scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)

    And some people complain about "evolutionists" resorting to 
personal attack on "creationists".

    Perhaps you could, rather than getting emotional about this, 
address some of the substantive complaints that have been posted about
the program.  For example, you believe that there were scientists on
being interviewed.  However, people have pointed out that there was,
at least, insufficient information for a layman to see for himself
whether these people were, in fact, scientists.  That seems to me
to be something that you could answer, without attacking the 
messenger.  You think that these people were scientists.  Tell us
why you think that.  (Note here that I am _not_ denying that they 
are scientists.  I just want to know whether they are, and why I
should believe that they are.)

    Several people have pointed out problems with the eyewitness
testimony.  Perhaps you could tell us why you think that they saw
Noah's Ark?  There was _very_ little that I saw on the program that
indicated that they saw Noah's Ark, even I were to have absolutely
no qualms about the witnesses reliability, honesty, or intelligence.
If there is a large wooden structure on Mt. Ararat, what would 
lead anyone to the conclusion that it is Noah's Ark?  I mentioned
three possibilities.  I don't recall hearing the slightest hint on
the program (with one exception -- the dating of the wood -- I'll
get to that later) that the thing, if it is there, was not

a) Something built as a hoax (not by any of the people involved in
   the program, but by someone 150 years ago)
b) Something built for some other purpose, for example a pagan
   temple, a barn.  Remember that the program showed us how
   technologically advanced ancient civilizations were.
c) A monument built by Christians to honor Noah.  Perhaps it was
   even an ancient place of pilgrimage.  For example there is a
   monastery built by Christians on Mount Sinai.

    The program said that some of the wood was scientifically dated
to 5000 years ago.  I don't recall, but my memory is not perfect,
how that was done.  It would be very interesting to find out just a
bit of the details on that.  For example, if it were done by
radiocarbon dating:  what the exact dating was -- so many years
before the present, plus or minus so many years; whether that 
dating was in radiocarbon years; who did the dating, in what 
laboratory; did they take it to different laboratories as a cross-
check -- and all that other stuff like was done with the Shroud of
Turin.  It would seem to me that in a two hour program that they
could have taken 30 seconds on such an important point.

    It was very disconcerting to me to see a lot of re-enacted 
scenes not clearly marked as such.  It seems to be a standard of
TV broadcasting to go to extremes to put a notice to that effect.
Seriously, I was confused several times as I saw a picture, 
thinking that this was real photography of an event, only to
realize that it had to be reconstructed.  That means to me that I
have a certain amount of doubt about _anything_ that they showed.
Was it real, or was it a re-enactment?

    Also, to repeat myself, in their presentation of the Noah
story, they presented a lot of non-Scriptural points.  It would be
OK, I suppose, if they were just doing a Sunday School movie of
the Noah story.  But this was supposed to be a factual account,
not imaginative.  And, by the way, the Bible says that Noah's
Ark alit in the mountains of Ararat, not on Mount Ararat.  

    I've gone on too long already, but there are tons of serious
complaints that I have about the production.   If you found this
program informative, please let me know what I missed.  

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs