Could the Durupınar Formation Be Noah’s Ark? The Case For, the Case Against, and What Fellow Creationists Say

Could a hillside in eastern Türkiye really hold the remains of Noah’s Ark? The question has been argued since a Turkish Army captain spotted the boat-shaped Durupınar formation in an aerial photograph in 1959. In 2026, with a permitted international team drilling into it, the debate is louder than it has been in decades.

It is tempting to frame this as believers against skeptics. The real picture is more interesting. Some of the site’s strongest supporters are Christians, and so are some of its strongest critics, including creationist geologists who believe Genesis describes a real, global Flood. Here is each side in its own words.

The case for

The 2026 project is led by Prof. Dr. Cenker Atila of Sivas Cumhuriyet University with the U.S.-based group Noah’s Ark Scans, working under Turkish government permits. The team’s case rests on several lines of evidence, all of which it reports itself and none of which has yet been peer-reviewed:

• The outline. A boat-shaped formation about 515 feet (157 m) long, which equals 300 cubits of about 20.6 inches. (We look at the numbers in detail in 515 Feet and 300 Cubits.)
• The radar. In August the team reported 3D radar results showing, in its words, “multiple strong subsurface anomalies and layering,” with no clear bedrock boundary in the deeper data processed so far. According to Israel Hayom, the team interprets angular features to about six meters deep as a central corridor and three levels.
• The soil. The team and its partner university report about 40 percent more carbon inside the outline than outside it, which they suggest could come from decayed wood.
• The cores. In its September 23 release the team said it had recovered cores from as deep as 18 meters and that “no bedrock or solid limestone has so far been identified in the holes drilled inside the formation.” It also reported a drill bit broken on a very hard layer about 4–5 meters down, which it says might be petrified or mineralized wood. Unconfirmed

“We believe the Durupınar Formation is the remains of Noah’s Ark, and that is exactly why we want to put it through the strongest scientific testing we can.”Andrew Jones, founder of Noah’s Ark Scans, Aug. 18, 2026

The team has also been candid about limits, writing in August that “radar anomalies alone do not prove an archaeological origin.” For the full story of this year’s work, see Radar, Core Drills and a Broken Bit.

The case against

The skeptical case has a long paper trail.

The 1960 expedition. According to Wikipedia’s account, a group that included Captain Durupınar himself surveyed the site in September 1960. After two days of digging and dynamiting inside the outline, they found only soil and rocks, and their news release concluded that the formation “was a freak of nature and not man-made.”

Collins and Fasold. David Fasold was once one of the site’s leading promoters. After further visits he changed his mind, and in 1996 he co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence G. Collins in the Journal of Geoscience Education. Its abstract, as quoted on Wikipedia, begins: “A natural rock formation near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah’s Ark.” The paper explains the supposed walls as natural concentrations of minerals in the tilted layers of a “doubly plunging syncline,” a trough-shaped fold, and identifies the nearby “anchor stones” as local volcanic rock. In a 2011 paper, Collins added that he had made thin sections of 12 rock samples that others had called petrified wood, and that “none is petrified wood.”

The story has a twist. Wikipedia records that in 1997 court testimony Fasold called the claim that the Ark had been found “absolute BS,” but that his biographer, June Dawes, later wrote that he “remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah’s Ark.” According to an article in the creationist Answers Research Journal, Collins disputes that account and maintains that Fasold kept his skeptical view to the end.

Turkish geologists. In a 2007 paper quoted by Answers in Genesis, geologist Murat Avci described the feature as “a large discontinuity-bounded block of Miocene limestone which has slumped and crept downslope on the weak Eocene clays.” A 2025 report by Dr. Eşref Atabey of Türkiye’s General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA) likewise attributes it to landslide activity, according to Wikipedia.

What fellow creationists say

For many readers, the most surprising voices in this debate belong to young-earth creationists. Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, now with Answers in Genesis, wrote a detailed critique of the site in Creation magazine in 1992, and in June 2025 he responded to the latest claims. On the radar images, he argued that because the rock inside the structure is 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.” On the soil, he suggested the bowl-shaped structure simply collects more rainwater and builds richer soil.

He also raised a biblical objection. Genesis 8:4 says the Ark came to rest “upon the mountains of Ararat,” and Snelling notes that the tops of the mountains were not seen for another 74 days. Durupınar, by contrast, sits in a deep valley on the slopes of a volcano. His conclusion:

“So, both the location and the geology discount this Durupinar site as being the remains of Noah’s ark.”Dr. Andrew Snelling, quoted by Answers in Genesis, June 1, 2025

Snelling also cautioned that interpreters bring expectations to ambiguous data, and he reminded readers that “we do not need to find Noah’s ark to be convinced that the global flood really occurred.”

How the 2026 team answers

The newest data are aimed squarely at the geological objection. The critics’ model predicts solid limestone or bedrock close under the outline. The team says its radar shows no clear bedrock boundary so far and that its drill holes inside the formation have not hit bedrock or solid limestone. In the September release, Andrew Jones said these findings “challenge claims that this is simply a natural shape made of limestone or bedrock.”

That is a testable claim, and that is good news. The core samples themselves, once analyzed and published, should show what the formation is made of at depth.

Where it stands

Question	Supporters say	Critics say
Is the shape significant?	Length matches 300 cubits	Natural fold and landslide can make boat shapes
What does the radar show?	Corridor, levels, no clear bedrock	Joints, layers or caves in limestone
Why more carbon inside?	Decayed wood	Wetter bowl, richer soil
What is under the outline?	No bedrock found inside so far	Earlier work reported natural rock
Does the location fit Genesis?	In the “mountains of Ararat” region	In a valley, not on a mountain top

None of the 2026 findings are peer-reviewed yet. According to Arkeonews, the samples are at laboratories in Ankara, important results are expected in the winter of 2026–27, and a full report is planned for 2027.

Our take

Genesis stands either way. If the lab work shows ancient, worked wood deep inside the formation, it will be one of the greatest discoveries in history. If it shows limestone and landslide debris, nothing in Scripture is lost, and creationist geologists like Dr. Snelling will have been right to urge caution. Our advice: follow the evidence, give both sides a fair hearing, and wait for the lab.