I understand your point but I think your being a little unfair to the significance of the find
I don't mean to diminish the historical or archaeological significance of it. My statement was directly in context with the poster alluding to believing in the bible because of it. I am simply saying that even if it is The Ark, it doesn't mean that the entirety of the bible (or even the story of the Ark) is therefore confirmed. I'm just making the distinction, not diminishing its total significance.
Creationists get hammered on this evidence point all the time so why can you use it?
I wouldn't expect the Ark to survive over 4,000 years anyway, although a low oxygen, cold environment would be a great place to preserve wood (which can be found at 11,000 feet).
But, I do agree, even if the ark is found and is to be in complete size and shape as described on Ararat, it doesn't necessarily PROVE God. All it would be is another cooberating piece of evidence to go along with the others that have been found support at least the historicity of the OT and the Bible in general, nothing more.
The bible is an historical document that has proven a lot of itself true. I don't care how many foam-at-the-mouth atheists say otherwise. That being said, not all of it is true.
I mean, can you imagine if the ark is ever found and it's even remotely proven to be close to the actual ark the pilgrimages of idiots that will throng to this thing to literally worship it like it's God itself??
Very true. May they all die of hypothermia... I'm kidding!
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston