Mt. Ararat Anomaly

Since 'SonClad' seems to think that if a large wooden boat was found on Mt. Ararat, you would have to be insane not to believe their was a world wide flood because any other possibility would be improbable, I have a question:If a large wooden boat was found on/in Mt. Ararat, but it was not to the specifications of the bible (say, a quarter more or less in size), would you still see the boat as proof of the ark?

Hi ChiropteraThat's kinda what I was (attempting) to base my point off. He seemed to think that having a box appear on a mountain is hardly evidence of anything, but having a boat appear would, because the bible states it should be there in such detail. He claims that having the arc there would be proof of the flood because:

quote:

---

--SonClad
Is there any evidence outside of the Epic of Gilgamesh to support its story? Are we told of the dimensions, construction material, resting location, etc? These questions, just to name a few, would have to be answered.

---

So from what I can tell, the reason a boat on that hill would be proof, as opposed to finding a box on a hill, is because the bible states "dimensions, construction material, resting location etc.". Those are what link to two events together. Finding a boat to those exact details MUST make it fact.In that case, if a boat that looks just like the ark does appear tomorrow, but it's not to the exact specifications of the bible (eg. the bible states that the door should be built a bit differently), would he discount it as not being the real ark? Would he let other factors, apart from the fact that there is a boat on a hill (our problem = geology, his problem could = the bibles specifications), prove to himself that just because a boat is on that hill, it still doesn’t mean it is the ark?p.s. Heh, this may not be the clearest point I have ever made. If you want me to clarify, I can. It's kinda late here at the moment ^_^[edit - dang typos]This message has been edited by boolean, 03-21-2006 09:05 AM