Volume 1, Issue 16
December 4,  2011
Testimony from NAMI's opponents 




Though NAMI has made no recent public announcements, there has occurred a seismic change in opposition to their discovery. These moves by opponents are all the more revealing in that they occur at a time when NAMI is silent. Ken Ham, President of America's largest Creationist organization Answers in Genesis (AIG), has weighed in against NAMI's discovery (click to read), while a major source of online information for the Ark searching community has dropped all pretense of neutrality. Thus far, the skepticism of Creationist leaders, John Morris, Carl Wieland, and Ken Ham has been hesitant and gentle. Some have met members of NAMI and acknowledge their sincerity. Though skeptics of NAMI's discovery, they have not joined those in the Ark searching community who have made charges of fraud based on anonymous sources. In challenging their skepticism, I mean these leaders no disrespect.
Opposition is greatest within the Chinese Christian community where some have joined Randall Price in accusing NAMI of promoting a fraudulent discovery for the purpose of taking money from simple and unsuspecting Christians. The only "identified" source of these charges has been the forged "affidavit" from the brothers Davut and Ergan that Price posted on his website, which he withdrew as soon as the brothers showed the signatures on their Turkish identification cards to demonstrate the document's forgery. It is understandable that the Creationist organizations keep their distance from Price and his charges.
Astute observers understand that the growing opposition to NAMI's discovery is testimony for rather than against the authenticity of their discovery. Creationist leaders may be concerned about loosing control over the public discussion of Noah's Ark, Noah's Flood, and perhaps even about Creation. They can see that NAMI is gaining the attention of those interested in Noah's Ark. Who will be interested in AIG's $172 million Ark Encounter whose construction has already begun in northern Kentucky when they discover that it is not built like what has been discovered on Mt. Ararat. But there may still be time for modifications. 
As believers, these Creationists leaders should rejoice in being forerunners of something far more important than what they have been doing. They should remember that Deists including the notorious Voltaire were Creationists and keen on intelligent design. Voltaire was himself a young-earth Creationist. Of course that doesn't mean that his view on the age of the earth corrupted his faith. I would love to see AIG build a museum in northern Kentucky that teaches Creation in the light of the Bible instead of teaching Christians how to interpret the Bible in the light of Creationist theology and science.
There is a good reason for greater opposition from within the Chinese Christian community. Here is where NAMI's documentary is being shown. The film has impacted that community because what one sees in these caves on Mt. Ararat is deeply moving and clearly impossible to fabricate. Comprehending that the Ark is real affects one's heart and mind. Many of us merely suppose that we are believers until we see evidence of some great miracle. It changes personal lives and expectations as to what Christians and their leaders should be doing. All revivals create opposition from those enjoying the status quo. Attacks are aimed at what is seen as the source of the revival.
Those who see NAMI's evidence and make charges that it is fabricated do so with an opposition agenda or else lack ordinary intelligence (probably not the latter). Because these remains are massive, frozen, and protected by thousands of tons of rock and ice, they are not going away. Because they look like a maritime vessel and appear to have been a vessel for carrying animals, it is going to be difficult for scientists not to conclude that has been discovered has some connection with the ancient and worldwide traditions of a great Flood. For believers in the Bible that ought to be great news. Why such intense opposition from those who have most famously contended that Noah's Ark and Flood are not myth?
For good reason, the Ark searching community is losing interest in their own searches. Some of them are spending most of their time and resources trying to defame NAMI's discovery. They say it is because fraudulent claims exploit Christians and become the source of skepticism about the Ark. Indeed they do, but there have been a number of competing claims before NAMI's discovery. All were greeted with various degrees of skepticism, but none resulted in the Creationist and Ark searching communities uniting in opposition.
It is clear that skepticism is not in fact the source of NAMI's opposition within the Creationist, Ark searching, and Chinese Christian communities. It is rather because people are believing. Were the leaders of the Creationist, Ark searching, and Chinese Christian communities honestly skeptical, they would either ignore the issue or seek more information from NAMI than the scant information upon which they base their judgments. NAMI does answer relevant and sincere questions. In every forum that I have sponsored, they allow and answer public questions following their presentation. 
The notion of cross examination may not have occurred to these Creationist leaders, because it is not something that you often see in the Creationist and Ark searching communities. There is a good reason. I doubt that Ken Ham wants to be asked why he should be trusted for understanding the evidence of Noah's Ark when he is unable to offer any archaeological evidence for Noah's Flood. Considering that the entire antediluvian world drowned in that event, should there not be a lot of evidence? The biblical account of that doesn't mention dinosaurs, coal, oil, and gas, but does mention a world of wicked and violent people. How can one judge the evidence of Noah's Ark when he admits to having no archaeological knowledge of the world of Noah? Please note that I make this comment not because I lack respect for Ham, but rather because I do. Unlike the irresponsible Ark searchers that I discuss below, the Creationist leaders are admirably serious.
Those who have nothing to hide welcome cross examination because the more that something authentic is tested, the better it looks. Cross examination does expose the claims of those who have been defending something other than truth. It is Randall Price rather than NAMI who is hiding from a joint forum and public scrutiny. If one is afraid of being exposed by the truth, they will attempt to keep their followers from being exposed to the evidence. This does not just pertain to the Creationist organizations and the Ark searching communities, some of whom (including the heads of some of these ministries that have been carrying the flag of a worldwide Flood when it has been so unpopular to do so) may yet change their mind in the light of new evidence. Due to growing interest and the momentous importance this subject has for our present world, I suspect that every church, ministry, and believer will eventually be forced take a stand as is now occurring among the Chinese Christians and those American ministries that have already been exposed to this discovery. Welcome to the testing fire that can never destroy that which is righteous and true.
Best regards,


Philip Williams
New recipients

If this is your first, please take a look at our archive of earlier newsletters.

In this issue
Testimony from NAMI's opponents
AIG's expert on radiocarbon dating
NAMI's supporters
Those "Indiana Jones" Ark searchers
AIG's "expert" on
radiocarbon dating
Why NAMI hasn't answered Andrew Snelling's report
NAMI wood
NAMI's wood from Snelling's report
Ken Ham reports that AIG geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling tells him that thus far "perpetuators of NAMI's Ark claim" have chosen to ignore his article. This was precisely my recommendation to NAMI. I didn't see the point in them answering an "expert" whose analysis would hardly be endorsed by any radiocarbon laboratory.
Ham published this prior to my last newsletter in which I specifically referred to Snelling's report. There I explained the selective way in which archaeologists use radiocarbon dating - that is, as it suits them. Snelling's report shows that NAMI followed the ordinary pattern. Still, it is interesting that Ham rejects NAMI's discovery based on its radiocarbon dating when Creationists have long declared that they do not trust radiocarbon dating. This site can also be archaeologically dated though that is something that the Creationists are unable to do. 


Snelling's report does reveal how open that NAMI has been with their findings and how eagerly they have sought the participation of others. One does not find this type of cooperation within the American Ark searching community, where Ark searchers jealously guard their knowledge and findings. Sadly, NAMI's transparency has not been respected as Snelling himself admits to revealing what they revealed to him in confidence. His report also refers to a rumor. (Snelling's own word) Rumors have no place in scientific reports, nor of course should mature Christians spread them.


Snelling geological expertise is also a bit odd. (Not Dr. Snelling, but his theories.) He doesn't think that Noah's Ark rested on Mt. Ararat. Does he have another candidate in the mountains of Ararat that can fit the biblical description for the Ark's resting place? 
He writes that "C-14 atoms are produced from Nitrogen atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere today as a result of the bombardment of the earth by cosmic rays from outer space." Of course that does not nor cannot happen. Perhaps his reference to Nitrogen was merely a mistake due to his report not having been reviewed before it was published. Or else his reviewers lack the scientific training. I cannot be sure. Dr. Snelling and his fellow Creationist may have their own version of atomic science as they have their own special version of radiocarbon dating. 
NAMI's supporters 
Include both old and young-earth Creationists 
 Scopes Trial   
The Scopes Trial


Ken Ham writes that Dr Snelling's "careful explanation of the details involved have drawn praise from those who accept the biblical account of the Flood as a literal, historic, and globe-encircling event. Sadly, criticism has come from those Christians who are committed to an old earth-and who therefore reject the testimony of Jesus who spoke of Noah, the Ark, and the Flood as real and a literal historic event"

I have criticized Dr. Snelling's report, but like Ken Ham and Dr. Snelling, I accept the biblical account of the Flood as a literal, historic, and globe circling event. I have just written the first book ever to show that the archaeological facts support a straightforward understanding of the Bible. Due to studying the earth in the light of the Bible rather than Creationist theology, I see the earth as in fact much older than man. Ham should point out those Scriptures that have Jesus addressing the issue of the age of the earth. Happily, I think that I have heard him elsewhere saying that one can be a good Christian and disagree about the age of the earth. But I agree with him that the matter is nonetheless important.

Ham should also know that there are young earth Creationists like himself who strongly support NAMI's discovery and are shocked by the treatment that NAMI has received from Creationists. I do not refer to Ken Ham and AIG who are treating NAMI's discovery with seriousness however much we may disagree with them. I look forward to old and young earth Christians working together as did George Frederick Price (the founder of Creationist science) and William Jennings Bryan at the famous Scopes Trial.
NAMI's Ark documentary
Give image time to download

Like us on Facebook (Documentary)
ArchaeologicalEvidenceThe Archaeological Evidence
Click to purchase

The Archaeological Evidence of Noah's Flood
is available from many online booksellers. We notice that the fastest and most reliable way of obtaining the book is from our website which can be accessed by clicking the book icon at right.

S & H:    4.00  (US addresses)  
       2.70   (NC residents only)
Those "Indiana Jones" searchers of the Ark
Disrespectful, irresponsible adventurers endanger, harm, and discourage serious interest in biblical archaeology


Having spent almost 20 years researching the archaeological evidence of Noah's Flood, I had decided to avoid mentioning the searches for Noah's Ark that receive so much attention in the media. It was not just the lack of solid evidence, but that so many of these "Indiana Jones" style Ark searchers exhibit and condone unethical and illegal behavior. They thrive on controversy, gossip, and misrepresentation.


What drew my attention to NAMI's announcements was the fact that they were working with the Turkish archaeological authorities. The solid evidence they are producing is putting the Indian Jones types out of the Ark searching business. Unfortunately, some of the latter turned to exploiting NAMI's discovery by spreading rumors and even trying to identify NAMI's site. Considering the value of this artifact, that would be the greatest archaeological tragedy of all times. 


I am however happy to report that a few of the earliest detractors seem to be ceasing these activities and slowly removing their charges from the Internet. The most recent to do so is Dr. Don Patton. He does have archaeological knowledge and I look forward to him putting it to some commendable use. 


Unfortunately, there is a new detractor named Dr. Amy Beam (All of them seem to be "Dr." this or that.) who is so unethical that she makes Price and Patton seem like Boy Scouts. Spying, invading privacy, and taunting harassment are not activities that Christians can approve.  Her behavior is so obviously defaming and malicious that she would get little attention where she not assisted by some in the Ark searching community. 


How surprised I was to learn that the major Ark searching site NoahsArkSearch (whose author formerly assured me that he was only reporting developments) is not only publishing her charges but seems to have joined with her in attempts to exploit NAMI. It is of course a concession that these former Ark searchers have nothing more to do. Bad company corrupts character. 

Quick Links

Join Our Mailing List!

 If I somehow got your email on my mailing list to which you did not want to be subscribed or if you received this at more than one of your email addresses, please accept my apology and unsubscribe by using the SafeUnsubscribe utility below.

About Us
Christian Leaders & Scholars is the newsletter and publication site of Philip Ernest Williams, author of The Archaeological Evidence of Noah's Flood (2011). The site is also a ministry not only to Christian leaders and scholars but all who are interested in the more difficult issues pertaining to the Bible and its implications for science and history. (Read more)