The Durupinar Noah's Ark Site

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Jul 12, 2021.

  1. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    https://www.noahsarkscans.com/
    https://www.noahsarkscans.com/#project

    Scientific research is continuing at the Durupinar Noah’s Ark Site.

    If Noah's Ark and the Global Worldwide Flood are proven to be true, Naturalism must be false.

    And, as we all know, Scientists would love to have Naturalism proved false because they are all unbiased truth seekers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So why not support the research and see where the evidence leads?

    Who knows?

    Science itself could actually disprove Naturalism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Where it leads is here.
    As opposed to: who believes regardless of the scientific evidence?
    Possibly. But not in this case.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    The Global Wordlwide Flood has been proven to be false. Nothing they find at Durupinar will change that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Really?
    Please prove both of your Claims.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
  8. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,379
    Always wondered how the Kangaroos and Koala Bears got from Turkey to Australia. Polar bears and penguins are a bit of a puzzle too.
     
  9. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    https://www.globalflood.org/

    “Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony.”

    Why ignore the obvious science?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2021
  10. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Good questions!
     
  11. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/biblical/global-flood-what-evidence/#:~:text=Evidence for a global flood are literally everywhere,and a planet surface that is more

    “Evidence for a global flood are literally everywhere around the planet: Fossils found on top of the highest mountains, polystrate tree stumps pierce defiantly through millions of years of rock layers, coal bed graveyards, fossil forests, enormous sedimentary layers miles thick cover the continents, massive erosion spread over thousands of miles, rock layers (nonconformity) as evidence of the sorting of materials by flood waters, mountains made of bent rocks, and a planet surface that is more than 70% covered by water which is deeper than 6 miles (36,070 ft) in places.”

    The evidence is literally beneath your feet, just about wherever go on Earth.
     
  12. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,379
    And where do you suppose all that water went?
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    Rock formations all over the Earth show signs of being underwater in the past - because, due to plate tectonics, they WERE underwater at one point. That's not evidence of creationism, that's evidence of plate tectonics.
    See above.
    It is indeed remarkable that creationists do not know how erosion works. The Grand Canyon covers thousands of square miles; all caused by rain, not some mythical flood.
    Again, see above. Plate tectonics has enough power to bend rock strata. Water does not.
    That is evidence that the planet is 70% covered by water, and evidence that it is not 100% covered by water.

    If the oceans were to rise to cover the planet you would need 1120 million cubic miles of water. There are only 332 million cubic miles currently in all the oceans of the earth. There is no conceivable way that simple rain could more than triple the amount of water on the planet, nor could any conceivable process make that vanish a few weeks later.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    "The Global Wordlwide Flood has been proven to be false."
    There is evidence in many places for floods. Note the plural - floods. I have seen several floods myself.

    So, how do you extrapolate from many small floods to one big Flood?​

    "Nothing they find at Durupinar will change that."
    Even if there is evidence of a giant boat at Durupinar, what has that got to do with the Flood?​
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    So I checked out some of the claims. David Fasold, whose qualifications are that he is a sailor and a marine salvage worker, rediscovered the "Noah's Ark" site in 1977. He thought it was indeed Noah's Ark. Then he did more research, and wrote a paper on his results. He concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. From the paper:

    "A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia."

    So much for that.
     
  16. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    If all of the fossils from the Global Flood were laid down over a one year period, relatively recently and buried in water deposited sedimentary layers which run for thousands of miles around the entire globe, which we have, then we should be able to easily find soft tissue in Dinosaur bones. And we can!

    And that soft tissue would be evidence that our current understanding of geology and time are way off.

    Soft tissue in Dinosaur bones should point us towards the revision of the dating of the geologic column. Err, or, geologic flood column.

    In other words, it becomes clear that a Dinosaur fossil currently dated at 198 million years old, found with soft tissue, cannot be 198 million years old, but must be far more recent.

    If a Global Flood occurred in which Dinosaurs of all kinds were fossilized over a year, all Dinosaur Bones could at least potentially have soft tissue. Because they would have all been buried relatively recently at relatively the same time.

    We should see Dinosaur Bones all over the earth buried by water with soft tissue in them, because they were all buried at the same time only a few thousand years ago, not spread out over millions of years.

    And so far, that is the case.

    Scientists love to see old outdated theories proven wrong. It is what they live for! And now it is just a matter of time and a little more research.

    You all must really be excited about the possibility of that!!!

    And I am so exited for y’all!!!
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2021
  17. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    As you wish!
     
  18. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,003
    But we don't.
     
  19. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283


    Please judge for yourself.

    Check me, but I think she has verified finding soft tissue, including red blood cells, in supposed “60 million” year old Dinosaur bones.

    This is only one lecture on the topic, there are many more out there you can find, and again please decide for yourself.

    The trend, as far as I can tell is that, the more research that is done, the less rare, finding soft tissue becomes, even in the supposed “oldest” Dinosaur bones we have.

    It was only considered rare in the past because it was never tested for, and it was never tested for because the existing paradigm blinded the researchers from even looking for it. Because it was considered to be impossible in the paradigm.

    If an existing paradigm blinds scientists from excepting as real or from doing simple and obvious research, I see that as a problem.

    I hope you would agree!
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    We can only find tissue that has been protected by bone and rock for tens of thousands of years.
    Yep. And yet - they don't. You are probably reading too much creationist pap to be aware of that.
     
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    You may have missed seeing this part...

    “Ark researchers David Allen Deal[7] and Robert Michelson,[16] and Australian friend and biographer June Dawes[2]:184 reported that before his 1998 death Fasold again claimed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark. Dawes wrote:

    “He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.[2]:184””
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Ok,

    Then tissue and blood cells being found in a supposed 68 million year old T-Rex, would indicate a much younger age for that Dinosaur, as you said, in the tens of thousands of years, not millions.

    Soft tissue has been scientifically verified, including red blood cells, in supposed “68 million” year old T-Rec Dinosaur bones.

    So, the T-Rex that was tested, died only tens of thousands of years ago, not 68 million years ago as supposed.

    Thanks for the assist!

    Seems like you understand it perfectly!

    And here is an “unbiased of course” Creationist treatment of the topic, thrown in just for fun.

    Anyone up for a fact check?
    Seems pretty accurate to me, at least.

    https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/dinosaur-tissue/

    Please decide for yourself!
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,811
    The science is moving on from that received wisdom

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    e.g. https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
    Not easily, but we are finding it, and in fossils that are millions of years old. This isn't proof that the fossils are far more recent (which would require overturning the wealth of evidence in support of the ageing techniques) but is evidence that requires a change in our understanding of how soft tissue survives for so long needs an overhaul. Which it is gradually getting.
    Only if you're unscientific about things. What science does is reexamine the assumptions - and in this case we can reexamine the wealth of evidence behind the dating of the fossils to hundreds of millions of years... or we can reexamine the assumption that, say, soft tissue only survives for tens of thousands of years at most.
    Both are being done, but the latter is where the error in assumption seems to be (see link above for possible explanations etc).
    Not necessarily, as it seems that our undertanding around the survival time of soft tissue is lacking. That is now improving.
    No, what it means (or what current scientific understanding is suggesting) is that a dinosaur fossil currently dated at 198 million years old, found with soft tissue, is 198 million years old, with soft tissue that has survived 198 million years, due to possible processes that are being gradually researched and understood.
    If Martians came down and zapped all the dinosaurs within a year and then sprinkled the world with something that looked like a sedimentary layer then you'd get much the same thing as you're suggesting. But where's the science for either?
    No, it's not. We certainly have layers of fossils matching, as far as we can tell, local and global catastrophes (e.g. asteroid impact), and many of those might well have had soft tissue (had we checked for it at the time, before destroying the chance to look due to the methods used to protect the bones, such as glue etc), but this just speaks, more rationally, to our lack of understanding of how such soft tissue can survive for so long.
    Once one dismisses the assumption that soft tissue can not possibly last beyond ten thousand years or so, one is left with the straighforward conclusions that (1) the current ageing of the fossils is supported by a wealth of evidence; (2) our understanding of how soft-tissue can survive so long needs updating.
    Yep, and it's being done, and is suggesting that soft-tissue really can last far longer than just a few tens of thousands of years. Science at work!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page