Posted by Covert [CovertXJW] on April 09, 1999 at 09:50:55 {qzNMJDwJ.2rol7LMpW5IyRXgo.3W/s}:
In Reply to: ***To WW (Godfroi): posted by J.H. on April 09, 1999 at 09:36:41:
I'll be sure to do a little searching...
By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier... Mr. Wyatt's arguments are fallacious in that he asserts the ark didn't land on what we know today as Mt. Ararat simply because no one has seen or found any evidence for it. Yet, he later admits that Mt. Ararat, due to its volcanic nature, would effectively destroy any of the aformentioned evidence. That doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility that the ark did indeed rest on Mt. Ararat, and it cannot be proven or disproven using Wyatt's logic. (I'm not saying I personally believe there was a flood or an ark for that matter, but I think you're already aware of that.)
What I'm also trying to say is that there are better ways to prove Wyatt's arguments. But why does he resort to silliness of the kind you find in his Web essay?
Anyhow, if I do find a better argument, I'll be sure to post it.
Covert