I'll have to agree with Kuresu. This article might have some limited value as a supplement to the newspaper article, but that was published 8 years ago and doesn't seem to be available online.
The only other source cited is an even older magazine article, only identified by publication and year.
And on a careful reading the author doesn't even seriously engage with the points raised in the two second-hand (at best) popular sources he does cite. His main arguments seem to be based on misunderstandings.
It's not as bad as Peg's "evidence" for the Flood, but it has the same faults.
™ Version 4.2
