Creation "Science"

This is a good paper on the famous Noah's Ark site on Mt. Ararat in Turkey from the Geology dept. at my alma mater CSUN. As some of my wingerville critics have tried to allege, albeit unsuccessfully, this is not a school for dunces by any stretch. Certainly a massive bureaucracy and somewhat dehumanizing but that's another matter. The scientists there are top notch and difficult to get past as a student. I can sure vouch for that.

An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994).1 Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.

The conclusion is it is indeed a geological formation contrary to the creationist's claims. David Fasold the researcher and author of The Ark of Noah: New York, NY, Wynwood Press, 331 p. in 1988 was a retired Merchant Marine officer "fascinated with archaeology and biblical history." This is how one compares science with religious pseudoscience. That's what the evolution "debate" is about.

1. Wyatt, R. E., 1994, Discovered - Noah's Ark. Video documentary of research and field work, Wyatt Archaeological Research, 713 Lambert Drive, Nashville, TN, 37220.