The Durupinar Noah's Ark Site

SetiAlpha6 said:
The existence of Dinosaur soft tissue in bones was similarly maligned and rejected initially.
Click to expand...
And you have been shown that it does NOT support a young earth.
SetiAlpha6 said:
Until it could no longer be ignored.
Click to expand...
It was never ignored. It has been studied and found to NOT support your beliefs.

Alchemy was believed until it was disproved. Astrology was believed until it was disproved. A flat earth was believed until it was disproved. Phlogiston was believed until it was disproved. Flood geology was believed until it was disproved.
 
sideshowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at the evidence yourself before?
 
sideshowbob said:
And you have been shown that it does NOT support a young earth.

It was never ignored. It has been studied and found to NOT support your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Mary Schweitzer, the American paleontologist at North Carolina State who discovered Dinosaur Soft Tissue, has commented many times about how resistant the field has been to her discoveries.

She has been maligned and her character has been assassinated on numerous occasions.

Just ask her!

Her findings were suppressed!
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
I have looked at the evidence since the 1960s. None of it has ever been evidence for Noah's ark.

Why do you keep evading? Just show us the evidence.
Click to expand...

OK Great!

Then there is probably no reason to show you evidence that you have already seen and reached your own personal verdict about.

You are welcome to your own personal opinion.

And anyone else can look it up if they wish, and evaluate it all for themselves.

No one needs me to go over all of it with them.

I still think that more research needs to be done, in order to fully authenticate the Site.

Again, what is wrong with waiting for more evidence?
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
OK Great!

Then there is probably no reason to show you evidence that you have already seen and reached your own personal verdict about.

You are welcome to your own personal opinion.

And anyone else can look it up if they wish, and evaluate it all for themselves.

No one needs me, to go over all of it with them.
Click to expand...
Translation: "I got nothing."
 
change your perspective
and we have living dinosaurs contemporaneously existing with modern humans

and
that's a fact jack
 
sideshowbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are making the Claims, not me.

They had first hand access to all of the evidence, and made the Claim that the Site is authentic.

I never made that claim!

I have never had first hand access to all of the evidence like they have.

Have you?

And of course it is a tourist site. Agreed!

That fact alone does not automatically invalidate any other Historical Site on Earth, neither does that fact alone, invalidate this Site.

That is a Stretch! A BIG one!
 
Last edited:
img_0596-jpg.4344
sculptor said:
change your perspective
and we have living dinosaurs contemporaneously existing with modern humans

and
that's a fact jack
Click to expand...

It is a fact!
Alligators, Coelacanths,...

Coelacanths did not evolve at all, for supposedly, 360 million years, if that number is accurate. Which I doubt!

Don’t forget the Pictograph above, depicting exactly that very thing.
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
They are making the Claims, not me.
Click to expand...
But you're accepting their claims and touting them as "science".
SetiAlpha6 said:
I have never had first hand access to all of the evidence like they have.

Have you?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any evidence that there is evidence.
SetiAlpha6 said:
And of course it is a tourist site. Agreed!

That fact alone does not automatically invalidate any other Historical Site on Earth, neither does that fact alone, invalidate this Site.
Click to expand...
Everything is invalid until validated. You've been telling people in this thread that they're rejecting the science. How can you say that when you don't even know what "the science" is?
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Then there is probably no reason to show you evidence that you have already seen and reached your own personal verdict about.
Click to expand...
The verdict of every scientist is that there is nothing there to indicate an ancient boat.
And anyone else can look it up if they wish, and evaluate it all for themselves.
Click to expand...
Everybody who looks it up finds nothing.
No one needs me to go over all of it with them.
Click to expand...
If you think there is evidence of Noah's ark, you certainly DO need to show it because nobody else can find any. All of the evidence indicates that the Durupinar site is a natural formation.
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
Mary Schweitzer, the American paleontologist at North Carolina State who discovered Dinosaur Soft Tissue, has commented many times about how resistant the field has been to her discoveries.
Click to expand...
Mary Schweitzer agrees that the dinosaur fossils are NOT young.
 
sideshowbob said:
But you're accepting their claims and touting them as "science".

I haven't seen any evidence that there is evidence.

Everything is invalid until validated. You've been telling people in this thread that they're rejecting the science. How can you say that when you don't even know what "the science" is?
Click to expand...

I think people should research it for themselves.

It is up to each person to decide if the available evidence has merit or not.

They certainly don’t need me or you to figure it out.

I believe in loving people, in their free will, and in freedom of thought.

What is wrong with that?
 
sideshowbob said:
Mary Schweitzer agrees that the dinosaur fossils are NOT young.
Click to expand...

Yes, under pain of losing her career.

She would be fired if she stated what she really thinks.

In one of her lectures, she points to very “red” blood cells, and calls them “little round red things”. And then indicates to the audience that she is kinda not allowed to call them what they really are, “blood cells”.

I will provide a link to her lecture if you want to review it for yourself.

Here it is...


Scientists are being threatened that they will lose their careers if they simply tell the truth.

This is a great example of why Science truly is untrustworthy and is worthy of a vote of “no confidence”.
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
The verdict of every scientist is that there is nothing there to indicate an ancient boat.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

The Archeologists in Turkey at the time, evaluated the Scientific evidence in 1987, you know, the very same Scientific evidence that you say doesn’t exist, and right or wrong, those Scientists made the Claim that the Site was authentic.

And I don’t really even know myself if I should believe them or not. Even though I freely admit, I would like to.

Nobody cares what I think anyway!

That is why I am funding more research.
Because, I personally need more evidence, before I can accept the authenticity of the Site.

It might be, it might not be.

You need more evidence and I need more evidence.
We agree!

Pretty sure I am repeating myself, over and over again by now. Sorry about that!
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
They found something that could be a rivet. So what?
Click to expand...

Samples from Rivets, embedded in the Boat shaped formation, were tested to find out what they were made of.

What did you think about the metallurgical findings of those tests?

Just wanted your opinion on that.

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top