Hah! So Carl Baugh and the miniature ark are apparently in the movie *Finding Noah*Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas

Science? What Science?

Hah! So Carl Baugh and the miniature ark are apparently in the movie *Finding Noah*

16 October 2015 at 9:27:24 PM

After I saw that Carl Baugh (who is NOT a Dr)  was making a pitch the other day to let City of Glen Rose know he intends to get out of paying property taxes if he buys that vacant hotel in front of Comfort Inn, I've been looking at ridiculous things he's said and done (like spending big bucks on a *sea monster*.)   Or putting Tom Landry's statue in the museum.  OR how about that bogus Alvis Delk footprint? Saw that he made an appearance in some new movie about Noah's Ark. 

I wrote about his miniature Noah's Ark replica a few years ago after I saw a blurb about it in the local paper.  What is hilarious is that, in one of the reviews about this movie from a creationist organization called "Creation.com", they warn against believing Baugh. Apparently he is an outlier even among creationists.

Experts and ‘experts’

The film interviewed a number of people. Some of them have genuinely sound qualifications. E.g. there was a brief interview with Prof. Andy McIntosh, a sound biblical creationist who is eminent in his own scientific fields, and fights valiantly and well against ‘vanishing flood models’. Actually we are somewhat surprised that someone of his calibre would agree to be part of a frankly not very good film.

A lack of a biblical presentation or any Gospel at all was a glaring omission in the documentary.

There were small parts from genuine geologists and biblical scholars. Another genuine scholar who featured more was Dr Randall Price, Distinguished Research Professor and the Executive Director of the Center for Judaic Studies at Liberty University, one of the best creationist universities around.

However, there were also some Islamic scholars, and a number of people that the film’s website calls ‘Arkeologists’, clearly they were enthusiasts rather than scholars. And not surprisingly Carl Baugh made an appearance; we advise against using his material in our important ‘Don’t Use’ page. Still another interviewee was a ‘Mr X’; we fail to see how this helped the cause in the slightest.

So what does it say on the "Don't Use" page on creation.com, also called "arguments we think creationists shouldn't use"?

  • Many of Carl Baugh’s creation ‘evidences’. Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.

 Hah. Pretty bad when even creationists revile Baugh as not credible.

This is from the Glen Rose Reporter newspaper, a puff piece about the movie

Baugh is seen in the documentary describing the to-scale replica of Noah’s Ark that is currently on display at the Creation Evidence Museum. He has spent over 40 years researching the subject and has even taken his own expedition to Mt. Ararat in the early 1990s.
The flood is a scientific fact. As we flew that site, we knew where to look because of access to ground penetrating radar,” he said in an interview with the Reporter. “I personally saw a huge beam of laminated wood.”

Answers in Genesis also has a page on the baloney about finding Noah's Ark. 

The Main Claims at a Glance


  • 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 ‘ship’s ribs’ showing…………….FALSE
  • There is lots of petrified wood…………….FALSE
  • Turkish Commission says ‘it’s a boat………..FALSE

[Ed. note: see also:

and about that *petrified wood*

(Wyatt's) 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 Wyatt’s 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 Search’s ‘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 Search’s 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 Wyatt’s 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.

 Speaking of creationist organizations, this is what Answers in Genesis (AIG) had to say about Carl Baugh. 

Carl Baugh's Teaching

Recently Carl Baugh has been given considerable television exposure by American tele-evangelist Kenneth Copeland, and also appeared on a widely viewed NBC TV program entitled "Mysterious Origins of Man." The Creation Science Foundation (CSF) has had many calls from people who have seen the shows and suspect that some things are not quite right about Baugh's teaching.

It is with heavy heart that we criticise others who are presenting themselves as spokesman for creationism, but who are doing damage to the cause of Christ through ill-founded claims.

Some of Carl Baugh's more outlandish claims, contained in his videotape Panorama of Creation, are as follows:


  • 1. Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by hydrogen which was so cold it was metallic and this collapsed when God shouted. This is nonsense. It is impossible that such a surrounding cloud of hydrogen could ever be cold enough, especially in such proximity to the earth.
    2. People could hear the 'singing' of the stars before the Flood. Apparently the metallic hydrogen (which could not have existed) enabled this to happen.
    3. People could 'feel' the time before the Flood.
    4. People can affect radioactive decay rates with their minds. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
    5. Eggs do not hatch outside the earth's magnetic field. Baugh claimed that NASA did an experiment demonstrating this. Absolute nonsense.
    6. Granites (which contain radioactive elements) are not exploding because they are in 'perfect balance'. However, radioactive elements do not normally 'explode' of course - that requires very special conditions which are not easy to arrange (if it were otherwise, every terrorist group would have atomic bombs!). Even pure radioactive elements will not 'explode', so the fact that granite does not has nothing to do with 'perfect balance' of the granite.
    7. He argues that, in some way, radioactive minerals align themselves with the magnetic field, which is nonsense.
    8. He says that people were smarter before the Flood, attributing this to a supposedly higher oxygen pressure. There is absolutely no evidence that high oxygen levels would make people more intelligent. He talked nonsense about 'four molecules of oxygen', linking this to his subsequent theories about oxygen saturation. Furthermore, there is no basis for his extravagant claims about the curative effects of high oxygen pressures - if it worked as he claims, paraplegics would be lining up to be treated (many hospitals have suitable hyperbaric chambers).

Baugh confuses many things. He confuses the pre-Flood and pre-Fall worlds in saying that there was no violence among animals 'before the Flood'. He confuses micro- and macro-evolution, getting them completely reversed.

Baugh exaggerates. For example, in discussing the Setterfield theory on slowing light, he says that it was calculated on 'the largest computer in Australia' (not true) and that scientists 'haven't been able to refute it'.

The latter claim ignores the voluminous criticisms from creationist scientists alone against Setterfield's idea. Few, if any, creationist scientists with proper research degrees in science would now support the theory, and many never supported the idea. In similar vein, Baugh promotes the 'canopy theory' as 'the creation model' when many creationist scientists have now abandoned the idea. Baugh makes a lot of use of words such as 'academically' to back up statements. For example, he says that 'parents are superior to children - this can be academically proved' (this is a no nsensical statement).

Checking the claims

CSF, as one of the major creationist organisations world-wide, wrote to Mr. Baugh two years ago asking for documentation regarding such astonishing claims as chlorophyll being found on a T. rex tooth, alleged tapes of Neil Armstrong, a NASA experiment showing that eggs do not hatch outs ide of a magnetic field, and a tomato plant that grew to 30 feet tall and produced 5,000 tomatoes when grown under light supposedly simulating pre-Flood conditions. The only reply we received had enclosed 'documentation' which was nothing of the sort.

Wonder what percentage of moolah Baugh is getting from the suckers who are going to that movie? One born every minute, eh? 

P.S. I know you will laugh but this is what he was teaching CHILDREN back in 2008

“In the Days of Dinos” begins with a question from little Mandi. Mandi loves dinosaurs, but she’s confused… some people say that dinos lived billions of years ago, but she learned in science class that the earth is only six thousand years old. Upon first reading this question, my heart was warmed to learn of Mandi’s interest in dinos. Clearly she’s failing science class, so it’s a good thing she has other interests.

Creation Evidence tackles Mandi’s question, explaining that dinos were formed by God on the sixth day of creation, and that two of each kind made their way onto Noah’s Ark. Because, as you’ll remember from your Bible, Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day as well, humans and dinos must have existed at the same time.

But was this cohabitation harmonious? Oh, no. According to the story, humans hunted dinosaurs. As Creation Evidence claims, “when you hear stories of knights killing dragons, the dragons that are described sound a lot like dinosaurs.” Er, no, they sound a lot like dragons.

Next, ever-sensible Mandi wants to know “why don’t we have dinosaurs around today?” The answer? “Before the flood, atmospheric pressure was greater and cells could carry more oxygen. Dinosaurs had very small lung capacities and after the flood, their cells couldn’t carry as much oxygen.” Hmm, suspicious, Creation Evidence. This sounds an awful lot like the response I got back when I asked why my sea monkeys had died. And everyone knows those are only brine shrimp. (Wait, you didn’t? No, those crowns aren’t for real. Okay, maybe the tiny tridents have some truth to them.)

The story also claimed to have evidence that certain types of dinosaurs could breath fire through their mouths. And also, that kids used to keep dinos for pets. Oh Creation Evidence, what have you done? Not only have you not managed to convince me of your outlandish religious tomfoolery, but I’m pretty sure I no longer believe in dinosaurs.

Permalink Tags:          
     Views: 1934 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Video re: Danny Chambers Drag Racing Around the Square In Youth (Glen Rose)
More Posts You Might Enjoy
8/23/2019- Judgement Against The State of Texas and George Darrell Best
Audio-City of Glen Rose Town Council Meeting April 8 2019
Video- Somervell County Commissioners Court May 13 2019
Audio-Somervell County Commissioners Court-April 2019
1 - salon   11 Mar 2016 @ 9:34:48 AM 

Noticed in the March 8, 2016 issue of the Glen Rose Reporter that there was an article regarding the Creationism Museum receiving a bible hologram. Apparently the man, Frank DeFreitas,  who does holograms for a living and has a museum in PA gifted him the tiny hologram. What's interesting to me is that apparently near the end of January 2016, Carl Baugh took a piece of purported Noah's ark wood to this man to make a hologram. Was it actually *ark* wood? 

Is this a cut and dry case of finding Noah's Ark? Well, it certainly has its detractors and, in all honesty, it appears that a few of the carbon-14 tests gave more recent dates than the flood (to perhaps 100 - 600 A.D.). There are several technical explanations put forth that suggest reasons for this supposed inaccurate carbon 14 dating result. I am not going to get involved with the pros and cons of carbon-14 dating, of which I know next to nothing compared to others. My field is laser holography. However, to be fair, there were several more traditional testing methods that DID date the wood to the time of the flood (approximately 5,000 years ago). This includes a few additional carbon-14 tests. Who is right? No one can say at this point in time. Discrepancies such as dates will always be present in the early stages of any ancient research and exploration. ....the debate with Noah's Ark remains ongoing and, after all, I am a holographer, not an explorer. "

Latest Blog Post by salon -Video re: Danny Chambers Drag Racing Around the Square In Youth (Glen Rose)
 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting


Click Here for Main Page

Today Is  
Thursday, December 12, 2019

Latest Posts

Video re: Danny Chambers Drag Racing Around the Square In Youth (Glen Rose)
salon 12/11/2019 Views 57

Video-Somervell County Commissioners Court Dec 9 2019 Regular Meeting- FULL
salon 12/10/2019 Views 54

Video-Somervell County Commissioners Court Dec 9 2019 Special Session
salon 12/10/2019 Views 55

When Somervell County Commissioners Court Spent YOUR Tax Dollar Money to Pay State of Texas ex rel Best v Harper -July 11 2016
salon 12/10/2019 Views 80

Calling out Somervell County Judge Danny Chambers Hypocrisy AGAIN-RESPONSIBILITY of Commissioners Court
salon 12/8/2019 Views 107

What Was Going on HERE? At Somervell County Commissioners Court August 26, 2016
salon 12/7/2019 Views 277

More Blog Headlines


salon > Quick update on this, via Pacer-Click on pic to see larger (Turk Case Update- Telephone Conference Hearing Set for March 8 2019 )

salon > Lance Been awhile. Send me an email at salon@glenrose.net with the names of who you're talking about, above. Also, the newspaper editor is no longer local, ie officed here, but the paper is run.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I'd love to see the Hotel Guest books and see if Jacene's name shows up long before he officially *found* the tracks.  I'd like to know if the Visitor's Bureau has emails wit.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

LanceHall > I see the land or that part of it is now in the hands of Glen Rose's own Corky Underwood. Is Jacene still involved?   I had already informed the Visitor Bureau manager (who's.... (What Happened to Jerry Jacene? )

Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS