>>20615973>Wyatt's claims have been described as "fraudulent", in "the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer", and been criticized by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and some creationists, and are not considered credible by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars.For Noah's Ark specifically,
>While the Durupinar site is about the right length for Noah's ark, [it is]... too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for Christian purposes.Let's look at his methodology.
>Creationist commentators, such as Andrew Snelling in the Creation Ministries International journal Creation, wrote that "there are no scientific principles employed" in the "so-called frequency generator" used by Wyatt's team. He called it a "gadget, which is generally advertised in treasure-hunting magazines, not scientific journals" with "brass welding rods being used in essence, as divining rods, similar to the use of a forked stick to search for water."[cont.]
