You will probably find my answers to your hypotheticals intellectually dishonest, but here we go, nonetheless. I'll start with the second, since it seems simpler.
No I wouldn't, but I might still take issue with your conclusions.
>>Me:if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age." >>
C>>I wouldn't consider this particularly relevant to the existence of a deity. The ship would presumably have been built by people. It seems plausible that it would be connected with the flood myth in some way; perhaps built there as some kind of religious symbol. But there was no global flood in historical times. Decades of archaeological study have established this beyond doubt, and a boat built up a mountain would not change that.>>
I would say you can perhaps cling to that REMOTE possibility, but that would not be the MOST REASONABLE view IF you were not philosophically determined to NOT entertain the possibility of a creator or the God of the Bible. The reason is that having ancients to build SUCH an ark (or gigantic proportions, fit to hold thousands of creatures) would be difficult enough at sea level. At 15,000 feet up a mountain which has NO FORESTS surrounding it, is close to impossible and is completely UNREASONABLE. It would hardly make sense to build a religious relic where no one hardly can visit it or see it (when usually it is buried under ice). The better conclusion is that it was indeed built near some forests at sea level (or so) and before a massive flood lifted it to that height. That means GLOBAL inundation, not regional. AND if that did happen, there would have to be some sort of supernatural foreknowledge of such a vast flood...which if it were that deep would have inundated the entire Earth. That implies a Being who warned someone to build it decades in advance of whatever caused the flood. That is a supernatural event...unless you have ruled out those altogether. If you have, then this topic really is not aimed at you.
>>ME:IF you were to conclude based on scientific evidence that abiogenesis and evolution are very unlikely...<<
>>C: Now the more difficult question! I would say this would make me more, rather than less, agnostic, in that I would have even less idea than I currenty do about where we came from. >>
I don't get this. If all you mean is you would be more baffled by our existence, I suppose if you rule out ev, AND you have already ruled out God, then that could be true. However if by "agnostic" you mean "lack of belief in a supernatural creator" then if you concluded ev was untrue, and IF you were not phil. determined to NOT include a supernatural creator in your consideration, then you would not be FURTHER from a belief in God, I would think. You would be closer, since the best (or next best) idea (ev) was ruled out by convincing scientific evidence. However, I do recognize that if ev is not true in your mind you still could try to posit the idea of ET's seeding life here. Of course that then requires you to explain how ev (incl abiogenesis) would have worked to cause THEM to be alive. And if you DO figure ET's did it, then you must explain away some major problems with that theory...such as the Fermi Paradox...and lack of signals. There would have to not only be ONE ET civilization, there should be many thousands, just in our own galaxy.
>>It's hard to give a more specific answer without knowing what was the evidence that convinced me of the falsity of evolution, but I don't think a falsifcation of evolution is relevant to the idea of a creator. The reason I don't believe in God is not that I believe evolution renders a god unnessecary, but that I don't see any positive evidence for a god.>>
You may still say there is lack of evidence for a god, however, you would be perhaps driven to look harder for it, with a more open mind, IF you figured ev was impossible. Let's say you found evidence of a human or large mammal being buried beside (or INside) a dinosaur. That is the sort of evidence I am suggesting. Or maybe there were many C14 dates (implying they had to be 100,000 year old or less) for dinos which you were convinced could NOT be explained away by "modern bacterial contamination." Many would say the soft dino tissue finds should have ALREADY given evolution a body blow but unfortunately there are large numbers who just won't let the evidence lead them away from the idea of evolution.
>>If I became convinced of the falsity of evolution, then I assume it would be something like trying to explain the origins of the universe. I haven't the faintest idea of where the universe came from. I don't understand theoretical physics - I've tried, and still am trying - but the subject remains impenetrable to me. >>
Richard Dawkins (famous atheist) suggested that although he believed the biological design features of the Earth can be explained by evolution, he is less sure about the NONbiological features of the universe...such as all the 150 or so factors which are "just so" so as to allow for life. In his book, his best solution to this problem is the multiverse (which is a concept that requires as much or more FAITH than a supernatural creator). If you have just ONE universe then the odds are extremely low that all those features would come about by chance. If you add billions of other universes, then that raises the odds. The only problem is that it is absurd and has no supporting evidence. I would suggest that for an open mind there is considerably more evidence that the God of the Bible is true.
>>But nothing becomes clearer to me by positing a creator. I still don't understand anything about how the universe was created, but now I also have a creator about which I understand nothing and for which I had no evidence except my lack of understanding. Hence my initial point - in the absence of any clue what's going on, agnosticism seems the rational approach.>>
To say "how the universe WAS CREATED" sort of implies it came into existence in the past. To say that means one of two things...either it popped into existence from nothing and without any cause, or it was caused and it came from SOMETHING. The first idea is contradicted by all known science. I suppose you could say the same for the second, if you define "science" as "naturalism." If instead you define it as "what best explains our world" then if you haven't ruled OUT God, then He would best explain the existence of the universe. This idea is what is know as the classical Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.