quote:
How do you know the photo is biased?
I don't know that it's biased. It's just completely meaningless because it's just a bare outline of some mountain with a black blob on it with an arrow pointed at the black blob.
It's incredibly poor quality.
quote:
That particular photo isn't the best example. There are others on the same site.
OK. Which ones do you think are better?
quote:
Obviously no non-religious organization would even bring up the issue of the ark so the only source left to criticize is that of Christian associations.
Why not? Evidence is evidence, and science is evidence-led.
It would make any legitimate archaeologist's career to find evidence of the biblical ark.
The problem is, the people who say there's evidence of the ark are coming at the issue with the unbreakable belief that the ark exists, and every bit of evidence which they think supports this conclusion they accept, and every bit of evidence that does not support their preferred conclusion, they ignore or reject.
That's called religious bias.
quote:
If you care to look for other pictures of the ark on google there are better pictures that are much more convincing.
How do I know they haven't been doctored? Christian "scienctists" have been shown to often lie or misrepresent findings. What other Archaeologists who do not have a personal religious stake in needing or wanting the ark to have existed or be found have verified the findings?
quote:
maybe the same book but different accounts from different people at different times.
Science progresses by consensus. Scientists take a rather long time to come to consensus about new findings if the evidence has been gathered in a methodologically sound way. They will pull all the evidence apart and examine it from all angles to see if it hold up to the scrutiny. If it does hold up, it becomes more and more accepted as a reliable explanation of the evidence.
Of course, if all you have are "accounts" from a bunch of people from a single Creationist book, it isn't very impressive, is it?
™ Version 4.2