Any geologist...ie a real scientist who isn't trying to force something to fit a preconceived narrative....will tell you that is a natural geologic formation.
@DouglasRoaden
4 ай бұрын
Until someone digs we won't really know.
@plainsman
4 ай бұрын
Nonsense. Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark. Furthermore, if the creationist Flood hypothesis were valid, the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that crosscut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of an Ark.
@rickyodom1201
3 ай бұрын
till we get dna of the wood that made the ark and where it came from
Пікірлер: 5