Has Noah’s Ark Been Found . . . For Real This Time?

I hate to disappoint you, but . . . no, it doesn’t. The “new” evidence isn’t really all that new, and there are some problems with the interpretations of the data. When the ark’s “discovery” first hit the news, I filmed a short video for our social media team with my thoughts.

But what about all the new evidence for the site that the news articles mention? Well, geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling has followed the research on this site for decades and has previously written about it. Here’s what he sent me about the latest headlines:

The recent publicity that the Durupinar boat-shaped formation in eastern Turkey is the remains of Noah’s ark mostly recycles what has already been publicized by Ron Wyatt and others since the 1980s and refuted several times since by both skeptics and creationist geologists. In spite of recent Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), resistivity, ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys, and soil sampling, nothing of any substance has been found to further substantiate any of the claims that have already been refuted, for example, in my detailed 1992 Special Report: Amazing “Ark” Exposé. That special report should be read in the light of the most recent claims.

Evidence Requires Interpretation

Any interpretation always involves assumptions, not least an expectation or a prior concept of what one is hoping to find.

All geophysical surveys, whether GPR, LiDAR, or resistivity, provide images of the subsurface with various features and “structures” that require interpretation. Any interpretation always involves assumptions, not least an expectation or a prior concept of what one is hoping to find. This is clearly the case with this Durupinar feature. By his own admission, Andrew Jones of Noah’s Ark Scans, a committed leader of this latest “push” to promote this site as the remains of Noah’s ark, was convinced of what this site likely was before viewing the results of these geophysical surveys. Indeed, the reports of the geophysicists are couched in terms of scan features being “decks” as well as a claimed “corridor” or “tunnel” down the middle of the structure. None of these reports objectively assess the raw geophysical data by canvasing other interpretations. In other words, they came to the subsurface geophysical images with an already determined interpretation in their minds. Yet there are other possible legitimate interpretations. Since the rock within the structure is a limestone, these geophysical features might “reflect” jointing and layering within the limestone and even an elongated tunnel or cave due to the limestone being dissolved and excavated by surface and ground waters.

As for the recent soil sampling, the analytical results merely mirror the soil sampling done in the 1980s. So the soil inside the boat-shaped structure has a higher organic carbon content, and the grass is greener or vegetation a little different. The innuendo echoing the earlier claims is that this higher organic content is from the “boat’s” rotted wood. But another interpretation could note that the underlying rock is different within the structure (limestone) compared to that outside the structure (mudflow debris). Because the structure is like an elongated bowl, it has collected more rainwater. Over time, the underlying rock has weathered to produce a better, different soil that has more nutrients and organic matter due to better vegetation growth conditions. This alternate explanation takes all the facts into account without the need for a large amount of rotting wood. Once again, they have interpreted the results to confirm their own preconceptions.

None of what has been presented, and publicized yet again, is based on objective scientific investigations. At least, in fairness to Andrew Jones’ Noah’s Ark Scans website in the archive of reports and papers is a 2007 paper by Turkish Professor of Geology Murat Avci titled “‘Noah’s Ark’: its relationship to the Telçeker earthflow, Mount Ararat, Eastern Turkey,” published in the Bulletin of Engineering Geology of the Environment, vol. 66, pp. 377–380. In this paper we read:

The southern slopes of Mount Ararat are formed of an interbedded sequence of limestones and mudrocks in which a 1,000 m deep valley has been eroded. During the glacial/periglacial climates of the past, mass movements took place in this mountainous area, resulting in a debris mantle on the slopes and a blocky colluvium in the valley floor. The 150 m x 50 m x 4 m high ship-like feature, sometimes referred to as ‘‘Noah’s Ark’’, is considered to be a large discontinuity-bounded block of Miocene limestone which has slumped and crept downslope on the weak Eocene clays. The shape of the feature has been modified by abrasion caused by passing earthflow material as well as ice melt and limestone dissolution processes.

And this paper provides a geological block diagram of the area to substantiate the results of this professor’s field studies.

Problems Matching the Bible’s Description of the Ark Landing Site

The same paper also highlights another significant observation. In Genesis 8:4, we are told that the ark landed “on the mountains of Ararat” on day 150 of the flood event, and it was not for another 74 days that the tops of surrounding mountains were seen. Yet this Durupinar “boat-shaped” formation is found in a 1000-meter (~3280 feet) deep valley on the southern slopes of Mount Ararat, a recently formed volcano that last erupted in 1840.

So, both the location and the geology discount this Durupinar site as being the remains of Noah’s ark.

So, both the location and the geology discount this Durupinar site as being the remains of Noah’s ark. The current publicity is really aimed at fundraising for further geophysical surveys and eventually core drilling, none of which will settle the controversy over this site. Ultimately, the only way to settle this debate once and for all is to excavate this structure, something the Turkish authorities are reluctant to countenance until non-invasive techniques have been exhausted. And the bottom line is that all work must be done in partnership with the Turkish authorities in what is a politically sensitive and dangerous area very close to the Turkey-Iran border.

We thus strongly recommend these publicized claims be objectively assessed before “jumping” to hyped conclusions. Viewers of video clips on the internet need to be cautioned that such videos are not peer-reviewed and objectively vetted scientifically. In any case, we do not need to find Noah’s ark to be convinced that the global flood really occurred. God’s eyewitness account in Genesis 6–8 is testified to by Jesus himself in Matthew 24:36–39, where he compared the flood to his second coming, and it is confirmed by the overwhelming geological evidence in God’s world.

Shouldn’t Creationists Want to Find the Ark?

Now, obviously, we would love for someone to conclusively find Noah’s ark—that would be a phenomenal archaeological discovery and confirmation of what we already know to be true from the Bible. So why do we express so much caution about exciting headlines regarding finding the ark?

Well, because we want to ensure Christians are using good arguments! When Christians use poor, easily disproven, or inconclusive evidence for the truth of God’s Word, it makes it easier for skeptics to dismiss everything that person has to say. So when it comes to sensational headlines, we encourage Christians to exercise caution, look at the actual evidence, and avoid arguments based on conjecture.

I do hope someone does find the ark someday. But even if they never do (or if it’s long gone), just remember that we don’t need to—we can already trust the Bible . . . from the very first verse. And we already have overwhelming evidence confirming the account of Noah’s flood.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.