To: Roman_War_Criminal
Good points on #1 and #2, but #3 is total garbage. I read a book touting the Durupinar site 30 years ago and was initially impressed by the claims, but it turned out to be another (of many) Ron Wyatt hoax, and was solidly debunked by Dr. Andrew Snelling in this article:
Special Report: Amazing “Ark” Exposé Frustrating to see such an outdated hoax still getting airplay.
To: EnderWiggin1970
“Good points on #1 and #2, but #3 is total garbage.”
Sure is... I have searched it well by satellite and there are at least two more almost exactly like it in that area. It is a natural geological formation and coincidence of shape.
8 posted on
11/12/2023 6:56:40 AM PST by
Openurmind
(The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
To: EnderWiggin1970
“According to the test results, there were human activities in the region from 5,550 to 3,000 BC”.
They are only telling a selective part of the truth so that they can fit a narrative. There have been human activities there for almost 12,000 years. So of course they have found evidence of activity in their “pet” timeline.
It is a pet peeve of mine. I find this extremely dishonest. If they want to prove existence and the Bible that is great, but at least do it honestly.
10 posted on
11/12/2023 7:10:53 AM PST by
Openurmind
(The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. ~ D. Bonhoeffer)
To: EnderWiggin1970
I think it would be easy to tell where the high water mark of a massive flood like that would have been.
11 posted on
11/12/2023 7:12:42 AM PST by
MCF
(If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson