This is a favorite topic of many believers but they re not fully aware of the problems that come when using archaeology to prove the flood took place. One of the first problems encounter is that they want to use the field of archaeology to help find the ark but that is an unrealistic objective. One of the reasons for that is those explorers are looking for a needle in a haystack miracle. That miracle they want to have take place is for the ark to survive countless different weather and other natural events for approx. 5,000 years.
Archaeology is not in the miracle business and while God is, he didn’t promise that he would preserve the ark for modern people to use as evidence for the flood. A second problem that comes along when using archaeology to prove the flood is that even if the ark was discovered, how would anyone tie it to Noah? Noah may have built the first ark but there is nothing from a 2nd, 3rd or even 100th from being built. In the last 10 years we have had 2 replicas built so who is to say that any number of ancient people did not do the same thing.
A third problem is that archaeology has no clue where Ararat is. It knows where the modern mountain that bears that name is but there is nothing anywhere that states that mountain is the Ararat referred to in the biblical pages. It is an assumption of the highest and misleading order. To pinpoint the real Ararat archaeology would need real specific information and none is forthcoming or hiding anywhere in the museums housing archaeological remains.Then if we do uncover some ancient mentioning of Ararat how do we verify that is the same location as the one the Bible is referring to? It could be but we have no hope of verifying it.
The the biggest problem for archaeology is that no one knows what the evidence for a global flood looks like.It was assumed that the flood layer would be uniform but that is unrealistic for no one can identify the evidence. They can draw conclusions, like the glaciers point to the fact that all the water did not disappear, or that the sunken villages and the hidden shorelines are a good clue but after 5,000 years and so on but with 5,000 years of weather, natural disasters wars, construction and so on, it is unrealistic to expect uniformity in the evidence.
These problems combine to point out the fact that archaeology is far too limited and missing far too much information to be an authority on the reality of the flood. It cannot make that determination and its members should not try. The flood involved forces that archaeology cannot study which makes that field not a good source for placing one’s faith. It is better to simply believe God instead of letting archaeology ruin your salvation and eternal home.