Replies

But what I was getting to was that your statement implies that it is a boat and that it did float at some point. So seeing how it is not a boat when water was there last is irrelevant.

We do not know that to be the case. According to his report, scans elude to it being a boat structure. No digging has begun. No I wasn't implying that it is a boat. In fact, I started with that the Ark, #3, has not been proven and remains that way, but that it looks promising. Perhaps I should have stated why it looks promising, because of scans etc. Sometimes we all take short cuts thinking our comments, in my case implying that it is not proven at all, as being sufficient so as to not get verbose, or just to be lazy. 🤣

I further said that if it is proven, there will be people who will deny it, and then added; how will they explain it being there.

That picture is grainy, and thus gives the appearance of being a lava flow, however, if you look at this picture, one gets a vastly different impression of the landscape in question. The other picture, in my opinion, is the lidar scan image.

Here is that other picture taken from Wikipedia:

undefined

Lidar scan image? That impression at the bottom of the image sure looks like a boat to me:

Digging was done, The rock is aged the same as all the rest around it, and the Geology is absolutely solid.

This is grasping at straws to invent something that is just not there. Just like the 15th century young earth movement. All logical evidence of factual geology completely refutes it beyond any reasonable doubt.