Have We Found Noah's Ark? Dr. JJJ's Archaeological Scorecard
Dr. JJJ's Archaeological Scorecard · File No. 001
Have we found Noah's Ark? 0/10 −1
Reviewed and in collaboration with Dr. Scott Stripling & Wes Huff
The verdict: sensational claims, not science. Pseudo-archaeology until proven otherwise.
Tap any test to see the evidence. Each one ends with the bottom line and its sources.
01 Wood at depth, in contextThe one test that would change everything. Nothing has passed it. Not met
- This is the test that matters. Not soil. Not radar. Wood, deep in the formation, in context, verified by an independent lab.
- In one hole, the drill bit broke on a hard layer about 4 to 5 meters down. The team's own leader, Andrew Jones, says they don't yet know what it is. It could be mineralized wood. It could be a hard rock block in the debris. Collins and Snelling both documented volcanic boulders all through this formation.
- They report about three times more organic matter inside the outline. Jones himself cautions: "Organic matter also accumulates naturally in soils and slope deposits." A wet hollow traps it too.
- Initial lab results are expected this winter. A detailed report is aimed for spring 2027. Until then, nothing has been identified as wood.
The bottom line
Show me wood cell structure under a microscope from an independent lab. Then we'll talk.
Sources
- Newsweek, "Noah's Ark hunters say they haven't found ancient wood yet" (Sept 30, 2026)
- FOX Television Stations, "Noah's Ark researchers 'inching towards' confirmation" (Oct 6, 2026)
- Lorence G. Collins & David F. Fasold, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure," Journal of Geoscience Education 44 (1996)
- Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
02 Cores that contradict the geologyThey claim no bedrock. They haven't shown their logs. Disputed
- This is their best new point, and I'll grant it's a real question. Jones says they core drilled at over 12 locations and "did not find bedrock at all."
- But in 1988, Bayraktutan and Baumgardner drilled the same formation and hit basalt at 6 to 7 meters. Somebody's data is wrong.
- No core logs have been released. Drilling has reached about 18 to 20 meters in places.
- Even if there's no bedrock under the hill, that doesn't make it a ship. Turkey's own mineral research agency geologist, Eşref Atabey, explains the formation as a landslide. A landslide doesn't need bedrock underneath.
The bottom line
Release the core logs, hole by hole, and put them next to the 1988 logs.
Sources
- FOX Television Stations, "Noah's Ark researchers 'inching towards' confirmation" (Oct 6, 2026)
- Fox News, "Noah's Ark researchers make unprecedented move at site" (Oct 2, 2026)
- Newsweek, "What a 1996 study said about the Noah's Ark site" (Sept 30, 2026)
- Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
- Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (summarizes Atabey 2025, Morris, Fasold)
03 Blind interpretation of the radarProprietary radar, no raw data, read by their own contractor. Failed so far
- Radar measures contrasts in the ground. It cannot tell you what a material is. It can't tell wood from wet clay.
- The radar survey was run by the project's own contractor, Dr. Khosrow Bakhtar. No raw data has been released for outside review.
- Even Bakhtar is careful: "What that original object was, a ship or a spacecraft or what, I do not know." He was being honest about what radar can and can't tell you.
The bottom line
Hand the raw data to three independent geophysicists without telling them where it came from. If they all draw a ship, I'm listening.
04 An answer to Collins (1996)The peer-reviewed lab work is still unanswered. Not met
- In 1996 geologist Lorence Collins published the lab work in the Journal of Geoscience Education. His co-author was David Fasold, the man who had championed this site.
- Under the microscope, the "iron bracket" came from weathered volcanic minerals. The "walls" were natural bands of iron minerals. The "anchor stones" were local andesite. The "gopherwood bark" was metamorphosed peridotite.
- The 2026 publicity argues against "bedrock." It never touches those thin sections.
The bottom line
Which of Collins's thin sections is wrong, and what's your lab result?
05 Peer reviewPress releases and TV interviews only. Not met
- Every result so far has come through press releases and television interviews.
- Peer review is where a claim goes to be tested by people who don't need it to be true. This one hasn't gone there yet. Even sympathetic coverage notes the findings haven't been independently verified or peer-reviewed.
The bottom line
Publish it in a journal where reviewers don't know the authors. Collins did. Snelling did.
06 Dates that agreeNothing new from 2026. The 2023 dates don't help them. Pending
- No new radiocarbon dates have come out of the 2026 cores.
- In 2023, a team from Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen University and Istanbul Technical University dated samples to 3,500 to 5,000 years old.
- Their own vice rector, Prof. Faruk Kaya, said: "With the dating, it is not possible to say that the ship is here." The range reflected human activity in the region, not a vessel.
The bottom line
The scientists who ran those dates said they don't show a ship. I'll take them at their word.
07 Matches the biblical arkGenesis describes a box. This is a pointed hull. Not met
- Genesis 6:15 gives 300 by 50 by 30 cubits. The length roughly fits. The width doesn't. Proponents have to say the sides splayed out in the mud.
- The Hebrew word is tēbâ, a box or chest. The only other place it appears is Moses' basket in Exodus 2:3. Noah's ark was built to float, not to sail. A pointed hull is the wrong shape.
The bottom line
Genesis describes a floating box. This formation is shaped like a pointed hull. The text and the hill don't match.
Sources
- Genesis 8:4; Genesis 6:14–16; Exodus 2:3 (ESV)
08 One of a kindBoat shapes repeat in the same mudflows. Not met
- Their first argument is the shape. It looks like a boat.
- But the Turkish Air Force released a photo showing three similar boat shapes in mudflow on Lesser Mount Ararat, as Snelling reported in 1992.
- If the shape proves it's the ark, Noah had a fleet. Genesis gives him one ark.
The bottom line
They'll say the others lack the same internal features. Fine. Then the shape proves nothing, and the internal features are their weakest evidence.
09 Results others can reproduceThe original radar couldn't be repeated. The new data is withheld. Not met
- In 1987 radar specialist Tom Fenner tried to reproduce the 1986 Wyatt and Fasold scans with proper equipment. His words: "we were unable to duplicate their radar records in any way." He found a flat reflector, likely bedrock.
- Fasold also used a "molecular frequency generator." Snelling reported that the scientists he consulted were unanimous: "there are no scientific principles employed."
- The 2026 raw data hasn't been released, so nobody can try to reproduce it.
The bottom line
Science that can't be repeated isn't evidence yet. It's a claim.
10 Survives the experts who checkedBelievers tested it and walked away. Not met
- This was never secular science against the Bible. The sharpest critics were believers.
- John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research made thirteen trips to Ararat and called it "not Noah's Ark." Andrew Snelling took the claims apart in 1992. John Baumgardner drilled it. David Fasold co-wrote the paper debunking his own site.
- In June 2025, Eşref Atabey, a geologist with Turkey's General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA), published a paper explaining the formation as a landslide.
The bottom line
Young-earth creationists who want the ark to be real looked at this and said no. That should tell you something.
Sources
- John D. Morris, "The Search for Noah's Ark: Status 1992," Institute for Creation Research (Sept 1, 1992)
- Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
- Lorence G. Collins & David F. Fasold, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure," Journal of Geoscience Education 44 (1996)
- Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (summarizes Atabey 2025, Morris, Fasold)
13 John Morris: 13 trips to Ararat, still "not Noah's Ark"The man who wanted the ark most looked hardest, and said no. Expert verdict
- Dr. John D. Morris was a geological engineer and later president of the Institute for Creation Research. He first went to eastern Turkey in 1971. He went back twelve more times, the last in 1989.
- He paid a price. On one trip he was struck by lightning and paralyzed for hours. His teams were shot at, robbed, and attacked by wolfhounds. He told the story in Adventure on Ararat (1973).
- He studied the boat-shaped formation himself. His verdict in 1992: "an unusual geologic phenomenon, but not Noah's Ark."
- His reasons: it "was formed as soil and mud slid downhill around a stable area." Microscopic analysis of the rocks backed that up. And there was "absolutely no indication that it is of archaeological significance."
- He added that John Baumgardner, once open to the idea, "now contends he has disproved the hypothesis." Baumgardner's core drilling "revealed only the sorts of rock on the nearby hillsides."
The bottom line
No one wanted to find the ark more than John Morris. He went thirteen times and nearly died doing it. He still called this hill what it is.
−1 Penalty: the diggers sell the tours$1,100 to $3,600 a person, while the dig is underway. Conflict
- Noah's Ark Scans sells 3-, 5-, and 12-day tours to the site. $1,100, $1,800, and $3,600 per adult. Trips in July, August, and October 2026, while the excavation is still running.
- The project was also raising $600,000 to fund the dig.
- I'm not saying money makes it false. I'm saying the people interpreting the evidence profit if the answer is "Ark." That's exactly why you need independent eyes.
The bottom line
I'm not questioning anyone's sincerity. I'm asking for independent verification. That's the standard I hold myself to.
! Watch the wording: human activityThe team is looking for something far smaller than an ark. Heads-up
- The team says its samples are meant "to look for possible signs of human activity or decayed wood."
- People have lived in eastern Turkey for thousands of years. Pottery from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age has already turned up nearby. Even the coverage admits it "only indicates human activity in the area."
- A shepherd's fire, a burial, a later shrine would all count. So when the headline says "human activity found," hear it for what it is. Human activity is not a hull.
The bottom line
Humans being there and a vessel being buried there are two different claims.
◊ The pottery: "From Noah's time"?Undated fragments near a hill don't make the hill a ship. Heads-up
- Pottery found near the formation earlier ranges from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age. That spans thousands of years.
- In 2026 the team announced new fragments, and some reports floated "pre-flood" pottery. As of mid-October, those fragments had not been scientifically dated.
- Even dated pottery needs context. Where exactly was it found? In what layer? Was the ground undisturbed? And what ties it to this formation being a ship?
- Ancient pottery nearby shows people lived in the area. The 2023 dating team already said so: human activity here goes back to the Chalcolithic. As Answers in Genesis put it, an old Coke bottle beside your house doesn't make your house a Coca-Cola factory.
The bottom line
Date it. Show the layer. Connect it to a hull. Until then, pottery tells us people were there. We already knew that.
Sources
- ProPakistani, "Researchers claim Prophet Nuh's Ark location 100% confirmed" (Sept 27, 2026)
- Arkeolojik Haber, Mount Ararat committee report and Prof. Faruk Kaya statement (Oct 31, 2023)
- Answers in Genesis video, “‘100% Confirmed’: Did They Actually Just Find Noah’s Ark?” (Oct 2026), on the undated 2026 pottery fragments
↻ Their latest claim: "It faces the wrong way"The boat points uphill, so it can't be a mudflow? Their own graphic disagrees. Answered
- Noah's Ark Scans now argues the formation points the wrong way to be mud flowing around a rock, and that no bedrock has been found.
- Their own graphic answers that. It says: "Orientation alone cannot establish whether the formation is natural or man-made."
- Their target is real: in 1992 John Morris described soil and mud sliding downhill around a stable area. But Morris rested his verdict on the rocks under the microscope and on Baumgardner's cores, not on which way the tip points. Collins and Fasold describe folded rock layers, a doubly plunging syncline, eroded into a boat shape. Turkey's own government geologist, Eşref Atabey, calls it a landslide.
- "No bedrock"? In 1988, Bayraktutan and creationist geophysicist John Baumgardner drilled it and hit basalt at 6 to 7 meters. Fenner's 1987 radar found a flat reflector, likely bedrock. The 2026 scans are proprietary, with no raw data released.
The bottom line
"Not natural" doesn't spell "ship." Rule out every natural cause and you still need wood. Show me wood.
Sources
- Noah's Ark Scans on X, orientation and bedrock post (Oct 14, 2026)
- John D. Morris, "The Search for Noah's Ark: Status 1992," Institute for Creation Research (Sept 1, 1992)
- Lorence G. Collins & David F. Fasold, "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure," Journal of Geoscience Education 44 (1996)
- Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
- Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (summarizes Atabey 2025, Morris, Fasold)
† The biblical problem: Genesis gives no address"The mountains of Ararat" is a region, not a peak. Biblical
- Genesis 8:4 says the ark rested "on the mountains of Ararat." Mountains. Plural. It never says Mount Ararat.
- Ararat is the Hebrew name for Urartu, an ancient kingdom that covered much of eastern Turkey and Armenia. The name wasn't pinned to one peak until about the 11th century AD.
- So no hill can claim a biblical address. Not Mount Ararat. Not Durupinar, which sits about 18 miles south of the summit.
- Scripture also never says the ark survived. Noah's family stepped into a ruined world. They needed shelter and fuel. They may well have taken the ark apart and used the timber. The Bible doesn't say, so we shouldn't either.
The bottom line
Genesis gives us a region, not a GPS pin. Anyone who claims an exact spot is adding to the text.
Sources
- Genesis 8:4; Genesis 6:14–16; Exodus 2:3 (ESV)
- NomadicNiko, "Noah's Ark: Durupinar" (on Urartu and the naming of Mount Ararat)
- Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (location: 29 km / 18 mi south of the Greater Ararat summit)
▲ The geological problem: the volcano came laterThe ark can't land on a mountain that isn't there yet. Geological
- Mount Ararat is a stratovolcano. It was built up layer by layer through lava flows and eruptions.
- Creationist geologist Andrew Snelling, PhD, has studied this region in detail. In his model, the modern volcano formed after the floodwaters had already retreated.
- If that's right, the ark couldn't have landed on today's Mount Ararat. The peak wasn't there yet.
- And Durupinar isn't on the mountain at all. It sits below it, in ground Turkey's own geologists explain as a landslide.
The bottom line
The mountain came after the flood, and this site isn't on the mountain anyway. Both problems point the same direction.
Sources
- Answers in Genesis video, “‘100% Confirmed’: Did They Actually Just Find Noah’s Ark?” (Oct 2026), summarizing Andrew Snelling’s geology of the Ararat region
- Andrew A. Snelling, "Special Report: Amazing 'Ark' Exposé," Creation 14:4 (Sept 1992)
- Wikipedia, "Durupınar site" (summarizes Atabey 2025, Morris, Fasold)
? What would change my mindFour things. Any lab, any team, any time. The standard
- Wood, deep in the formation, confirmed by an independent lab. Cell structure under a microscope. Not soil. Not radar.
- Raw radar data, read blind. Hand it to three outside geophysicists who don't know where it came from. If they all draw a ship, I'm listening.
- Core logs, hole by hole. Release them and put them next to the 1988 logs.
- A peer-reviewed answer to Collins (1996). Show which of his thin sections is wrong, and publish your lab result.
The bottom line
Do that and we'll publish a new score. Gladly. I want this to be the Ark as much as anyone. But wanting isn't evidence.
The takeaway
We don't need a boat-shaped hill to trust Genesis. Jesus treated Noah as history: "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matthew 24:37, ESV). My confidence in the flood rests on Him, not on a mudflow in eastern Turkey. Real places. Real people. Real events. And real evidence, tested honestly.
The point
One ark. One door.
Here's what matters more than any drill core. God told Noah, "Set the door of the ark in its side" (Genesis 6:16, ESV). One ark. One door. Everyone who went through that door was saved. Then "the LORD shut him in" (Genesis 7:16, ESV).
Judgment came because of human wickedness. But God provided a way of rescue before the first drop of rain fell.
Jesus took that same picture and applied it to Himself: "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved" (John 10:9, ESV). There was one way into the ark of safety. There is one way into salvation. His name is Jesus.
So the most important question isn't "Have we found Noah's Ark?" It's this: Have you walked through the door?
You don't need to find the ark to be saved. You need Jesus. And He isn't buried in a hillside. He's alive, and the door is open today.
Jeremiah J. Johnston, PhDPresident, Christian Thinkers SocietyReviewed and in collaboration with Dr. Scott Stripling & Wes Huff