Should God be real, I would see no problem in him materializing all of this.

same
i don't see how it can come to anything besides the fact that god just made everything work. then he made all geologic and other evidence of such an event disappear.

The dimensions of the ship (often estimated at about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high) are, embarrassingly, both too small and far too large. Too large in that, historically, the longest wooden ship (and this is after the invention of steel) was the USS Dunderberg (a french vessle which had a fifty foot ram contributing to its 377 foot length.) Not even this ship, built in 1856, matches the 450 foot (137 meter) giant of the Ark. And, the USS Dunderberg, even with the structural supports of steel, was not a seaworthy ship - it only made one voyage (poorly, might I add). The architecture of the Ark (har har), without the aids of more modern technology, is impossible. The ship would be, in no way, seaworthy. It would sink if it even got the chance to get out to sea. Further, and worse of all, even with these fairy tale dimensions, the ship could have never carried two of every species living on this globe - let alone, carry them and still maintain its integrity. The ship is just too small.

Geologically, the evidence derived by observation of the Earth are contrary to the occurrence of a global flood - even water rising sixty feet for a day. Not only is it embarrassing to ponder the source and disappearance of such great quantities of water - you must also bear the reality that not a single respected and educated geologist has ever, in modern science, suggested a reality behind global flood stories (despite their mythological popularity). In the most fundamental sense: the sediment and fossil organization found upon our continents would be impossible in the case of a global flood.

And that's really just the beginning.

Please, do not also forget the geologically contrary states of our earth and continents.
And, further, don't underestimate the continued absurdity we find within the story of Noah's ark. For instance, Noah was commanded also to gather food for all his passengers (where and how would one man gather and keep safe such food?). Note also, this food had to feed two of every species on earth (and then some) and the supply had to remain sufficient and appropriate for a "hundred and fifty days."

^ i understand, and agree. what i don't understand though, is that since the over all message is what's really important anyway, why is there such an insistence that the bible is the perfect and literal word? that claim seems to only make more problems for the believer. instead of just admitting that no, it might not be perfect and literal, but the message it's trying to give is.

i think one of the only reasons people pick at little details in the bible, is not because they really think it's important, but it's because for some reason the other person believes there's no way it could be wrong.

if i were christian, it wouldn't phase me either, i wouldn't take the bible as being perfect or absolutely true. i didn't take it that way before i was and atheist. i never, and still don't, see any reason to. i guess there are those who really don't see any problems with them, though.

it seems like some people claim it's literal, just to be claiming that. they themselves know how ridiculous and impossible the things are.

It's to my understanding that in Noah's time, the Earth was radically different, which may be able to explain much of the changes of the Earth now and why we don't have any solid idea on what happened. On the food theory as well, I don't know.

The food came in stacks of one hundred, so instead of taking up one hundred slots in your bag, it only took up one.

dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!

^No u

dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!

dude the part where it said how he(was it noah or some other dude?) crossed the red sea. that was completely wrong translation. he didn't separate the red sea and cross it. it was the reed sea. as in a pond of reeds. explain that!

yeah moses. i heard it on national geographic. he didn't split a whole ocean. it's more like he split a whole bunch of reeds and crossed to the other side. well i don't know if national geographic could be wrong. haha. it could

i think the hebrew word could be translated as reed or seaweed. seaweed would kinda indicate a sea, ya know? when it comes to translations like this, i don't think anyone really knows, u just have to consider which one works better in the story. like i said before, why would this even be significant if it was just a pond of reeds? we can obviously see the significance if it was a sea.

pond is still just way off and a bad choice of words. i think the scholars who deny it as being the red sea, think it's more of a big lake. there's a big difference between that and a pond

ok yea, pond is smaller than a lake. but a lake is loads smaller than an ocean. and if he did really split the whole ocean wouldn't it have taken miles to cross it? what do you think? an ocean or a lake?

ok yea, pond is smaller than a lake. but a lake is loads smaller than an ocean. and if he did really split the whole ocean wouldn't it have taken miles to cross it? what do you think? an ocean or a lake?

No I saw the movies. He split the ocean and when the Egyptians came chasing after him, he let it fall and they all got wet and had to go back to dry their clothes off.