Alright, all the fallacies to the Noah's Ark story:
1. The dimensions stated for the size of the ark simply could not have held even a fraction of the sheer volume of creatures this ark would be required to carry.
2. Forgetting the sheer volume of creatures, the amount of food and fresh water required to feed all those animals, for the length of time indicated in the Bible, would have taken many times more space than that taken up by the animals themselves.
3. There is simply not enough water, was not enough water, to flood the entire Earth.
4. If all animals were to be saved, then there is no explanation as to why the dinosaurs did not survive.
5. Mt. Araraik is not the highest mountain, far from it, so how convenient is it that they define that mountain... you know, the mountain nearest to the framing of the Biblical stories, as the land where Noah landed?
6. And, after landing on that rock, how is it that all the animals that could not survive at such an altitude, survived?
7. And, after landing on that rock, how is that there was time for plants to grow that would provide sustenance for all those grazers?
8. And, after landing on that rock, how is it that all the carnivores were able to survive without eating all, or most, of the grazers?
8. and... and... and... and... and...
It's nice to believe in stories, but when you put the microscope to the question, you find so many discrepancies that you must come to the conclusion the story is merely a story, not an historical account.
