Is this Noah's Ark ? Image Credit: CC BY-SA 4.0 Zorka Sojka
Scientists have found evidence of human activity dating back to the time of the Biblical vessel.
Whether or not you happen to believe that the events described in the Old Testament actually took place, the tale of Noah, the ark and the great flood needs no introduction.
For centuries, scholars have attempted to track down the final resting place of the ark which, according to the Bible, came to a stop somewhere in the mountains of modern day Turkey.
One site in particular - known as the Durupinar formation - is thought by some to be the petrified remains of the ark itself. Vaguely resembling the shape of a vessel, it is situated in Turkey approximately 3km north of the Iranian border and around 6,500ft above sea level.
While geologists generally argue that the site is a natural formation, since 2021 scientists from three universities in Turkey and the United States have been analyzing samples of the rocks and soil found at the site to determine if it really is home to Noah's iconic vessel.
Now, according to the initial results, there is in fact evidence of human activity at the site in the form of "clayey materials, marine materials and seafood" which date back to the time of the great flood.
"According to the first findings obtained from the studies, it is thought that there have been human activities in the region since the Chalcolithic period, that is, between the years 5500 and 3000 BC," said Prof. Dr. Faruk Kaya of the Agri Ibrahim Cecen University.
"It is known that the flood of Prophet Noah went back 5,000 years."
Of course, evidence of human activity at the site from around that time neither confirms nor denies that the formation itself is Noah's ark, nor that Noah actually existed.
For those hoping to prove once and for all that the site really is the final resting place of the ark, however, it does - at the very least - represent a step in the right direction.
The extent of the new evidence: "Clayey, marine and seafood materials" ? I can walk 1 mile to an undeveloped canyon and find those items laying on the ground. Wooden logs not found anywhere else on the mountain, outside the area of the visual evidence would be better evidence. Has the size of the suspected Ark on the mountain been proven to be the exact size as described in the Bible? Length: 510 feet Width: 85 feet Height: 51 feet Some details of the following had to be guessed but... Photos of the Ark Encounter scale replica. I'd love to see it be proven, and suspect it will someday but... [More]
#38 Posted by 8 months ago
That's the proper way for official documentation. I don't think there's a corresponding consensus for unofficial posting on web forums.
why do you think the bible came first? why theres a better chance the formation inspired the idea of the flood. people climb mountain, find formation and think "wow why is there a boat shaped formation" and then THAT story made it into the bible?
I am sorry, we seem to have a misunderstanding. I said: "it is a very suspicious shape to be on the mountain the Bible says it landed on" "The Bible says it landed on" is supposed to be understood as past tense. After.
I think that's pretty much what did indeed happen. A bit like the way fossil sea shells found on the top of hills "prove" the whole world was covered in a flood Or, x hero was buried in a tomb at place y because we discovered a tomb at place y so that must be the tomb of hero x. Circular reasoning and confirmation bias. The fact the "remains" of Noah's ark were found on a hill, means that was obviously where it landed. The fact it's not actually a big wooded box at all is conveniently overlooked (an ark is NOT a boat and is NOT boat shaped ) Meanwhile, I was bemu... [More]
This article popped up in my Google feed. I got as far as the phrase 'young Earth creationist' before I stopped reading. Yeah, just no. https://m.jpost.com/archaeology/archaeology-around-the-world/article-826776 Although, this supposed Babylonian map sounds kind of cool.
Please Login or Register to post a comment.