A reason frequently mentioned as to why the NAMI discovery cannot be Noah’s Ark is that remains of the Ark could not have survived on a volcano such as Mount Ararat. Most of those making this argument are Young Earth Creationists. Some of these declare that this mountain has appeared only since the time of the Flood, and thus could not possibly be the resting place of the Ark.
Indeed, there is evidence that Mount Ararat, like many of the other mountains in this part of the world, is in fact growing and subject to frequent seismic activity. The most recent of these seismic events was the early nineteenth century earthquake that local tradition declares was responsible for breaking apart and burying sections of the Ark. If that is the case, it seems to accord with the remains that NAMI has discovered. Moreover, archaeological remains found in the plains below the mountain show vegetation from a much warmer climate, an indication that the present mile high plains have grown thousands of feet since historical times. [David M. Lang, The Penguin Encyclopedia of ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS (1980), Edited by Arthur Cotterell, “Uratu and Armenia,” pp 117-118]. This would explain how Mount Ararat, which sits on these plains, could have been elevated, though without the type of destructive explosion that would have been due to sizable volcanic eruption.
Young Earth Creationist theory notwithstanding, there is no reason to suppose that Mount Ararat was not in existence at the time of the Flood. It is one of the few mountains whose existence has been noted from ancient times, precisely for the reason that it has been the mountain most frequently claimed as the resting place of the Ark. I have read surveys of numerous Neolithic and Eneolithic archaeological sites near this mountain that are more ancient than this new discovery. None of what I have read mentions evidence of volcanic ash or lava flows that would indicate a great volcanic eruption at levels that might be expected to destroy this mountain top during historical times.
In summary, those who declare that the volcanic character of Mount Ararat precludes the survival of remains from Noah’s Ark so near to the summit should provide relevant evidence for their claims. Else, it is clear that such claims are being made to support and protect a certain theory about Noah’s Flood.
The biblical account suggests that the Ark came to rest near the peak of a mountain far higher than the visible peaks of mountains that might be seen from the resting place of the Ark. Those who are making these claims and yet claim to also believe the biblical account of Noah’s Flood should tell us what other mountain among the mountains of Ararat meets the biblical description for the landing of Noah’s Ark.