Reading Time: 4 minutes Adi Holzer [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Yes! It must be true! And it certainly must be true because it can be found in the Sun. And brilliantly, it quotes The Express, the world’s most hateful newspaper.

The Express explains:

Ark investigators believe they have found traces of a wooden structure on Mount Ararat, also known as Agri Mountain, in Agri, Turkey.

American researcher Professor Paul Esprante said he intends finding more evidence to prove the Ark landed there.

He was one of 108 scientists from Turkey and around the world speaking at the three-day International Symposium of Mount Ararat and Noah’s Ark in Agri, which looks at evidence put forward for the Ark’s final resting place.

He said: “My purpose is to visit the sites around the mountain to find clues about catastrophic events in the past.

“I think that rigorous, serious scientific work is needed in the area, and I would like to collaborate in that.

“We have technical resources and we can work together with local experts.

Let’s see what The Sun has to say:

Experts have claimed traces of a wooden ship were found on Mount Ararat seven years ago, but some doubted the authenticity.

The Express reports Prof Esprante is convinced the narrative could be true and is calling for more “rigorous, serious scientific work” in the Ararat region.

He said: “The result of my findings will be published in books, publications and journals, but at this point it is too early to know what we are going to find.

“Once the scientific community knows about the existence of Noah’s Ark in Mount Ararat, we can make it available to the general public.”

Istanbul University Prof Dr Oktay Belli said: “Noah’s Ark, the Flood is not a myth but a real incident mentioned in all holy books.”

Another expert Dr Andrew Snelling who has been investigating the location of Noah’s Ark is unconvinced by the latest theory because he claimed “Mount Ararat did not grow until after the ocean waters retreated”.

He claims on the website Answers in Genesis instead the giant ship landed on “another high mountain in the region at the time”.

The Express expounds more of Snelling’s ruminations:

He added: “The volcano now called Mount Ararat did not grow until well after the ocean (flood) waters had retreated.

“Furthermore, the lavas and ash layers of Mount Ararat date to the time of the post-Flood Ice Age.

“This is consistent with Mount Ararat being built after the Flood on top of a dry plateau.

“Mount Ararat is thus a post-Flood volcano, which continued to erupt, most recently less than 200 years ago.

“Thus, from my perspective as a biblical geologist, I do not expect to find Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat.

“Instead, it must have landed on another high mountain in the region at that time.”

This is just a rehashing of those tired old claims, it seems.

This is the video that the Express featured:

Holy cow, what journalism…

Let me just list a few issues with the whole flood story:

1)  Omni-God did it because we were a sinful world. We still are; therefore, it didn’t work.

2)  The account is a reworking of Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh, written some 1000 years before the Bible. Some verses are verbatim, or close to.

3) If the deluge destroyed all, why do we have the writings and journals of people before, during and after the deluge?

4) There is internal contradiction from the spliced accounts – 2 of each or 7?

5)  8 people looking after the world’s biggest zoo is ridiculous.

6) The ark is physically bigger than a wooden vessel can be made, apparently by 50%.

7) Clearly the gathering of all the animals is impossible – micro-organisisms, polar bears, penguins, condors, glow-worms (how did they get there?)

8)   Ark’s reported dimensions would have to be considerably larger to fit the animals.

9)  Population of 8 could not rebound in the fashion claimed. Simply not possible.

10)  Rainfall would have to be 6 inches per minute. Again, not possible. A category 5 hurricane gives 6 inches per hour which is impossible to sustain over 40 days.

11)  The weight of the water would have disastrous consequences on the earth’s crust, emitting noxious gases and eruptions, leading to potentially, a boiling sea! In all probability, it would have imploded in some way.

12)  There is no geological evidence for any of this.

13)  There are reefs that have been undisturbed in the world for 100,000 years. These would have been crushed and destroyed. They were not.

14) Lots more evidence of fossil, radiometrics and isotopes etc. mean that the flood clearly never happened.

15)  How the hell did Noah actually get all the animals on the ark without them trying to eat each other / the family etc?

16)  Asexual animals and hermaphrodites not accounted for

17)  Ventilation / food / faeces problems on ark

18)  Carnivores?

19)  DNA pool? no trace of this through DNA analysis (ie we know we came from Africa)

20)  All sea fish would have died from influx of fresh water.

21) All plants that do not rely on the seeds of Noah to survive would die. There are many plants that reproduce in many ways other than seeds.

22)  Explaining it away as a local flood is contradictory to genesis, and would also not kill all the humans who were so evil. Liquids find their own level, and so a local flood of that magnitude and description is physically impossible.

I could go on (I have a list about the flood as long as my arm) – you get the idea.

Avatar photo

Jonathan MS Pearce

A TIPPLING PHILOSOPHER Jonathan MS Pearce is a philosopher, author, columnist, and public speaker with an interest in writing about almost anything, from skepticism to science, politics, and morality,...