I can't imagine how any sane individual with even a trivial background in zoology could believe the literal story of Noah's Ark - how viable breeding populations of millions of species many of which depend on rare and unique habitats for survival were collected from all over the world by Noah and his family, even the most remote places... They somehow kept them alive for 40 days on a boat with bronze age technology.
I wonder who got the sh*t job of scouring the planet for the 15000 species of butterfly or the 8800 species of ant they eventually took on board Noah's Ark
This is usually the first argument that is brought up when Noah's Ark is mentioned. However, it is commonly accepted that natural selection is something that does happen, and also artificial selection due to human intervention. The species that are alive today share a common ancestor within their species. 15000 species of butterfly or 8800 species of ant aren't required. Only a couple of ants/butterflies, etc, needed to be brought onto the ark to propagate throughout the world. Natural selection can also answer the question of the unique habitats. Some of these changes are due to availability of resources (food). Pre-Flood Earth is before the ice age, a paradise of sorts. This changes after the flood, and the major climate shift that takes place due to the catastrophe. A globe shattering event that as described in Genesis 7:11b "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth..." Massive earthquakes, torrents of rain, geysers relieving pressure built up underground, possibly asteroids hitting Earth, all causing the flood and climate shift that follows. This takes much longer than 40 days, as that is just the time the rain lasted. Genesis 7:11a "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month..." Genesis 8:13-14"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry." Regardless of the calendar we are using to calculate this, this is almost a year on the Ark, giving time for plants to start growing again. Now this is for a largely reduced population of animals and people, so the amount growing is more than will be eaten. As far as enough food for the animals while on the Ark, a semi-hibernation state has been suggested by many, thus accounting for less food consumed over this year, as well as possible on-board gardens after the initial 40 days and nights of rain.
They were then released and hopped, crawled and wiggled their way back to their homelands leaving no descendent's on the way, and somehow their environment wasn't destroyed by being submerged all that time. For example, the kangaroos all hopped back to Australia leaving no trace en route, and somehow found eucalyptus trees to chew on, (what did they eat during the return journey?) even though the whole continent had been underwater, and their food source should have been wiped out.
Ararat, the mountain that is mentioned as the resting place of the Ark, is most likely located in Turkey, part of the fertile crescent, which is commonly accepted as the "cradle of civilization". A fertile area that is home to domesticated animals, as well as a large number of domesticated plants. These dates go back to approximately 9500 B.C. which roughly matches the biblical date of the flood.
Another commonly accepted theory that is often "forgotten about" when discussing this subject, is that of continental drift and plate tectonics. This can be supported in Genesis 10:25"Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided...". Now the Bible is not specific on the exact nature of that division, however this takes place in the recent years after the flood. This could have been the start of drift.
Yes, much of this is speculation, however this doesn't account for things such as the widespread accounts of a worldwide flood in various sources
What this comes down to is yes, I believe the Bible is literal, there are figurative elements, however I believe events such as the flood of Noah did in fact happen, and there is evidence to back it up.
