What is the most convincing, the trick of Dawkins, who uses a model and not anything scientifically valid, or the science used to demonstrate that the object high up in the mountains of Ararat is a man-made and fits the dimensions of Noah's Ark?
Have you ever seen a dinosaur created in a museum from a single bone. Or the many difference species of men who were the supposed transitions from monkey to modern day man based on a bone, and this is heralded as breakthrough evidence and proof of evolution.
Evidence to prove the existence of the legendary Noah's Ark, or is this not a big enough bone?
Richard Dawkins' celebrated Blind Watchmaker where he claims he proved universe was created by chance (and by inference that the Creator God does not exist) by using a computer. Dawkins cannot prove evolution using zoology, so he has to use sleight of hand and create an illusion that he has proven his theory of evolution by creating a computer program to demonstrate that the universe was not CREATED, but evolved by chance out of nothing.
What is amazing is how many people want to believe that this trick is proof that no living thing is created but everything evolves out of nothing. It is like the magician Dynamo being suspended in mid air and getting people to believe that he has the power to levitate, when there is a helicopter above with an invisible crane and wires hoisting him up. Or walking on water, when he has a hidden platform to walk on, and so on...
It may surprise you that many people, who claim that they are rational and scientific in their thinking and approach to life, say that the evidence provided to prove the existence of the man-made object up in the Ararat mountains is inconclusive, yet Dawkins' illusion is real proof.