@TheSmokeMonster - I would be more than happy to provide an answer for you if you are genuinely asking for an answer in this matter.  My appologies if this runs long.  I will be trying to condense quite a bit here.  Let’s start with the cultural record.  Worldwide, we see stories dating back into ancient times of floods stories liken unto the account of Noah.  Surely you are familiar with one such tale from the Babylonian epics of Gilgamesh.  Such stories are not limited to just the Middle East either.  We see tales reaching even into Polynesian cultures.  Most certainly you see variations in the details.  Some accounts like Gilgamesh have a more localized flood while others like the Polynesians have a giant log instead of a boat.  Questions of which account, if any, is the correct one is not to be found by looking at this alone.  One must look at the accounts themselves, how they were transcribed to us, and look at how accurate the manuscripts or verbal traditions of each to ascertain this.  (I believe you read my response to you on here back around Easter that addressed the Bible in this regard so I will leave that matter be for now to save time.)

   Next, we have the fossil record.  for this, we must start by asking ourselves what we would expect to find if the world had flooded as in the account of Noah.  First, we would expect that the sediment would be organized into layers much as we see is the case.  One look at the Grand Canyon demonstrates this perfectly.  furthermore, we would expect there to be a great number of fossils of numerous animals and plants worldwide.  Now, I should take a moment here to point out that fossils are formed rapidly (not gradually over hundreds of years).  Sediment does not slowly accumulate over something and form a fossil as it would decay long before it would ever even be covered.  This is especially obvious with softbodied animals such as jellyfish and plants.  Yet we find these fossils in abundance even in mountain ranges.  This demonstrates that the rocks and sedimentary layers in these mountains found around the world were at one time under water.  Not only that, but that the sediment in those layers was piled quickly over the plants and animals in order to preserve them.  We even see cases where trees are upside down protruding more than one layer of sediment.  For this to take place, a massive flood would have to have been in each of these regions.  Would it have been possible for tsunamis and other catyclismic events to have taken place in every single location?  Perhaps.  But a more plausible solution (especially in light of the other evidence) would be that there was a global flood at one point in time.

   The question of a global flood has not really been in question though, has it?  I mean, even evolutionary scientists refer to “the deluge” do they not?  The question becomes not one of IF but of WHEN a global flood took place.  Now, if there is evidence that such a flood took place during the time-frame that Noah would have existed, would you concede that the case for the validity of the account of Noah is in good standing?  I am not asking you to believe it, mind you.  I am only requesting that you keep an open mind and look at the evidence objectively.  This is no more than you would ask of me is it not?

@Starshine_Faerie - Well, please feel free to take on the issues I didn’t address yet.  The number of animals in the ark, the issue of when such a flood took place, the issue of land elevation, and a few assorted other topics that would have made my comment simply too long to read.

@TheGiantSlayer -   @ccarothers - You’re quite welcome.  I realize that there is a difference in seeing something as having a reasonable case behind it to believe it and actually believing it.  My thinking is that if I can demonstrate the former, perhaps a someone who reads it will be interested enough to look into it themselves and eventually come to the latter.  Maybe not.  Still, I believe that God loves each individual enough to give them the choice of whether to choose to believe Him or not.  All I try to do is raise the question in that regard.  It’s not my job to answer it for them.  That’s between them and God.

@bluepillorredpill - Thank you, and yes, that is really interesting stuff.  There are a few issues I left out due to the already lengthy nature of my comment.  Where all the water went, the issue of land elevation, the time of when such a flood took place (which is a huge set of issues in itself), and even how so many animals fit on the boat and were cared for.  I addressed a few of the most pertinant issues but there is much more to it as you, yourself, have pointed out.

@Starshine_Faerie - I would encourage you to study up on it if you get the opportunity.  Seeing the evidence can serve to strengthen one’s faith greatly.  Take the ethnicity issue (which is actually the same issue as that of how so many animals were crammed into the ark.)  The answer is a matter of natural selection so to speak.  When a child is born, it posseses some of (but not all) of the genetic information from each parent.  This is why children do not look identical to their parents.  extrapolate for time, and you begin to see much greater differences.  Now, all of the genetic information that would be required for these variations was present in the parents, grandparents, and even ancestors and what we see is actually a degradation of the genome as it begins to simplify over time.  Thus, you have various ethnicities in humans and various breeds of dogs.  In the case of dogs, if you trace it back, they were all still dogs.  That never changes, but when you blend the entire genome into one by tracing it back, you get a wolf-like dog with the genetic potential for each breed.  Apply this to every species and the number of animals is vastly reduced.  Furthermore, to reduce this even more, there are some animals that would not need to be on the ark to survive.  Fish and marine life could easily have remained in the water for all that time.  What you eventually find is that the ark would have had plenty of room and that you even could fit the dinosaurs (though some could have survived outside the ark) and still had room to move about without any problem.  Ultimately, you won’t find me trying to argue a case for HOW God did it, only pointing to the evidence that exists THAT He did it.  If the likelihood of the event can be shown, then it does not matter so much how it was done.

@Starshine_Faerie - Here are a few of my responses to some of those standard questions (hope this is an encouragement):

   With the stone question, my thought is that they are not asking a valid question because it is unclear what they are really asking about.  If they are asking about how much God can lift, can they quantify it?  Are they asking about God being able to limit Himelf?  There are things the Bible says God can’t do.  God cannot sin.  Is this because He is not able to?  No, it is because He chooses to limit Himself.  Therefore, it is both true that He can and that He cannot because of His character.  In regards to the moral questions, what defines what is moral?  Where do those morals come from?  Do morals come from within a person or are they based on some outside source?  And what legitimizes that source?  If morals come from within a person then what happens when two people have different values?  Who is right?  How can you be sure that your answer is correct?  Sometimes the best way to get the self-appointed scholar to think is to ask the right questions.

   As for the questions on hell, it gives an opprtunity to start by explaining what hell is.  Hell is not a place ruled by Satan.  It is a place created for him where he will be cast.  There is no indication of “degrees” of hell in scripture.  It is a place of isolation from God.  So who goes there?  Anyone who does not meet God’s standard.  Well what is that?  Those who have obeyed Him at every point.  Basically, perfection.  But nobody is perfect.  Well, that’s why God paid the penalty for us.  So then why doesn’t everyone just get a free pass?  God is both perfectly loving and perfectly just.  Were He to just force us to serve Him, He would not be either.  Were He to let us all suffer in hell, He would not be perfectly loving.  Were He to let everyone have a free pass no matter what, He would not be perfectly just.  The only solution is that He gives us all a choice of whether to accept that His sacrifice is the only way or not.  God loves us so much that He lets us choose.

   Anyway, those are just a few thoughts.  Sure, a person can nitpick all day.  The best responses tend to be if you can get them to tell you what they would accept as proof or to get them to give a more plausible answer.  A true thinker should be able to do more than nitpick things he doesn’t agree with.  That is a fruitless endeavor unless one can present a more viable alternative.

@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace -  The fossil record is an interesting study to be sure.  Were there a flood in Noah’s day that took place the way the Bible describes it, there are things we would expect to see.  One of these would be that sedimentary layers would be formed permeated with fossils (which are formed when something is quickly buried and conditions are right to preserve the imprint).  What is interesting is that we have so many fossils.  Were there not a global flood, we should expect there to be far fewer fossils and in far fewer places.  Fossilized jellyfish, plants, algea, and soft-bodied animals that would surely have decayed long before the sedimentary build-up could occur are found worldwide and even in mountain ranges across the face of the entire planet.  In my opinion, this model of explaining the fossil record fits a lot better than to say it accumulated over millions of years because it doesn’t have the problem of dealing with issues such as the missing pre-Cambrian Period and the ‘missing links’/transitional forms that the naturalist model is riddled with (if you take the naturalist approach that is).  My point is that there is a strong case to be made in favor of the acceptance of the account of Noah and a global flood and while believing it or not is a choice each person must decide for themselves, to dismiss it as groundless speculation is to be uninformed of the evidence.  Sadly, there are those on both sides that simply will not even look at the evidence when it is presented.

@bluepillorredpill - Yeah, fascinating stuff!  The thing with dinosaurs is that cultures worldwide have held stories about them as well.  The difference is, they called them sea monsters and dragons.  If you look at the pictures, they came in various shapes and sizes and look strikingly similar to dinosaurs.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that dinosaurs and people co-existed.  Even in the middle-ages, there were stories of knights killing dragons.  You have tales of them in Mezo-American cultures as well as throughout Asia and Europe.  Even African tribes have told stories of beasts of similar description.  It is amazing to me how quick modern ‘scientists’ are to assume that they were extinct long before man when you consider the wealth of evidence that appears to indicate differently.  People are so quick to scoff at the idea based soley on their assumptions and preconcieved notions rather than to actually look at the information.  It’s a real tragedy because there is so much we could learn if people would only be willing to challenge themselves once in a while.

@Starshine_Faerie - Sadly, yes, the more sense you make, the more people you offend.  Seems kind of ironic but it generaly is because so many make it a point of pride and so when you appear to have the better argument, they fly off the handle because you have unintentionally wounded their pride.  Others become upset because they are so passionate about the implications of what they believe that they take it upon themself to win them over.  (the latter is often the case with Christians whether the former is also true of them or not)  The stance I take is that I present my case to the best of my ability but it is not my job to win the person over.  I set out simply to demonstrate that there are legitimate grounds for what I believe and often challenge them to present a case for a model that works better based upon the evidence.  If they present a case, then great!  That usualy means that they have reasons to believe what they believe.  I may respectfuly disagree with them, and I will generally offer a polite rebuttal or two just as food for thought, but the honest scholarly type will learn far more researching it on their own than hearing it from me anyway and I am confident enough in the evidence available to be a bit more relaxed than I used to be.