A MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY PUZZLE

HAS NOAH'S ARK BEEN FOUND. WAS PREHISTORIC SHIP BUILDING MORE ADVANCED AND SOPHISTICATED THAN ROMAN OR GREEK SHIP BUILDING? WE ONLY OFFER A LINK, NO JUDGEMENT, YOU READ AND DECIDE.

MOUNT ARARAT and "LITTLE ARARAT (PD) There is something on the slope that may be proving very maritime in character.

Before we even start down this road we suggest that you read the debunking of the claim by SNOPES. We did as we always do, but we decided to bring you links to some of the recent posts proposing that the Ark has indeed been found. We didn't find the SNOPES debunking completely acceptable for a number of reasons and thought perhaps it might be a bit dated and that some of their consultants may have exhibited some excessive zeal in their necessary skepticism. We first had our attention drawn to the controversy by a post in JOE FOR AMERICA.  The post was of an article by Dan Eden , but in fact when we checked we found that the post which has appeared in a number of places on the Internet is copied only in part. Here is the part of the original that is not routinely found and that the current SNOPES  debunking does not address at all:

FROM VIEWZONE
 " After Noah's Ark landed

When Dr. Brandenburger originally examined and enlarged the photographs of the "strange object" in Turkey, he also saw hundreds of ancient foundations in the region, suggesting to him that this might have been the first town established after the flood, as described in the Bible.

Now their settlement extended from Mesha as you go toward Sephar, the hill country of the east. -- Genesis 10:30

Archaeological teams have found many ruins and ancient graves. Many human ribs have been excavated and sent to laboratories for dating. In the midst of this alleged "first city" of Noah, there is an unusual and prominent structure, about 10 feet in diameter, that many believe to be the altar on which Noah made his first sacrifice.

Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, Seed time and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.

Again, it surprised me when I research a story like this and find substantial evidence that something extremely important has been found, yet it has been ignored by historians and the media. Perhaps it is because the advanced technology discovered in the Ark suggests that Sumerian legends, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and other ancient writing might actually be correct when they speak of an extraterrestrial connection. The plural of god -- Elohim -- is used even in Genesis. Who were these "gods" and how did they walk the Earth and interact with humans of the era...

Or perhaps this discovery should be seen as a good reason to accept the Bible at its word.

We all need to look deeper into our past to learn what sort of beings we really are, where we are coming from and where we are going."

 This is our most obvious reason for questioning the analysis by SNOPES. If there is more at the site of the supposed ship wreck such as the foundations, graves, and apparent "alter" described above the entire site has to be evaluated for what it is from scratch. SNOPES did not address this aspect at all, not even to deny that these things exist. Additionally some of SNOPES debunking of the artifacts seem argumentative and are not supported by any detailed explanation. SNOPES lays no foundation for being critical of certain findings that relied on commercial off the shelf technology. Because the most expensive and highly sophisticated instruments were not used doesn't automatically invalidate a finding or conclusion. SNOPES assertion that the sides of the foundation are natural is not supported by data other than "expert opinion", the expert's credentials are not offered. We have examined both the proponents and the opponents positions on the finding of NOAH's Ark. Our conclusion is this:

 LIKE THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE THIS IS ANOTHER CASE OF TRUE BELIEVERS VERSUS TRUE BELIEVERS. THE BIBLE BELIEVING CROWD ( AS WELL AS THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT NOAH'S ARK AND STORIES OF GILGAMESH AND OTHER ANCIENTS OF A GLOBAL FLOOD  ARE REALLY ALL THE SAME STORY) WANT TO BELIEVE AND START OUT BY TRYING TO PROVE A PREMISE AND MAY BE A BIT UNCRITICAL OF SOME DATA THAT SUPPORTS THEIR PREMISE. THE SECULAR HUMANIST AND AGNOSTIC SCIENCE CROWD WANT TO DISPROVE THAT PREMISE AT ANY PRICE AND COULD NEVER ACCEPT IT EVEN IF PROVEN. ODDLY THE RELIGIOUS SIDE AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE THERE IS OFTEN TRUTH BEHIND MYTH APPEAR TO BE THE MORE OPEN MINDED IN THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO ATTEMPT TO MEET THE SKEPTICS DEMANDS FOR PROOF, EVEN IF THEY MAY BE A BIT UNCRITICAL ABOUT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE. ITS THE SUPPOSEDLY SCIENTIFIC SIDE AS PRESENTED IN SNOPES THAT APPEARS TO BE THE MORE DOGMATIC. PERHAPS ITS JUST SNOPES  NECESSARILY ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION BUT WE FOUND THE "DEBUNKING" INCOMPLETE AND IN PART UNSUPPORTED, AND DOGMATIC IN TONE. WE HERE AT AAB DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN FACT UP ON THE MOUNTAIN. BUT THERE THE UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION  THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON TH EMOUNTAIN THAT IS NOT PART OF NATURE STRIKES US AS JUST PLAIN DOGMATIC AS IN, "WE ARE SCIENTIST AND INFALLIBLE".

REALLY,  COME ON YOU COULD AT LEAST DO SOME RESEARCH VICE SIMPLY BEING CRITICAL OF THE RESEARCH OF OTHERS BEFORE MAKING PRONOUNCEMENTS. 

We're starting to worry about modern science. Even if the the story of NOAH, or Gilgamesh doesn't interest you we urge you to read all the links pro and con and ask yourself if you see what we see; that is most alarming, creeping infallibility in some sectors of the scientific community. Is dogmatic science still science?

Johnas

SEE ALSO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL_RXCEeWjo