There is evidence for Noah's flood narrative

While it is true that David Fasold was skeptical about the site, according to Wikiquote and Wikipedia, he later changed his views and believed that it was Noah's Ark before he died (1). I will respond to several objections made in the article in snopes.com. It says: "Reality: 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." This statement is false. According to Wikipedia, Metal-detectors are used by Archaeologists to search for artifacts. "Claim: 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. 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 Noah's Ark." This site claims that this is false, however gives no reason for why it is false. "..A standard beach combing type metal detector (the type with a disc-shaped detector head on the end of a long pole) indeed found 'hot spots,' but these were randomly distributed and not in a regular pattern along lines.." While yes it is true that the team used metal-detectors to survey the place, they then used Ground-Penetrating Radar to scan the object. "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." According to geologists, the object is encased by an outer shell of mud which explains why locals reported of a "sudden appearance" of the object. "It is true that the samples contained iron, aluminum, titanium and carbon, but such elements are always to be found in soils. " This is true, however Dr. William Shea, professor of Archaeology and history wrote: "The formation was struck by an earthquake in December of 1978. As a result it was cracked lengthwise and partially split open. This opening made it possible for Wyatt to obtain relatively fresh internal soil samples from it when he returned to the site in September of 1979. In a test run on this sample, along with another sample taken from the field outside of the formation, the organic carbon content was measured. The soil from the formation tested at 4.95% while the soil from the field around the formation tested at 1.88%. This degree of difference is consistent with the prior presence of some organic matter (like wood) in the formation." The degree of minerals found in Noah's Ark is different from that of natural minerals found in soil. "No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these 'trainloads' of petrified wood. Geologist Dr. 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." This claim is false. Reg Lyle was a team member and a geologist. He writes: The object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers " I really need to keep an open mind about this." This has been tested in labs and confirmed to be petrified wood (2). Moreover, it's only Geologist Bayraktutan's opinion that come from another place. "No sample containing pitch has been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses." Tests done on the pitch samples by Galbraith labs show that it has been submitted for proper scientific analysis. "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." According to a recent publication by Mary Nell Wyant on Ronwyattark.com shows that microscopic inspections were made and that it was a man-made structure. Con misuses the term rumor. A rumor can be described as a story, maybe exaggerated and circulating in society, however the writings presented were written by historians and professionals, not mere locals. Thus it is inaccurate to call these writings rumors of the Ark. Con misrepresents the argument being given. I did not use these writings to prove that Noah's flood narrative as a whole is true, since in the 1st half of the argument i presented evidence to support the flood. Sources & links: 1. Dawes, June (2000). Noah's Ark: Adrift in Dark Waters. Belrose, NSW: Noahide Wiki-quote: http://en.wikiquote.org... 2. Howse B.S., Noah"s Ark? For Real, http://ronwyattark.com...