A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[F1fan]

In a way I accept that. I was telling my spouse yesterday that if the flood was literal then Noah came to
Australia. He wouldn't have just got two of every animal, he would have had to take Aborigines back as
well. There would be two of every ethnic group on earth in that ark - OR.... these tribes EVOLVED into
their ethnic features AFTER LEAVING THE ARK.
AND, all life on earth would have gone through one massive bottle neck - every kangaroo, elephant,
taipan snake, polar bear (salmon, whale?) etc would be inbred. No, this was something local, as interpreted
by later writers.
This wasn't a Jewish story, it's Sumerian. And in Sumer the 'world' was where the horizon
met the sky.

It's a good point to bring up the Aborigines because how did THEY get there, and from where? Science has answers.

 

[ecco]

No one knows the rate of growth of any mountain centuries into the past. Ever growing and shrinking
Erosion can, paradoxically, accelerate mountain growth.

Did you read the article?

The mountains will persist for millions of years until the top-down influence of erosion wears them away. Eventually, says Pavlis, “the whole land is leveled to sea level, and the mountains have been totally destroyed.”

Notice the part in red.

Yes, there are many factors that can result in rapid mountain growth.
Mountains may experience a "growth spurt" that can double their heights in as little as two to four million years several times faster than the prevailing tectonic theory suggests.

Notice the part in red.




You don't believe things on the earth took millions of years, do you?

 

[ecco]

For a long time, scientists assumed that India was isolated in this way due to continental drift.
<snip very long wall>
the thermal expansion of ocean water from global warming, together with melting glaciers and ice sheets—were thought to have kicked in later.

I think that's enough for a day's work.

Yeah. Cutting and pasting is so much harder than actually thinking about things and posting your own thoughts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your mind man in science. Word user. Word use described says unidentified.

Mr know it all argues.

Father said science is a liar.

Maths man said is a problem. Status of math. Hence it causes all problems. I must use a problem to solve an answer.

So are you going to stop the formation process sink hole are you scientist?

Origin scientist straight from eternal as adult manifested man. Transition aware conscious change owned just self.

Talks big bang blast moment for gods past body. Yet today the theory once again is string linked to self body idealising an easy transition man self life as gain of God.

From big bang blast being gods history to self

Claims it is the same.

Try being the big bang yourself theist man.

Why you wrote a document proclaiming self destroyer idolisation. As your science man status. Lying about what you personally knew to what was impossible to know.

Humans are only actually fighting your egotism as a human know it all promise of science to the elitist....
I will give you everything including the eternal. I will subjective claim return to the eternal.

That status is a mental condition as so is math.

Man came straight from eternal into man presence as a pre owned eternal self.

God O bodies held mass big bang burst burning instant.

Satanists theory I will inherit and be given back the eternal it will come back to earth. Talking burning moment not eternal to self.

The argument spiritual wisdom versus satanism.

I haven't got the first clue what this says.

 

[rational experiences]

I haven't got the first clue what this says.

You use words for inventive motivation.

Your thought a man's says unidentified by my bio awAreness.

Your truth.

Artificial he says I identified

Change to artificial I cannot identify.

Science is the destroyer until radiation cooling in space is burnt out also as space constantly cools radiation.

A black hole radiation burning burnt out never leaves a space as a space is a gas burnt out.

About mass.
Mass in space.
Mass not being origin highest forms.

Highest in science means least radiation owner.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let me say this: the flood is probably the hardest thing scientists have with the Bible. I understand that they cannot find a way it happened looking at the evidence. But most of the Bible is historical.

While there may be events discussed in the bible that are consistent with what we have found in history, that does not mean that the entirety of the bible is an historical document. Beyond the flood, we also have the problems of an utter lack of evidence to substantiate the exodus.

The earth might act in different modes of reality we don't understand.

Science depends greatly and repeatablility. If the earth acted in modes of reality that we don't understand, then our current conclusions about the earth would not be able to pass the tests of falsifiability, testability, predictability and repeatability.

Which Chapter and verse tells us he took 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects?

Genesis 7:2 tells Noah to take 2 of every7 kind, and there are at least that many "kinds" (species) of birds, reptiles, mammals, amphibians and insects. So it says so in the bible; and it says so again in Genesis 6:20

No. Why?

Then you have nothing.

You started this thread, did you not. Why are you worrying about what apologist say? Why did you create the thread.

For entertainment. To encourage those who believe Noah's Ark to be an actual historical event to try to stop suspending their disbelief and maybe think. Not speculate. Think.

The evidence you are looking for does not need to be found in the form you expect.

If you tell me Mount Vesuvius erupted in AD 79, I would expect to find evidence of that eruption in the soil. Why wouldn't I? It was a powerful event. The flood is far more powerful and overwhelming in its affect on earth than a single volcano. Why would I not expect to find evidence of such an event written in the geological column? And if I don't find evidence of such an event written in the geological column, why would I believe the scrolls?

For example, the evidence for Jesus Christ was written in scrolls. No physical evidence was found.

Why should I believe this claim based on such flimsy evidence? Evolution has much more evidence than someone writing something down, yet you (probably) don't believe. Yet I am supposed to disbelieve something with so much evidence in favor of things with so little evidence?

Examination of those scrolls, along with other historical documents revealed that the scrolls were correct,

No. Examination of the scrolls indicate that they are "authentic" which is not the same as saying the claims within them are "correct".

In the same way, the flood account was recorded in a scroll.

Why should I believe this claim based on such flimsy evidence? Evolution has much more evidence than someone writing something down, yet you (probably) don't believe. Yet I am supposed to disbelieve something with so much evidence in favor of things with so little evidence?

No physical evidence may be found. Does that mean the account is false, and the event did not happen?

Probably, but not necessarily. No physical evidence was found of Troy for a very long time; until that evidence was presented, it was believed to be a myth. And rightfully believed to be a myth (as there was no substantiate evidence). Though Troy existed and was sacked, I am quite certain that the Sun God did not rain arrows of fire down upon the enemy.

If we use that "logic", then we should apply the same to everything. So Jesus never existed, and the historians all lied. We can't even believe the Assyrians sacked Judah.

We have cooberative evidence that the Assyrians sacked Judah; it was written about in 2 disparate cultures. We have archeological evidence (Archaeologists find Assyrian siege ramp at biblical city of Azekah) ... but the Flood, which affected the whole world, has nothing but a parchment?

What I am saying is, why spend time on one particular account in the Bible, as though you think that targeting that, and arguing against it, will make the Bible void?

Not necessarily; but sure voids the idea that it is an infallible and represents an actual historical record.

Perhaps because so much evidence is turning up and embarrassing the opponents, and you think the flood account is an easy target because the circumstantial evidence is looked at from another perspective.

There is no "evidence turning up and embarrassing the opponents".

Do you mean like all your speculative arguments.

It is not speculation to expect evidence; such as Troy, the Assyrian Siege or Mount Vesuvius leaves evidence, but the flood (a much larger event than all those combined exponentially) does not.

There is evidence, that living things were bigger in the past. Just look at the fossils.

Yes. And we have powers of explanation as to why that is so. We have records that indicate that it was so (such as, you guessed it, fossils). Strange how we can find evidence of these beings from millions of years ago; but can't find evidence of a world wide flood just a few thousand years ago.

 

[blü 2]

As one poster said, by looking at all the other evidence available, one does not need physical evidence to trust that the flood really did take place.

Well, that's not correct.

But even if it were, it wouldn't solve your problem, because (as I've mentioned) it's not a case of evidence that's available, it's a case of evidence NOT available ─ the things that would HAVE to be there had there been a real flood, but aren't.

Because if they were available, you'd be able to show me ─

simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in all species of land animal and

a single geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, and

a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth,


BUT none of that is there, SO there wasn't a real Flood.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You do not have to believe that the flood was an actual historical event to be a Christian.
You do not have to believe that the flood was an actual historical event to be "saved".
You do not have to believe that the bible is an historical text to be a Christian.
You do not have to believe that the bible is an historical text to be "saved".
You do not have to believe that the bible is a science book to be a Christian.
You do not have to believe that the bible is a science book to be "saved".

So why hold on to this silly story that contradicts everything we know about practically everything?

 

[John1.12]

A Tale of Two Cities and For Whom the Bell Tolls both read like history, and are actually based on real historical events. The difference is there's no tradition in any culture that raises its kids as if these stories are factual as written.

Then we must raise our kids with discernment, critical thinking and not to give up their sense making to others . You can be a false convert going through the motions but not actually be saved , according to the bible.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No physical evidence may be found. Does that mean the account is false, and the event did not happen?

In this case?

Yes,
Absolutely.

An event this big would leave evidence. It would leave evidence in the geological column and in our DNA and in meteorology and in just about everything else I can think of.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So for the extraordinary claim of a world wide flood, you bring me ....

A scroll?

 

[rational experiences]

If you say take them a human would say it was taken. As we can't load two of all form into a wooden boat.

Two advices in one incident.

Ask a human why alien image seem to own insect or animal even human type seen conjured presence? As body forms?

Especially when humans get attacked. Evidence animals strangely bodily attacked. Not natural is it to see a huge flood over your head form as a UFO ark hits melts mountains. Burns bushes on ground. Burns face mt Sinai scorched blackened. You hear voices unnaturally speaking and you claim I am told I am going to die.

As a multi human population.

And then a scientist says seems like humans mutated into monkey type bodies knowing you only ever were a human.

State we were warned.
State we were snide and ridiculed the advice.

State humans caused it advised by God body how to.
Said we did it to jew Christians again were advised.

Did it to Stephen haw King. Ridiculed his advice.

Ask a scientist aren't you first my human life equal....

You would get a snide retort.

 

[rational experiences]

Well, that's not correct.

But even if it were, it wouldn't solve your problem, because (as I've mentioned) it's not a case of evidence that's available, it's a case of evidence NOT available ─ the things that would HAVE to be there had there been a real flood, but aren't.

Because if they were available, you'd be able to show me ─

simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in all species of land animal and

a single geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, and

a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth,


BUT none of that is there, SO there wasn't a real Flood.

Thinker theist. Just a man human.

Theories first for status human science as it's thesis. First.

Status science what it means for a man human to practice.

By egotism thinking says I know where I got my pyramid theory.

Stated earth was flooded after sun converted it's mass. Formed sink holes. Water X pressure sealed stone. Mountain tip pyramid thesis sitting above water with UFO converting mass.

Says today same man to his strings science the first flood natural water was not over the mountain peaks. His argument I remember my first thesis. The flood was not over mountain peak mass.

You want to argue do you theist man?

Then after you attacked mountains in false pyramid pressure. Pressure plated the body stone by casement.

Capped pyramid crystal and gold. Irradiated life yourself as earth was no longer flooded. Where you gained the theory. Science conditions.

And think self what as a status today as that theist?

You said the water ground shifted by mass in pyramid science to above mountain to force UFO irradiating attacking mountains to land and stop the attack.

A radiation built flood caused water flood. Ra.

Witnessed it. First observation a natural human.

Say today earth floods anywhere in radiation science as we actively cause heavens gas burning. Mass ground evaporation makes ice melt reason.

The God earth newly born body yearly renewed that keeps life and DNA stable. Ice. A new inherited God earth body. And now claim that science status fake for what human reasons?

One moment the elite totally support its preaching ark attacked life as we built its causes now practice new science says don't believe it happened.

How you taught it publicly was fake.

You always knew science caused it. Religion was never science it was medical advice. Why and how.

 

[viole]

(2 Peter 2:2) . . .because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. . .

Therefore, the vast majority of Christians, who do not buy into YEC, will be lost for being able to tell the difference between a BBC natural documentary and the Flintstones?

Ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

Thinker theist. Just a man human.

Theories first for status human science as it's thesis. First.

Status science what it means for a man human to practice.

By egotism thinking says I know where I got my pyramid theory.

Stated earth was flooded after sun converted it's mass. Formed sink holes. Water X pressure sealed stone. Mountain tip pyramid thesis sitting above water with UFO converting mass.

Says today same man to his strings science the first flood natural water was not over the mountain peaks. His argument I remember my first thesis. The flood was not over mountain peak mass.

You want to argue do you theist man?

Then after you attacked mountains in false pyramid pressure. Pressure plated the body stone by casement.

Capped pyramid crystal and gold. Irradiated life yourself as earth was no longer flooded. Where you gained the theory. Science conditions.

And think self what as a status today as that theist?

You said the water ground shifted by mass in pyramid science to above mountain to force UFO irradiating attacking mountains to land and stop the attack.

A radiation built flood caused water flood. Ra.

Witnessed it. First observation a natural human.

Say today earth floods anywhere in radiation science as we actively cause heavens gas burning. Mass ground evaporation makes ice melt reason.

The God earth newly born body yearly renewed that keeps life and DNA stable. Ice. A new inherited God earth body. And now claim that science status fake for what human reasons?

One moment the elite totally support its preaching ark attacked life as we built its causes now practice new science says don't believe it happened.

How you taught it publicly was fake.

You always knew science caused it. Religion was never science it was medical advice. Why and how.

Have a lovely day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wait. A reliable source needs to be questioned?

He said "all sources - reliable or otherwise".
And the answer is "yes".

Well there goes your entire argument.

No.

If something is found to be reliable, and you question it, you are saying, you don't want to accept it.

No.

What would make it reliable... a more reliable person.

What makes something reliable, is questioning it and then finding it to be reliable.

You can't determine that something is reliable unless you first question it and confirm it's reliability through that exercise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a source is considered reliable, and it was, or is wrong in the first place, then the view that is was, or is reliable, is a myth.

Newton was a reliable source concerning physics.
Along came Einstein, who pointed out Newton's mistake.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
What geological record, specifically?

The one that exists on this planet.

- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".

What fossil record is that. The one that is scant?

The collective of fossils found on this planet.

- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.

I was not aware they dug up the whole world. I though they said the fossil record was incomplete for that reason, among others.

Off course, if you aren't aware of what the geological record and fossil record consists of, as you have shown in your first two questions, you might be unaware of this as well....

- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.

Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?

Basic physics and boat building 101.

- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.

If you assume the world in Noah's day was the same as today, and assume that your assumptions are correct, you have created your own story, and gone away from the Noah's account.

Irony.
Your "assumptions" are based on a story in a book.
His "assumptions" are based on the facts of actual reality.

You are free to find an ancient over-the-top religious story which flies in the face of the facts of reality, more credible then the facts of reality.

But don't expect to be taken seriously when you do.

- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.

Again making assumptions that the world of Noah's day was the same as today, twists the Noah's account, and so you are creating a story to fit your assumptions.

No. Going by the facts of reality.
The irony is that you're the one who's making the assumptions to fit your preferred religious story.

- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.

Seeds remain in the earth for years until their death when the produce a plant. Noah did not leave the ark before vegetation started to spring... according to the Biblical account.

See? Assumptions to fit the story.

- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.

Before they multiplied? Not according to Genesis. The Bible says, they multiplied, and there is no place that says Noah ran out of the food supply they brought on the ark.

What the story says is irrelevant when it's not backed up by evidence and facts, and in facts flies in the face of them.

- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
Would the same be true of the people? Proof please.

You need "proof" for the fact that inbreeding causes genetic issues?
Really? Do you live on Mars?

- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.

Unnatural with the assumption that we are applying today's knowledge, circumstances, and make up to back then? That's to twist the account to suit our assumptions.

Yes. Unlike you, we don't get to invoke magic and special pleading.

- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
This is assuming to a very great degree that animals didn't all adapted to be what they are today, from being quite different.

Is this you arguing in favor of super-duper-evolution, which would be happening at a rate 1000x faster then is actually observed?

It's a good question: if kangaroo's were on the ark, then why is there no trace of any kangaroo's outside of australia? Same question for pinguins and antartica. Or any other creature only found in some remote and isolated location.

- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.

Boats did. For centuries, and man used them to move and trade living animals.

But as your story goes, all humans bar 8 died. So there were no humans to transport pinguins to antartica or kangaroo's to australia. Unless you are going to claim that these 8 people travelled to all corners of the world to drop of those species in their remote locations.

So, does your bible story say that?
Off course it doesn't. None of your bible stories, in fact, even mention pinguins or kangaroo's. For the obvious reason that those who invented and wrote those stories, really were only aware of what existed in a 500 mile radius. This is why the bible doesn't mention kangaroo's and alike - they weren't even aware of their existence.

- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.

Possibly. What of it, though? Aside from that, there are assumptions made here as well.

Again, not an assumption. Take a salt water fish and put it in fresh water. See what happens.
As for your question of "what of it". Well: aquatic life still exists and clearly never went through the episode claimed by this ridiculous flood story.

- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....

50,000 animals? Who took the photo of that? I'd be happy to see what film looked like 4,000 years ago.

It actually would have to have been a LOT more then just 50.000 animals as all main species would have had to be represented.

Unless off course, you believe in "evolution on steroids", to the point that ever since that day, more then 10 speciation events would have had to occur EVERY DAY to get to the amount of species that exists today.

More then 10 PER DAY.

- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.

Not sure what this has to do with the flood, and where it fits in, but I think we can both make assumption about the world before and after the flood. Only, they will just be assumptions.

The observable workings of physics = not an assumption.

- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..

Ah. A mosquito. I wonder why the lions didn't eat everything on board.

Because "god magic"?

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.

Just read Genesis, from Chapter 6, and try not to imagine that the world of Noah's day was what we see to today.

So instead of deriving what the world was in terms of geology by actually studying the world and the geological record, you want us to bend over backwards and "imagine" a world based on a religious story that flies in the face of the evidence of reality.

Do you think this is reasonable?

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.

If we read Genesis, we can see where it went.

I note that you "solve" every problem and "answer" every question with "the bible says...."

- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.

Not a hypothesis. Genetic fact.

Genetic bottlenecks aren't a fantasy.
And indeed, the flood story, if true, predicts a universal genetic bottleneck.
If this universal bottleneck does not exist, then the story is falsified.

The bottleneck doesn't exist.
Therefor....................

There is no need to question a reliable source

First of all, if a claim is accurate, it should be able to withstand some basic scrutiny.
Secondly, everything should be questioned.
Thirdly, merely declaring something to be reliable, does not make it so.
And last but not least: HOW can you determine that something is reliable, if you don't FIRST question it?

, but I think if one thinks there is reason, or are reasons for doing so, then they rightly should do what you are doing.

There is always a reason to question.

It's commendable to examine the facts, and try to evaluate truth.

The FACTS, yes. But as we can see above, facts is not something you particularly care about... All your "objections" or "explanations" started with "the bible story says....."[/quote][/quote]

 

[Clara Tea]

From Wiki:

Rainfall records

• Most in 60 seconds (1 minute): 38 mm (1.5 in). Barot, Sainte-Anne, Grande-Terre, Guadeloupe, 11:03–11:04 am on 26 November 1970.[246]
• Most in 60 minutes (1 hour): 305 mm (12.0 in). Holt, Missouri, United States, 22 June 1947.[90]
• Most in 12 hours (½-day): 1,144 mm (45.0 in); Cilaos, Réunion, 8 January 1966, during Tropical Cyclone Denise.[90]
• Most in 24 hours (1 day): 1,825 mm (71.9 in); Cilaos, Réunion, 7–8 January 1966, during Tropical Cyclone Denise.[90]
• Most in 48 hours (2 days): 2,493 mm (98.1 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 15–16 June 1995.[90]
• Most in 72 hours (3 days): 3,929 mm (154.7 in); Commerson, Réunion, 24–26 February 2007, during Cyclone Gamede.[90]
• Most in 96 hours (4 days): 4,869 mm (191.7 in); Commerson, Réunion, 24–27 February 2007, during Cyclone Gamede.[90]
• Most in one year: 26,470 mm (1,042 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 1860–1861.[90]

Moses parted the Red Sea. Was that, too, a normal weather pattern? God can do anything, including make it rain harder than usual.

Take COVID, for example. Revelation 15 says that God will punish us for attacking Iraq and send seven plagues (including COVID apparently). This is the worst plague in the century, and it brought the most powerful nation in the world to its knees. Surely if God could do that, a mere bit of moisture would be easy.

 

[Clara Tea]

RE: Noah's flood.

I'm standing here with my swimming suit on, flippers, and, of course, my rubber ducky (I should have brought two rubber duckies, per God's order).

As you tell me that floods are ridiculous, ducky and I will be waving to you. As for food, God will provide (hope I don't have to eat ducky--very chewy).

 

[BilliardsBall]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

I know people who've felt the same way, a friend had two Geology Masters and the Bible intrigued him. After two years of study on both sides of the issues, He believed in original Creation and trusted Jesus for salvation.

There are some easy answers for what you've proposed here, and some more challenging apologetics, but the answers are there. There seems to be evidence on both sides, for and against the Flood and Creation stories, but I promise you God is able to instruct us.