
issue. As Christians, we need to do as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 states: Prove all
things; hold fast to that which is good.
The People Involved
Ron Wyatt
A nurse anaesthetist from Madison, Tennessee, Ron is a self-styled biblical
archaeologist who claims to have found virtually every archaeological site of
interest to Christians. His alleged finds are nothing short of astonishing and
include:

The true site of the crucifixion
The Ark of the Covenant
The true Mount Sinai (with a plaque announcing it as such)
The site of Korahs earthquake
The true site of the Israelites Red Sea crossing, also with a marker built by
King Solomon as a memorial
Chariot wheels from Pharaohs drowned army
The actual rock Moses struck to release water
Noahs Ark (the site discussed here, for which he has been the prime promoter)
Noahs grave
Noahs house
Mrs Noahs grave (containing a fortuneher gold and jewelry)
Moses stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, held together with golden
hinges.
There are more claims like these. Could Ron Wyatt have found and solved
problems that have baffled professional archaeologists for more than a
century, or is there another explanation? Ron invariably has an explanation of
why he cant direct others to see all this hard evidence for themselves at these
sites. His occasional seemingly convincing documentation (including video-tape)
repeatedly withers under independent scrutiny and/or conflicts with the on-site
eyewitness testimony of several of his co-expeditionaries. [Ed. note: Wyatt
died in 2000]. Return to Text
David Fasold
A former merchant navy officer and reputed to be a marine salvage expert,
David Fasold worked with Wyatt and his team in 1985 and 1986, but then parted
company. As he says, Today, about the only thing Wyatt and I can agree upon is
that these are the Arks remains. Fasold believes that the Ark was made of reeds
held together by cement. He is reported as saying that originally he was a
fundamentalist Christian, but has since lost all faith in Christianity. He is
now openly hostile to literal belief in the Bible and apparently believes in
several floods. [Ed. note: Fasold died in 1998.]
Dr Allen Roberts
With an academic background in history and Christian education, Allen Roberts
first became interested in the site in 1960, but didnt visit it until 1990.
While attempting to visit the site again in 1991, both he and Wyatt were
kidnapped with three others and held for three weeks by Kurdish guerrillas, an
event which brought much media attention. An Australian organization called Ark
Search formed around Allen to help raise funds for him to go back to Turkey and
conduct a full-scale archaeological dig at the site with Wyatt. In the first
half of 1992 he conducted a public lecture series around Australia which again
drew much media attention. Yet, while obviously sincere, it appears that Allen
has taken much of the evidence merely on Wyatts say-so, unaware of the results
of the 19871988 geophysical surveys and core drilling, for example.
John Mackay
A former school science teacher (and one-time editor of the Creation Ex Nihilo
magazine), John has, while disclaiming complete commitment, persistently and
widely marketed the Wyatt video, by mail and at his own public meetings. He
has negotiated with Ark Search to also market a video of Allen Roberts
lecture. He is credited by Roberts as having identified a specimen as
coprolite (fossilized animal dung), as well as having visually positively
identified the so-called laminated petrified wood sample as pecky cypress.
John has visited Wyatt, evidently twice, at his home and states that he has
been invited to join Wyatts next expedition. Trading (with his spouse) as
Creation Research Centre he has actively publicized Wyatts evidence (e.g. the
fossil rivet) and defended Wyatts Ark claims in his newsletter.
Sevkit Ekinci
Governor of the Turkish Province of Agri and reputed to be a friend of Wyatt,
he is the Chairman of the provincial Noahs Ark Commission whose research team
was the only group to return a cautious open finding on the site (the two
others were negative). He was the one to declare the site a National Park with
archaeological significance and who had the visitors centre built there. One
would think that if he really believed the site contains the remains of Noahs
Ark he would have authorized a dig years ago, but he has a number of times
intervened to stop a dig. He and others may not want to run the risk that
excavation shows it not to be the Ark, and thus have no further tourist
potential.
Dr William Shea
Formerly Professor of Old Testament at Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
Michigan, he is now Associate Director of the Biblical Research Institute in
Silver Springs, Maryland. He has promoted interest in the site, drawing
attention to it in articles published in the Creation Research Society
Quarterly, Origins and Archaeology and Biblical Research. He finally visited
the site in 1986. While intrigued by the boat-shape, he has no faith in Wyatts
claims about artefacts from the site, and once received a petrified wood sample
from Wyatt which turned out to be basalt. He totally dissociates himself from
all of Wyatts other claimed archaeological finds, and appears not to trust
Fasold. He indicates he would be equally happy if the site was confirmed as a
natural geological formation, which he concedes is certainly suggested by the
evidence. Return to Text
Tom Fenner
Geologist/geophysicist/applications engineer with Geophysical Survey Systems,
Inc., who originally went to Turkey to do radar scans on the site for Wyatt in
1985, and who is often quoted as concluding from Wyatt and Fasolds 1986 radar
survey that the site is a man-made boat. However, he eventually went to the
site with Baumgardner in 1987 to conduct his own full-scale radar survey with
equipment he has professionally used in various parts of the world for many
years. He says, With the available scientific evidence to date, my opinion is
that any statements claiming the authenticity of this site as Noahs Ark or it
being a man-made formation by individuals knowledgeable of these studies is at
best wishful thinking and at worst an outright deception.
Dr John Morris
With a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering and Administrative Vice-President of
the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, John has made 13 trips to
Turkey in search of the Ark. He has twice visited this Durupinar site and come
away convinced that it is not the Ark. His attention understandably has been
focused on Greater Mount Ararat because of all the eyewitness testimonies. He
has freely given advice and support to other groups, no matter where they
wanted to search in the area.
Dr Salih Bayraktutan
Geologist and Director of the Earthquake Research Centre at Ataturk
University, Erzurum, and a member of the Noahs Ark Commission of Agri
Province, he has repeatedly investigated the site since 1985, including
geophysical surveys and core drilling in 1987 and 1988 in a joint project with
Dr John Baumgardner and others. He has cautiously kept his options open, but
has definitely not concluded the formation to be Noahs Ark. He disputes such
claims made by others, suggesting that not only are they are exaggerating, but
some have even used false samples. Return to Text
Dr John Baumgardner
With a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Geophysics from
the University of California (L.A.), John works in the Theoretical Fluid
Dynamics Research Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
John was quite positive about the site after his initial visits there with
Wyatt, but after conducting professional geophysical surveys there in 1987 and
1988, and particularly after considering what the core drilling revealed in
1988, he eventually very definitely changed his mind and now is convinced that
it is a natural geological formation. See also Interview in Creation magazine.

Information Sources
1.	Baumgardner, Dr Johncircularized family letters dated October 1985, July
3,1987, and August 19,1988.
2.	numerous personal letters and faxes, 1991-92. -numerous phone
conversations, 1992. -numerous face-to-face conversations, April 24, May 3,
1992. -unpublished site topographic data.
3.	Baumgardner, Dr John and Bayraktutan, Dr Salih, 1987. July 1987 geophysical
investigation of Noahs Ark (Durupinar site) Mahser Village, Dogubayazit, Agri.
Report submitted to the Governor of Agri Province as Chairman of the Agri
Province Noahs Ark Commission. Bayraktutan, Dr Salih-numerous telephone
conversations, 1992. unpublished 1988 seismic survey data.
4.	Brandstetter, Dr Bernard-face-to-face conversations, July 1992.
5.	Burdick, Dr Clifford, 1976. The elliptical formation in the Tendurek
Mountains. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 13(2), pp. 96 98.
6.	Crouse, Bill, 1988. The Durupinar site. Ron Wyatt. are his claims bona
fide? Ararat Report, No. 17, Christian Information Ministries International,
Texas.
7.	Fasold, David, 1988. The Ark of Noah, Wynwood Press, New York.

8.	Fasold, David, 1992. The Noahide Societys Ark-Update, Issue No. 5
(January/February, 1992).
9.	Fasold, David, 1992. The Noahide Societys Ark-Update, Issue No. 6
(March/April, 1992).
10.	Fenner, Thomas J.-telephone conversations, 1992 -faxed letter, July
22,1992.
11.	Lang, Walter, 1990. The Ark Today, January-February, 1990, p. 11.
12.	Lang, Walter, 1991. The Ark Today, January-February 1991, pp. 3-6.
13.	Mackay, John B., 1992. Creation News, vol. 6(2), p. 4.
14.	Mackay, John B., 1992. Brochure advertising Wyatts Noahs Ark video.
15.	Morris, Dr John D., 1990. That boat-shaped rock . . . Is it Noahs Ark?
Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 12(4), pp. 16-19.
16.	Morris, Dr John D., 1990. The boat-shaped formation. Ararat Report,
September-October 1990, pp. 3-5.
17.	Morris, Dr John D., 1992. The search for Noahs Ark: Status 1992.
Unpublished manuscript.
18.	Morris, Dr John D.-face-to-face conversations, April 1992
19.	-various faxed letters, 1991-92. -unpublished notes Roberts, Dr Allen S.,
1992. If this is not Noahs Ark- then what is it? Ark Search, Sans Souci,
Sydney.
20.	Roberts, Dr Allen S., 1992. Noahs Ark Research Project (Ark Search)
Newsletter, No. 2.
21.	Roberts, Dr Allen S., 1992. Documents openly shared from his evidence
files at a witnessed personal meeting on June 11, 1992, including the various
laboratory reports on rock samples and assay results, plus the Madison,
Tennessee newspaper clipping.
22.	Roberts, Dr Allen S., 1992. Noahs Ark Research Foundation Project, Lecture
1992. Video recorded by Ark Search at the Prince Alfred College Auditorium,
Adelaide.
23.	Shea, Dr William H., 1976. The Ark-shaped formation in the Tendurek
Mountains of Eastern Turkey. Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 13(2),
pp. 9095.
24.	Shea, Dr William H., 1981. A review of recent data from the region of the
Ark-shaped formation in the Tendurek Mountains of Eastern Turkey. Origins,
vol. 8, pp. 77-92.
25.	Shea, Dr William H., undated. The present status of surface and
technological study of the ship-shaped formation in the Tendurek Mountains of
Eastern Turkey. Unpublished manuscript.
26.	Shea, Dr William H., 1988. Noahs Ark? Archaeology and Biblical Research,
vol. 1(1), pp. 6-14.
27.	Shea, Dr William H.-telephone conversation, July 1992.
28.	Stark, Reinhard, 1992. In search of Noahs Ark: An interview with Dr Allan
(sic) Roberts. Nexus, January-February 1992, pp. 37-40.
29.	Steffins, Marvin, 1984. Has Noahs Ark been found? Christian Inquirer,
November 1984, pp. 1, 7.
30.	Taylor, Paul S., 1992-faxed letters.
31.	Wyatt, Ron, 1989. Discovered: Noahs Ark, World Bible Society, Nashville.
32.	Wyatt, Ron, 1986. Original copies of the 1986 radar survey scans.
33.	Wyatt, Ron, 1991(?). Noahs Ark Found?. Video produced by Wyatt and others
and distributed in Australia by Mackay.
34.	Wyatt, Ron, 1992. Unpublished interview with Joel Plotnek in Melbourne on
January 3,1992.

END of B22-Problems of Ark
*******************************************************************************