Here is some simple logic (though that isn't really a need for fundies, is it?)
1) Even if god did somehow gentle all the predators up so they wouldn't eat the prey animals on the ark (or in the way to it) how do you explain climate conditions that allowed heat-needing reptiles to live in the same environment as cold-needing penguins and other sensitive species (Lemme guess... god did that too?
2) How do you explain there being enough ROOM? (The dimensions for the ark are big, but not THAT big. Hell, reptiles and birds alone would take up all the room. Lemme guess, god did that, too?)
3) How do you explain the sea life that didn't go aboard surviving the extreme change in temperature, salinity and PH levels that would happen when enough fresh water to flood the entire world mixed with the ocean. I have a hard time using modern technology to keep my fish tank balanced without world wide floods throwing my chemicals off (Lemme guess... god did that...too?
4) How do you explain all the animals getting BACK to their home ecologies and multiplying from only two after a major ecological event. Remember, most of the plant life has drowned, turned to sludge and their very delicate ecosystems destroyed. If they even could have survived 40 days and 40 nights on a wooden boat, they would be in no state to make the march back home through various climates that would kill most in a few days, if not hours. (Lemme guess, god did that too?!)
Ok.. so what the fuck is the point in god going to the trouble if he could have just killed off who and what he wanted and left the others alive? Seems like a lot of showmanship for something that couldn't scientifically be possible anyway. If he was going to break the laws of biology, why bother with the boat in the first place? Why not just do some one time destruction/salvation miracle like the idea of the rapture?
Or maybe it's because some guy building a boat and saving all the animals was a perfectly logical explanation for a bunch of goat herders that didn't know any better. Now that we do have husbandry/biology/ecology studies and see this isn't physically possible, all the hoopla is utterly absurd!
Yet, if the entire Earth were enshrouded in cloud cover wouldn't the intensity of the sun be reduced, reducing the daylight level and making the stars and 'lesser light at night' pitch black instead? Additionally, heavy cloud cover tends to lower the surface temperature. But even considering a worldwide temperate Earth, that still doesn't explain away creatures whose require climate extremes. Same as telling an animal it's now OK to eat meat doesn't explain why the creatures digestive system is specialized to be carnivorous, others omnivores and others still herbivores. Well, that is unless they EVOLVED. :)
No mountains? Guess scientific dating and observable plate tectonics are just spreading lies again. :\
It's really sad how these people assume that absolutely everything that anyone believes is just 'faith'. Fire will burn? Oh, you just have faith that fire is hot. People need oxygen to breathe? You just have faith that people have always needed oxygen to survive.
The active, willful desire to shut out knowledge in order to maintain a faltering belief system continuously bewilders me.
So let me get this straight...
There was at one point in time enough water in the atmosphere to entirely cover the earth, but enough sunlight got through to allow an awesome amount of plant life that fed not only all humans, but all animals as well. During this time there was no such thing as carnivores, mountains or temperature extremes?
Holy shit!? And I thought just believing in boat-faring animals was hard to swallow...
Religion is awesome :)
And all the water came from 'windows in the firmament '. There's also the slightly altered version where the 'canopy of water' (yes, this is supposed to be an actual hollow globe of water surrounding the earth) was actually made of ice. Completely transparent ice, which is why the sunlight could get through.
Wow, you know, I've always been so hung up on the impossibility of putting all of the planet's animals on one boat that it never occurred to me to think about where all the water came from and where it all went. How about that. Someone on this site also once pointed out that Noah sacrificed some animals to god after the flood as well. I had to go look that one up to see if it was really in the Bible, and sure enough, it was. Sucks for that species, huh?
The story of Noah and the Ark is one of the first stories introduced to children. It has all the elements of a good tale, One hero. Agreeable animals, devastation and Hope. It's not hard to see the appeal of the story, and we wonder why, while being one of the most laughable stories, it's truth is so desperately maintained at the most extreme stretches of the imagination. Sometimes what seems to be a solid slam dunk is so heavily defended. I tend just to laugh when I'm told that the story of the ark is a fact....then sigh with a stab of pity.
Where's Mt. Arrarat? We know where the "Mountains of Arrarat" are. There are a lot of mountains. Why would someone assume that they knew which one this imaginary ark landed on?
Further, who wrote the story? Hebrews didn't develop writing until hundreds of years after the supposed Ten Commandments were given. During this devastating flood, the Egyptians continued to build pyramids, apparently unaware that they were under water.
From the book itself, we do a little math and find that the water which covered the highest mountains wasn't really high enough to cover hills. Mythmakers are not good at math.