More than 100 researchers from around the world recently came together as part of a three-day international symposium on Mt Ararat and Noah’s Ark in Agrı in Turkey to see if they can find the ark’s final resting place.Some are not convinced:
“My purpose is to visit the sites around the mountain to find clues about catastrophic events in the past,” said Professor Raul Esperante from the Seventh-day Adventist Church-sponsored Geoscience Research Institute.
Their website states their mission is to “discover and share an understanding of nature and its relationship with the Biblical revelation of the Creator God”.
In 2010, a group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers set out to explore the region and find the vessel’s remains.
After a few weeks, they claimed to have found wooden specimens from an ark-like structure 4000m up the mountain.
The mountain is the highest peak in Turkey, standing more than 5100 metres tall.
The team claimed they carbon dated the wood, which proved it was 4800 years old, around the time the ark is said to have been afloat.
Nicholas Purcell, a lecturer in ancient history at Oxford University told MailOnline the claims were the “usual nonsense”.One of the things that is pointed out by conventional geologists (and by young-earth creationist Andrew Snelling, later in the article) is that Mt. Ararat was a volcano and, if all of the vulcanism that is evident in the geological record really did occur during the year-long flood, it is difficult to imagine how the Ark would have been able to land on Mt. Ararat, which would surely have still been scalding hot. There are other problems with the idea that the vulcanism all occurred in one year but this is not the place for that.
“If floodwaters covered Eurasia 12,000ft [3700m] deep in 2800BC, how did the complex societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia, already many centuries old, keep right on regardless?”
It has always intrigued me why explorer after explorer assumes that the ark is specifically on this mountain. There is no biblical mandate that the ark has to be here. In fact, it plainly states that the ark came to rest in the "mountains of Urartu," which is an area of some 400,000 square miles, any one of which would have been just as likely.
But all of this sidesteps the other major problem:
Talking after the initial claims in 2010, Mike Pitt, a British archaeologist, said the evangelical explorers had yet to produce compelling evidence.It is not just that there is no evidence for a world-wide flood, there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that something like that could not have happened.
He said: “If there had been a flood capable of lifting a huge ship 4km up the side of a mountain 4800 years ago, I think there would be substantial geological evidence for this flood around the world. And there isn’t.”
Goin' on another snipe hunt.