exactly....that isnt really reliable evidence. how on earth could it be a meesage from Allah about Islam anyway if the whole Noah story came first in the Torah, and then later the bible. and so they found a boat, it means nothing. anyway read this:
" problem of the size of the ark is so rudimentary, so painfully obvious, that it's astounding that anyone with the slightest hint of intelligence would not notice it, given the facts. According to Genesis 6:15, God told Noah to make the ark three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. A cubit is equal to about 1.5 feet, so the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. The bible says that Noah was to take two of each unclean animal and seven of each clean animal. In all honesty, I do not know what an unclean animal is, so I'm going to assume that there are only two of each animal for simplicity's sake. I have asked several people what an unclean animal is, and none of them really seem to know. (If you know, I'd appreciate it if you told me.) Let's think about this. There are millions of species of animals on this planet, and a good chunk of them live on the land. According to the bible, Noah basically took anything that lived on land or had wings. That means Noah was required to bring along two of each species of mammal, reptile, bird, amphibian, and insect. The insect group alone has millions of species, and combined with the other animals that Noah had to bring, the number of species is astronomical. Take that number and double it, and you will have the number of animals that Noah had on his ark (doubling it because there are two of each species).
There is absolutely no way that so many animals could have fit into the ark, and no one disagrees with me, not even the creationists. The creationists know that it would be impossible to have so many animals in one space. Instead, they claim that when the bible speaks of Noah taking two of each "kind" of animal, it refers not to species, as anyone would believe without being told otherwise, but one of the higher groups of classification, and that he then breeded the kinds into the animals that we see today. Taxonomists classify animals by grouping them into categories that are more and more specific. The categories are as follows: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, kingdom being the most general, and species being the most specific. Which of these groups the word "kind" refers to has not been made clear by the creationists, although I'm quite sure that it's none of them, seeing as this system of classification was invented thousands of years after the flood. So, if "kind" doesn't refer to species, then what does it refer to? The creationists never really say, but to me, it doesn't matter, because you can't take two dogs and two wolves and make all the species of dogs and wolves we see today. You simply can't do it. It's genetically impossible. The genes for all of the traits of every kind of dog species are not in one dog, nor are all of the genes for all of the traits of every kind of wolf species in one wolf. To get all of the different genes that are present in each species of dog (and that are required to breed the dog into existence), you need many dogs. You can't have the genes for green eyes, blue eyes and brown eyes all in one person, can you? You can't have the genes for short and floppy ears, long and floppy ears, and long and hard ears all in one dog, can you? Of course you can't. You need many people to carry all of the genes for eye color or hair color or skin color. You need many dogs to carry all of the genes for ear structure or hair color. One person cannot have blonde, brown, black and red hair all at the same time. You would need two people for that. (I say two instead of four because each person actually has two genes for each trait such as eye color or hair color, it's just that only one shows up [unless both are mutually dominant or recessive, let's not get into that]. One person would carry blonde and black, another would carry brown and red.)
There is a trade-off between the number of animals that you bring on the ark and the number of animals you can create from those animals. If you bring a lot of animals on the ark, two of each species, then you'll have all of the species after the flood, but you'll have a size problem. If you bring few animals on the ark, two of each family, you'll have enough room, but you'll be missing most of the animals that you were supposed to have saved. Either way, you've got a serious problem. But let's give the creationists the benefit of the doubt for a minute, and suppose that it is somehow possible to "cram" all of the necessary genes into very few animals. I've been talking about breeding dogs and wolves, which sounds rather practical and pretty believable. It's easy to breed dogs because they're domesticated. So what about the non domesticated animals? While you can imagine Noah and his family breeding dogs into the species that they didn't save, it's rather hard to imagine them breeding dinosaurs, salamanders or beetles. Breeding dogs is practical; breeding sloths is not. It's especially hard to imagine Noah and his family keeping so many animals under control, regulating the breeding so that the right genes get mixed together to form the animals that weren't saved. They would have to have been controlled because the likeliness that the original species would be born by random chance is incredibly small. If they weren't controlled, then entirely new species would arise rather than the old ones.
Trying to breed back to life all of the species that Noah didn't take with him with a few animals from each family is ridiculous. It's impossible. It's impractical. Noah had to take all of the species with him. Claiming that the bible means a larger group of taxonomy when it says kind is only done to explain away the problem proposed by the size of the ark. But the animals are not the biggest problem for the size of the ark. It's their food that's the real problem. Noah and his animal friends were on the ark for about a year (although it only rained for forty days, it took the rest of the year for the water to dry up). That means that Noah had to have brought along enough food to sustain each creature for a year. The amount of food needed to sustain the animals would, I imagine, take up more than twice the amount of space as the animals themselves. Suppose that the average human eats one pound a day. I'm pretty sure it's more that, but for simplicity, let's say it's a pound a day. That means that in one year, a human would eat 365 pounds of food. That's more than twice the weight of the average person. If you have three meals a day, then that means that for each person, there would be 1,095 meals on the ark. Now imagine all of the food that would be required to feed 50 elephants, 50 bears, 50 rhinos, and 50 hippos for an entire year. It's a huge amount of weight, and it would take up an unthinkable amount of room on the ark. There is absolutely no way that Noah could have fit all of the animals and their food for a year on the ark.
We've been given the size of the ark, and we've been told what animals Noah brought along with him, and they just don't coincide. It is yet another fatal flaw of the bible, pointed out by simple analysis. "
ok
