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
    You might be right!

    It is certainly possible that the Durupinar Site is not authentic.

    More research certainly needs to be done in order to have any hope of verifying, or authenticating it.

    Check me, but I don’t think that I ever said that it has been fully verified, only that the government of Turkey and other scientists are working on attempting that now.

    Some evidence does currently exist pointing in favor of the Site. But more is certainly needed.

    And yes, certainly there have been numerous other Site hoaxes, false leads, phony photos, you name it!

    People seeking fortune and fame!

    The same thing has happened in the field of evolution. Everyone knows this!

    I would bet that you don’t throw out evolution because of past hoaxes. Right?

    If not, then neither should I throw out current Noah’s Ark research, because of past frauds and hoaxes.

    I have a wait and see approach.

    But I would kind of expect you to reject any evidence that is uncovered in favor of the Site being authentic, regardless of its merits. Am I wrong?

    Basically because you don’t want it to be real.

    If you actually do that, it would be a very close minded, inappropriate, unscientific approach to truth.

    I have faith in both, Science and God, so the possible existence of an authentic Noah’s Ark is no problem for me at all.

    However, it might be for you.

    But anyway, please tell me I am wrong about you!
    I would be happy to be wrong!
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes, I agree!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes indeed...

    From...
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html#:~:text=The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000,be one atom of C-14 left in them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    s

    Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and DNA fragments in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

    Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

    Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some could tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They did not look at the data and they never spoke with the researchers. They did not like the test results, so they censored them.

    Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique. It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically. The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.

    Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore. He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination. That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating. These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

    The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years, depending on the type of equipment. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years. If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

    Clearly something is wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaur bones, but it has been hard to reach the public with the information. Despite being simple test results without any interpretation, they were not allowed to be presented in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 2011 and 2012, the Geological Society of America in 2011 and 2012, and by the editors of various scientific journals. On one occasion, they were allowed to display a poster. The information was finally published in an online journal on January 3, 2020, presenting the Carbon-14 data from dinosaur bones alongside similar data from other material in the geologic column.


    SetiAlpha6...

    Isn’t this exactly what Scientists dream about?

    Overturning long held false paradigms with fresh new ideas and scientific data?

    You guys must be really excited!!!

    You’re welcome!
    But, no need to thank me!
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    6,957
    The difference is that "hoaxes" in evolution amount to a tiny fraction of the verifiable facts. If we throw out the hoaxes and mistakes, what's left is still an extremely strong theory.

    With Noah's ark, it's the opposite - there a almost NO verifiable facts. If we throw out the hoaxes and mistakes, there's nothing left.
    Nobody has suggested that you should throw out the good with the bad. We're telling you that there is almost no good.
    You're dead wrong - and insulting too.
    I would love it to be real. I would love ALL of the Noah's arks all over the world to be real, just like I would love Bigfoot to be real or the Loch Ness Monster to be real. Finding new things is great! That's why humans love to explore. YOU're the one who has a fixed idea that Noah's ark must be real and you desperately want that to be true. You desperately try to convince yourself that there is "evidence" when there isn't.
     
  8. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I was very wrong then about you!
    Thanks for correcting me!

    Because of the many variables involved, I have been in a wait and see mode for years regarding the possible Noah’s Ark candidate Site.

    Like you, I would love for it to be authenticated, but I certainly understand that it has not been.

    That is why I never claimed that it is the real deal, and as I have said, why it needs better research.

    Why is that position so terrible?

    Seems like we both hold the same view at the moment.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,957
    So show us the evidence for Noah's ark at the Durupinar site. Not links. Tell us what the evidence is.
     
  10. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    In 1987, after reviewing over 10 years of research, by various investigators, Turkey designated the site, “Noah’s Ark National Park” and constructed a Visitor Center there.

    The Site was further upgraded to “National Treasure” status, later.

    Their archeologists claimed and believed that it was the authentic landing site of Noah’s Ark.

    Of all of the different claims made in the area, by fame and fortune seekers, this is the only site that has ever had the full backing of the government of Turkey.

    And they still back it, as being authentic, even today in 2021.

    So...

    1) The government of Turkey claims it is authentic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  11. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,378
    You do know what the word "evidence" means... right?
     
  12. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Sure, my point is only that the officials and archeologists in Turkey have already evaluated the “evidence” and have come to the conclusion that the Site is authentic.

    And they have continually held this view from 1987 until today.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2021
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,722
    And the practical limit is about 45,000 years.
    So I did a little research here. Turns out that the creationists who ran this test posed as chemists to get the samples; they lied about their research to do so. When they got them, the museum warned them that the bones were not pristine. They had been coated with shellac. They then sent them to a lab at the University of Arizona and had them carbon dated. They conveniently forgot to mention the shellac. The results represented a mix of the C12/C14 ratio in the dinosaur fossils and the C12/C14 ratio in the modern shellac. Those ratios averaged out, and the resulting ratios dated to about 40,000 years.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,722
    "Officials?" Like a local DMV official, or a mayor?

    Perhaps you could get a local boxer to agree that it's really Noah's Ark! Then there would be no question.
     
  15. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Ah yes, the usual character assassinations begin.
     
  16. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Source please?

    Here is another article on this topic...

    https://www.ancient-origins.net/new...dinosaurs-triceratops-horn-dated-33500-020159
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2021
  17. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,378
    So - no. You don't know what "evidence" is. (I like how you put the word in quotation marks there.)
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,611
  19. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Thank You!!!

    Why aren’t more Scientists excited about this possibility? They are supposed to love overturning paradigms?

    It doesn’t look like they really are like that at all.

    Seems like they view even the mere idea of recent Dinosaurs as a threat of some kind, instead of as an opportunity to grow and learn.

    Instead of a war of words, where the average person (like me) cannot tell who is right, why not just repeat the experiments to see if the claimed results are real?

    Like Science is supposed to work!

    This places me in a wait and see mode, until more experiments are completed.

    What other independent Groups of Scientists are out there trying to prove the original claims, by repeating the experiments?

    If no one else is trying to confirm this, then the Scientific Community is unworthy of trust or confidence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2021
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is a photograph of a Pictograph located in the Amazon, apparently showing nine warriors with spears trying to kill a dinosaur.

    Are any Scientists trying to study or authenticate it?
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,957
    That isn't evidence for Noah's ark. It's just a tourist trap.
    A valuable tourist trap - like Disney World. Not evidence for Noah's ark.
    That's a claim that YOU are making. What evidence did those archaeologists use to draw that conclusion?
    Again, the opinion of the government of Turkey has nothing to do with it. What evidence did the government use to draw that conclusion?
    Irrelevant. A government can make all kinds of crazy claims. That doesn't make them true.

    So show us the evidence.
     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,957
    Wrong again. As with Noah's Ark, many of us would love to see evidence of recent dinosaurs.
    You're not in a wait-and-see mode. You're in a grasp-every-straw-that supports-your-beliefs mode.
     
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    As I said, I am in a wait and see mode.

    The existence of Dinosaur soft tissue in bones was similarly maligned and rejected initially.

    Until it could no longer be ignored.

    Perhaps the same thing is happening here.
    Perhaps not.

    I really cannot tell at this point.

    And that puts me on the fence.

    A young date would at least be completely aligned or compatible with the existence of Dinosaur soft tissue Scientifically, but it needs more experimentation and data to verify.

    It is simple logic.

    Certainly you agree?
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2021

Share This Page