Bible literalists and Noah's Ark?

Who are you to put the pieces together!?! I think you oughta leave before you find yourself in a heap of trouble!

James - There are no intelligent scientists left (except atheists) who do not accept Noah's ark. Groups of scientists have proven beyond a doubt that the ark could indeed, hold all the necessary species and their food with room left over. They have also proven that the design was the most stable possible on rough seas. Look at the universe. Are you not awestruck by it's immensity and complexity? What makes you think God could not float a boat like He wanted to?

In another direct rip-off of pre-Christian beliefs, the story of Noah was dreamt up. Thing is. There is some historical and geological signs pointing to an actual flood in the area of the Middle East.

it will require some reading on your part, but if you really want to know the truth.

Noah's Ark - The Recent Critics

In recent years, critics of Noah's Ark have surfaced and posed many seemingly reasonable and intellectual questions casting doubt on the validity of the Biblical account of the Flood. Often, conservative Bible scholars remain silent on these questions because they are somewhat intimidated by the "scientific" posture of the anti-ark arguments. At the same time, the more liberal Bible scholars simply roll over and quietly accept the "myth" of Noah's Ark and the Flood. We urge everyone to examine all of the critical evidence and truly discover the credibility of Noah's Ark. Pick up John Woodmorappe's, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, and Dr. Henry Morris' classic, The Genesis Flood, and investigate the focused and systematic research available to all of us, including nearly 1,200 references to aid in additional study. We soon realize that the vast majority of the popular anti-ark arguments are easily invalidated. ("A Resource For Answering The Critics Of Noah's Ark", Impact, No. 273 March 1996). Test everything yourself. Never be content with a one-sided argument, especially one that pales in comparison to its rebuttal.

The Catholic Church says this about the senses of Scripture:

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

As for Noah and the Ark...

From NewAdvent.org:

"Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable."

The form, very likely foursquare, was certainly not very convenient for navigation, but, as has been proven by the experiments of Peter Jansen and M. Vogt, it made the Ark a very suitable device for shipping heavy cargoes and floating upon the waves without rolling or pitching.

I'd like them to start with a simple definition of "kind" so the scientific community can go out and test it.

We do not disbelieve micro-evolution, just macro-evolution. There is a big difference between a cat giving us various species of cat and a bird giving us a mutation that leans toward a cat.

i got a section only inspired by Noah's Ark... it is great!!!... people like to delete my questions when i ask if HIV virus was there in the ark, since it exists now... but anyway.. get your own conclusions

Talk to one. Make sure you find the smartest one so you get a good answer.

We don't know what types of animals were here after the flood either. We don't know how many different species were here before the flood and we don't know how many species were here after the flood either. WHERE IS YOUR WITNESS THAT SAW ALL THESE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF ANIMALS?????????????????