Devil's Tower is really just the petrified stump of an ancient, giant tree!

[7djengo7]

Obviously! Because it has some resemblance in shape to some regular-sized tree trunks we commonly see.

And, apparently most everything else on the earth that we are wont to call a "mountain" is not really a mountain, but is actually just the remains of a tree that was at one time perhaps miles in height! What tickles me, though, is the thought that at least some who would ask us to take that idea seriously would also like to try to curry favor with Bible believers by telling us that they, too, believe in a global flood. But, here's the thing: clearly they refuse to believe the Bible Truth concerning the global flood of Noah's day. In fact, by telling us that mountains aren't actually mountains, and are actually giant trees instead, they are contradicting what Moses wrote in (for instance) Genesis 7:20:

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

These "mountains are actually tree stumps" jokers might have a jolly time trying to account for why Moses explicitly tells us that the mountains were covered by the flood waters, and does not bother to explicitly name trees (nor any of a multitude of other, smaller objects featured on the earth) as having been flood-covered.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Obviously! Because it has some resemblance in shape to some regular-sized tree trunks we commonly see.

Could it be the remains of a tree? Perhaps.

Just in case:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Proposals for the Origin of the Grand Canyon

And, apparently most everything else on the earth that we are wont to call a "mountain" is not really a mountain, but is actually just the remains of a tree that was at one time perhaps miles in height!

That seems to be a pretty bold claim, and not in a good way. One would have to demonstrate a few examples.

What tickles me, though, is the thought that at least some who would ask us to take that idea seriously would also like to try to curry favor with Bible believers by telling us that they, too, believe in a global flood. But, here's the thing: clearly they refuse to believe the Bible Truth concerning the global flood of Noah's day. In fact, by telling us that mountains aren't actually mountains, and are actually giant trees instead, they are contradicting what Moses wrote in (for instance) Genesis 7:20:

These "mountains are actually tree stumps" jokers might have a jolly time trying to account for why Moses explicitly tells us that the mountains were covered by the flood waters, and does not bother to explicitly name trees (nor any of a multitude of other, smaller objects featured on the earth) as having been flood-covered.

I think if Devil's Tower is a petrified tree stump, there's one tree in scripture that comes to mind, and it somewhat explains why it's called "Devil's Tower," that it could potentially be the remains of, and that's the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[User Name]

I think if Devil's Tower is a petrified tree stump, there's one tree in scripture that comes to mind, and it somewhat explains why it's called "Devil's Tower," that it could potentially be the remains of, and that's the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

So the Garden of Eden was in northeastern Wyoming? Except I'm pretty sure that the Bible describes the location of Eden as being somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Genesis 2:10-14), which are nowhere near Wyoming.

 

[Right Divider]

So the Garden of Eden was in northeastern Wyoming? Except I'm pretty sure that the Bible describes the location of Eden as being somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Genesis 2:10-14), which are nowhere near Wyoming.

During the events surrounding the flood, a lot of places moved.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So the Garden of Eden was in northeastern Wyoming?

Nowhere did I imply such.

Perhaps the stump was launched by the fountains, and landed in what we now call Wyoming.

Except I'm pretty sure that the Bible describes the location of Eden as being somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Genesis 2:10-14), which are nowhere near Wyoming.

Just want to point out that the earth did roll during the flood.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Details Relating to the Hydroplate Theory

 

[User Name]

During the events surrounding the flood, a lot of places moved.

Wow, that's a lot of moving. Did the stump of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil move to Wyoming, or did the Tigris and Euphrates rivers move from Wyoming to Western Asia?

 

[Right Divider]

Wow, that's a lot of moving. Did the stump of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil move to Wyoming, or did the Tigris and Euphrates rivers move from Wyoming to Western Asia?

Not saying that is did. Just stating a fact.

 

[7djengo7]

Could it be the remains of a tree?

I doubt it.

That seems to be a pretty bold claim, and not in a good way.

It's a downright asinine claim, really.

I think if Devil's Tower is a petrified tree stump, there's one tree in scripture that comes to mind, and it somewhat explains why it's called "Devil's Tower," that it could potentially be the remains of, and that's the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You know, I'd not be too surprised to see someone claiming that Devil's Tower is actually the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Probably already a YouTube video for that.

 

[User Name]

Perhaps the stump was launched by the fountains, and landed in what we now call Wyoming.

Sounds plausible. Or, more likely, it could be just another butte like the Missouri Buttes, which are just a few miles away:

https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=%20Missouri%20Buttes&size=wallpaper#id=37ACE4E5063864F6C0938452E8081CBDEB603296

 

[7djengo7]

During the events surrounding the flood, a lot of places moved.

This!

Plus, place names can easily be reused for other places! Welcome to Springfield!

 

[Rhema]

No rings...




Still no rings...

 

[Right Divider]

No rings...

View attachment 5775


Still no rings...

It's been there for a long time. The top could be worn or eroded.

 

[7djengo7]

No rings...

View attachment 5775

Oh, yeah... Well....maybe it just got hewn down at a very young stage of growth. Huh? Did you ever think of that?

 

[7djengo7]

No rings...

View attachment 5775


Still no rings...

And I suppose next you want to tell me this isn't really a giant, petrified elephant because you can't see any rings?

 

[ok doser]

And I suppose next you want to tell me this isn't really a giant, petrified elephant because you can't see any rings?

 

[Rhema]

And I suppose next you want to tell me this isn't really a giant, petrified elephant because you can't see any rings?

Was it wearing rings to begin with?

 

[Rhema]

It's been there for a long time. The top could be worn or eroded.

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

 

[7djengo7]

Was it wearing rings to begin with?

Of course. When it toured with Ringling Bros.

 

[7djengo7]

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

It seems @Right Divider was pointing out the fact that your inability to see tree rings while looking upon the surface of Devil's Tower is not evidence that Devil's Tower does not have tree rings. I don't think anyone here is claiming that Devil's Tower is actually a tree. My main purpose for this thread was to point out that the unusual claim that the mountains we see around the world today are really ancient trees petrified, can't harmonize with the Biblical flood account, despite the fact that some who promote that claim may happen to also profess to believe what Moses wrote about the flood.

@User Name, our resident DTDS patient on TOL, was, I take it, mainly drawn to this thread by the initials of the name, "Devil's Tower". (Just kidding, UN. You know I love ya, man.)

 

[User Name]

Lack of evidence is not evidence.

People who believe that a butte may actually be the petrified trunk of an utterly gigantor tree will see evidence wherever they want to see it.