The story of Noah's Ark is false.

So there would have been roughly 7,000 Kinds as you put it. Which means there still would have been a little over 14,000 passengers on boat. Noah's Ark was more than 500ft. long and yes presumably would have had multiple levels to it. But the largest wooden ship in recorded history was the Wyoming that measured just over 400ft. long. That ship, which was built by skilled shipwrights, was twisted apart in heavy seas and didn't stand a chance at surviving in such conditions. Somehow though you believe an unskilled family could have built a better and bigger boat that somehow managed to safely run aground on top of a mountain? This doesn't make sense to me. Nor should it to you. As to the plant life: The Flood was said to take place in 2348 BC, or 4,362 years ago. This however conflicts with many different findings including at least 3 specifically verified trees that are said to be older than that. Example 1: Name: Prometheus Location: Wheeler Peak, Nevada, United States Age (when cutdown in 1964): 4,844 years old Example 2: Name: Methuselah Location: Inyo County, California, United States Age: 4,847 years old Example 3: Name: Not Named Location: White Mountains, California, United States Age: 5,065 years old There are many more verified trees aging to 3,000 + years as well. Which would have been difficult for them to begin growing that early after the flood. Also just a side note. Where did all the water go after the flood? There are also many trees and colonies of trees with estimated ages ranging from 2,000 to 5,000+ years old as well. Here's the really weird part. There are Clonal tree colonies (having no individual part being alive currently metabolically speaking) that have ages ranging from 3,000 years old to 1,000,000 years old. That sounds ridiculous i know. But individual trees are not surviving for that long, but the colonies they are a part of are. Meaning these things have been around consistently for a VERY long time, and either somehow were unaffected by the flood that lasted a year, OR didn't see a flood take place anywhere near them. If you need reassurance just google clonal trees or look up a list of the oldest known trees. As for your claim of fish fossils on mountain tops: Have you ever stopped and thought, or researched how mountains form in the first place? Mountains were not always mountains. They are "the result of plate tectonics, where compressional forces, isostatic uplift and intrusion of igneous matter forces surface rock upward, creating a landform higher than the surrounding features." This means that many mountain tops used to be under water anyway, and in the process of being formed killed or stranded different species of aquatic life that then died and fossilized on top of said mountains. There was no need for a great flood in order for fish fossils to be found on top of mountains. Grand Canyon: If the Grand Canyon was caused by the great flood then why aren't there great canyons all around the world just like the one in Arizona? Also it takes a VERY long time for different sediments to turn to stone. If you look at the Grand Canyon you can see layer upon layer of ancient rock. If there had been a flood there would have been churning and bubbling and great movements of such sediments which would have mixed them all up leading to them settling and turning to rock in a very random way. You also will find a ton of fossils in a place like the Grand Canyon. Both at high levels and lower levels. But you never find a higher species mixed in with a lower species or vice versa. The species that lived at the same time died and fossilized in the same general time, and in turn fossilized in the same "levels" of rock you find as mentioned above. If there had been a flood then many of those things would have been mixed in together, died together and found as fossils in the same level of the rock. Again you will not find 1 instance in the world where this is false. If you do you will change the science community forever. Pangaea: Pangaea existed 300 to 175 million years ago FAR before 2348 BC. But even if there were some kind of a land bridge that somehow completely disappeared there are still more unanswered questions. Beyond the question of how Kangaroos got to Australia and Penguins got to Antarctica, there are also the questions of why they didn't settle anywhere in between. Some of the animals would have naturally died making such a journey as well. Are we to believe that they somehow picked up all the remains of there fellow kind and brought them along for the trip. There should be kangaroo remains of some sort anywhere between the middle east and Australia. The same argument can be used for mostly all the other species or kinds post flood. Why did the Penguins never go to the Arctic? Why only the Antarctic? Why didn't they settle somewhere else? They obviously had no problem with the climate or weather conditions since they had been away from the cold for so long. Again replace these animals with any other and repeat. The Story just doesn't make sense from any way you approach it. The only possible "solution" is to say it was all the work of god and his magical powers. I'm not here to debate the existence of God although i can say that i have before and said debates always come down to whether or not a person has "faith" or not. I clearly do not.