1 - The Bible account is a very personal account of a cataclysmic event the magnitude of which was unknown to the writer and the localised group of people of that time. To Noah, "his world" was "the entire world"
2 - The flood may have been a localised event witnessed by a person Noah. Was the world destroyed by God. The only point of relevance is that to Noah, it was. His world, and all he knew was wiped from the face of the earth.
3 - Noah managed to prepare for this cataclysmic event by some miraculous foresight into the future while others around him failed to. Noah attributes this to god. What we know is that based on Noah's personal moral compass and personal theological views, his countrymen were behaving in a manner worthy of divine punishment. It is highly plausible that this moral dilemma planted a highly specific form of paranoia that caused him to fear destruction by a cataclysmic event, prompting Noah to take action. Whether by sheer coincidence or by divine guidance, the event took place as he foresaw.
4 - Did Noah gather animals of every kind. It is plausible that to Noah, in the context of what he knew to be "every animal", he had.
Another plausible idea is that if Noah's intentions were to maintain and preserve core species of wildlife culturally important and significant to him and his culture, and the world he lived in. Then it he is well within the confines of what he deems as truth to say that he has 2 of every kind.
5 - Did Noah have Kangaroos or Platypus in his ark? I would ask, were these species local or common in "his world". No. Then I doubt that he would have had these in his ark. It is possible to have Noah tell the truth by saying he has every animal on the earth while also it being true that he did not have every animal on the earth. It merely requires that we put his comment in the right context. People of the old world are allowed to speak figuratively just like we do today.
When Ali said "I shook up the world" after beating Sonny Liston in a heavyweight title fight. It is possible that what he said remains true, while it also remains true that the world did not shake after his win over Liston.
Noah's ark has already been found on a Turkish mountaintop near the borders of Iran. Look it up. One of the oldest stories in the world, the tale of Noah and his ark has crossed oceans and continents over millenniums. Versions float around in nearly every human culture, and Christianity, Islam and Judaism share the overarching plot points of a man, a flood and animals marching two by two. But for all of these similarities, whether the tale traces back to fact remains contentious among religious and scientific scholars alike.As the story goes, God told Noah to build an enormous wooden boat and load a male and female of every animal species into it. Then God made it rain, flooding the entire earth with water to swallow up the wicked. Because it happened so long ago, you either believe it or you don't and I think a majority of the 80% who are saying no are just atheists who have nothing better to do than to vote on religious sites con. If theres evidence of the ark that's been found, the case is closed.
It was, most likely, a version of other similar myth-type, parables that were handed down over the ages by many emerging civilizations. The eternally simple message is, be good or something terrible will happen to you. And If you are a good person (like Noah) then you will survive any hardships that come your way. Back in those days, of course, they couldn't "fact check" on an smartphone, so, the uneducated, ignorant had to believe in myths, monsters, miracles. The story of an Ark, big enough to fit 2 of every kind of animal, floating above a world engulfed in flooded waters, was only truly a Myth. To paraphrase: in general, myths are metaphorically and symbolically true, but factually and literally are false, therefore implausible.
Sure there was probably some guy named Noah & had a raft or small boat with a couple of dogs . It just got embellished over the centuries. Any one who takes it literally is an ASS!!! It's just not plausible. It would have been impossible to fit every species on an ark .
The fact is that the flood is impossible, because there is simply not enough water on the planet to cover it... One has to invoke MAGIC to get the job done.
There are many flood myths in other cultures and religions... This is very understandable, since we have massive floods even today. If the people of the time defined their small part of the globe as the whole world, as they did, then they would consider a massive flood as Global, and after all, it is the realm of story tellers to exaggerate.
It is not possible to build a wooden ship large enough to carry two of every species on the planet, besides there would be serious issues such as the carnivores eating the herbivores etc Again the only way to get around this issue is invoke some kind of MAGIC.
It's a story, a tale based on some facts, but it is fiction as 98% of the Bible is.
The existence of flood stories in other cultures is only proof that old civilizations feared flooding. Early cultures were riverine in nature. Agriculture developed in river valleys. Floods represented the one kind of natural disaster capable of wiping out entire communities that would be well known.
All people who live near rivers are familiar and fear floods. So what better for a mythical story than to take the familiar and exaggerate it. Plus self-interested Christian apologists are notorious for deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting flood stories in other cultures to make it match to the Genesis version.
No, the story of Noah's Ark is not plausible. To begin, there is no way that two of every species of animal on the planet could fit in to his ark. Second, there are millions of species of animals that are not indigenous to the part of the world Noah supposedly lived in.
Really folks it just makes no sense. It doesn't pass the smell test, as they say. Without even speculating on fitting two of every animal on earth into one structure, I am not buying that Noah his wife, his sons and his sons wives successfully repopulated the entire earth. I'm not even sure there would be enough genetic diversity. The European royal families showed what happened when cousins continue marrying over generations.
Anyone who believes in the literal story of Noah's ark demonstrates not only that they are unable to think for themselves but that they have a key misunderstanding of several subjects. Floods happen sure. They happen quite a lot but the idea of a world wide flood killing most of the world is insanity. There is literally no good evidence for it. You need a minimum number of human beings to continue the existence of their species and that was simply not available if one is to take the ark as truth.
Not to mention the size of the ark. There is estimated to be 8.7 million species on this planet. Can a rational thinking person honestly believe that Noah built an ark that was big enough to transport roughly 16 million creatures for a year? Even if they were all small animals which they weren't that is madness. Add then the incredible amounts of food that would be needed and all the work the few humans on board would have had to do to keep the ark from filling with waste.
Then you have the problem with diversity in the after flood world. If all animals were released back into the world from mount Ararat the geographic distribution of animals would be very different to what we have actually found. Did the animals in Australia really make their way across half the planet, crossing mountains and dangerous bodies of water, without leaving any evidence of their passage in the last 4000 years?
Not a chance and I would argue that not only is the story implausible but that the belief in it is a sign of ignorance.
No, the story of Noah's Ark is not plausible. First, sheer numbers. How could all of those animals fit on the ark. Secondly, logistics. How would all of those animals get to Noah. Thirdly, the voyage. The amount of food (accounting for the widely varying diets) would take up an absurd amount of space. Fourthly, waste removal. Cleaning up the poop would be a full-time job. I could go on and on.
Of course, any apologist worth their salt would have answers to all of these questions, generally involving some divine intervention. So I ask, if it took divine intervention to save animals from divine retribution, couldn't the divine mind think of a better divine plan?