Because the only reason this idea has any merit, like intelligent design, is the claim that "no scientific evidence exists" which can "prove it wrong or right." People don't say these things may be true, which is what a neither wrong nor right situation dictates. Rather, they fallaciously acccept it as true simply because it has not been proven wrong. It's idiotic.

Let's stick to the dimensions of Noah's ark and whether it was possible to get all the animals inside. That is what my article is about. The article states it is very possible given the dimensions and space of the ark. Here is a part of the article. What part can you disprove?


Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.
These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.

But was the ark big enough to hold the number of animals required?

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.


Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.


The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.


God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)



However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.


How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)



But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

None of it myself--maybe others who know more about ships, physics, and other stuff like that but not myself. However, my point was it is exactly because it can not be disproved that this mythical idea has any merit.

Answer me this, what part can you or anybody prove?

--------

Read Gilgamesh.....you will find Noahs Ark.

I don't have to prove anything. There is way more than enough space to hold all the land animals. I think the article is pretty self-explanatory.

I do believe there was a major flood that wiped out a large percentage of the population of the ancient world as there are so many ancient references to a flood destroying just about everything in civilization.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

I have come to believe this may be the region where these stories originated.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

Perhaps the flooding was more widespread, which would help to explain why so many peoples carry stories of "the flood".

In all of this I find a warning about the real effects we may soon experience as a result of global warming and the resulting rise in global sea levels. If we are contributing to global warming, which I believe we are, especially with the drilling along the Alaskan Coast which does release heat into the environment, contributing to the melting of our polar ice caps, and here we have reference to great destruction caused by rising sea levels, shouldn't we look at this information in a broader sense and realize that we are setting ourselves up for a major environmental catastrophe?

Hope you all enjoy the links.

This is interesting too.


http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html

I think all three major religions, Jewish, Christianity, and Islam mention a great flood in their writings.

That's pretty naive to think that even that would provide evidence for a flood that covered the entire earth. There have been massive floods before; but they're usually right before ice ages. And even those do not cover the entire surface of the Earth... If there were such a flood, there would be more evidence for it in writings and geological evidence; other than just myth proposed by religions.

All religions may be a myth to you, but to millions they are not. Every city mentioned in the bible was a real or is still a real place. That is not myth.