Percy writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Why should it need be the highest to be supportive?
I think it's fine that it's the highest in that region, but there's no black top in evidence.
If this is the same mountain that Wyatt identified, how would you test the hypothesis that Wyatt simply looked at a topographical map of the region and picked out the highest one.
I don't know all involved with height determination. Remember, Wyatt was only the pioneer in this project. Lennart Moller and others later got involved. Likely more than simply looking at maps was not all involved in forming determinations.
Percy, again, you are bogging this thread down, derailing it on data that is not direct or isolated evidence for the Genesis account. It is indirect corroborative evidence of sorts. Again, the Genesis account does not state that the top has to be dark or that it need be the highest, etc. It does not describe it. The researchers have followed the trail of evidence and arrived at this location at the Gulf of Aqaba as the most Biblically described location.
I've cited all that I am aware of on this topic. There is as much physical evidence or more cited as there are on many science topics which have been aired here at EvC over the years.
I know that there is a lot at stake here for secularist ideology as it is for that of creationists. We should not be required more than the secularist constituency.
Imo, all, of significance, has been debated over the pages of this thread and others relative to this. Perhaps it's time for folks to assess the evidence and go figure for themselves.
Perhaps
this and
this will supply some of the info you requested.
As to whether any of these images have been enhanced, I don't know. I don't think it's of significance enough to diminish all of the corroborated evidence cited.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Had to leave in a hurry and assumed to be ready.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.