In article .com,
Garry Denke wrote:

Good grief, it was only John's first semester.

Well, I hope he's learned to reason better in the years since 1999,
and gotten some concept about how to construct a useful theory and
test it.

Verification that Noah's ark gopher wood is Southern live oak (Quercus
virginiana) by independent laboratories is expected soon. Should the
University of North Texas student's 1999 classification be disproven,
these notebooks will be pitched.

You don't seem to understand that the only important verification is
that the wood does, indeed, come from Noah's Ark. If it is wood from
Q.virginiana, that's very strong evidence that it isn't.

If someone sold you a New York subway token that was found in the Great
Pyramid, which would be the most likely explanations? (1) The seller
is lying or is deceived about where the token was found (2) Someone
dropped the token there in relatively recent times (3) Ancient
Egyptians were in contact with people who rode the NYC subway 3-4000
years ago.

So if you want to conclude anything about Noah's Ark from the wood, you
have to have excellent and well-documented, even unassailable,
provenance for it as being from Noah's Ark. Otherwise your claims will
have no scientific credibility.

Science is about falsification, proving hypotheses false. It can never
prove an hypothesis true, only demonstrate that the hypothesis is
consistent with all known relevant data. If you carbon date your
sample and it turns out to be e.g. less than 1000 years old, it can't be
from Noah's Ark. If it turns out to be from the same time frame as the
putative Ark, you haven't proven anything except that you have an old
piece of wood. Demonstrating that it's Q.virginiana tells you nothing
about Noah's Ark.