Essay extract

The first premise in Brown's can be summarised thus: archaeological evidence confirms the existence of Noah's Ark. As evidence, Brown provides a list of so-called 'categories' including reports of the Ark's existence; reports of the Ark protruding from ice on Mt. Ararat and the reported existence of photographs showing the Ark protruding from ice.

On closer analysis however, we can see that this is not necessarily . If, for the sake of argument, we wanted to express Brown's 'categories' scientifically, we might say that Person A saw something sticking out of the ice on Mt Ararat. Person A explained the existence of this something by saying that it was Noah's Ark. This would be A's . Now the crux of the issue is whether Person A tested this . Not according to Brown's account: hence A's belief does not constitute scientific evidence. By this reasoning, none of Brown's evidence offers scientific proof, and we can say that they certainly don't the existence of Noah's Ark.