“Ok,” the skeptic says, “maybe there is physical evidence that possibly supports massive flooding in the past. But how can I be asked to believe that Noah built a big wooden boat and took two of every kind of animal onto it? That just sounds too much like a fairy tale to me.”
We have looked at a massive amount of physical evidence that supports the Flood model. But how about the ark itself? Many think the story sounds like a tall tale, and of course as we mentioned before, our children’s cartoon Sunday School stories of Noah and the Ark help to reinforce this fictional image. But Sunday School stories are not part of the Bible! We need to see what the Bible actually says about Noah and the Ark, rather than some well-meaning but inaccurate kid-friendly story. And we need to clear up many misconceptions about the logistics involved. So let’s examine some objections to the Ark account itself.
Question: How could Noah fit a pair of every kind of creature on the Ark? How could he gather them all, and how could there be enough room? What about fish, plants, microorganisms, insects, whales, dinosaurs, etc.?
Answer: So did Noah really have to fit every kind of living creature on the Ark? Some critics have had a field day with this idea, putting all sorts of creatures such as sharks and whales and even microorganisms (where they object that these microorganisms could not be gathered two by two!) on the Ark, and then getting a good laugh out of it. Others have earthworms and snails struggling for years to make it to the Ark in time. Still others wonder how Noah could gather two of every single of the hundreds of thousands of kinds of beetles. But let’s actually look at the Bible and see what it says about this.
Genesis 6:19-22: “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah, according to all that God commanded him, so did he.”
Genesis 7:22: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.”
What is included here? Every kind of land animal, birds, and land reptiles. The Hebrew terms exclude invertebrates and marine vertebrates and amphibians, although possibly some of the more land-dwelling types might have been included. No fish, worms, insects, whales, microorganisms, or plants, which either were not land-dwelling or air breathing with lungs. This changes the picture a great deal. And by kind, the Hebrew term seems best to align in taxonomy with what is classified as the family, the subfamily, or in some cases the genus, of organisms today. So what you have in the worst case is about 16,000 species, including dinosaurs.  These animals average out to be about the size of a sheep. Furthermore, many of the larger animals could have been taken on as juveniles, greatly reducing the size requirement. See article:How could all the animals get on board Noah’s Ark?
The Ark had plenty of space to not only house these animals and birds, but the food and water that would be necessary to carry for them. Even using the smallest possible unit for a cubit of about 18 inches, the Ark’s volume would be about 1.52 million cubic feet. Most livestock transportation is on trailers with a volume of about 4,400 cubic feet, and each of these trailers could haul about 300 sheep like animals weighing about 250 lbs. each. And the Ark had the volume of 340 of these trailers. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati figured the carrying capacity of the Ark to be about 14,800 tons, equivalent to about 370 of the above trailers each hauling about 45,000 lbs. This means the Ark could carry a minimum of about 102,000 sheep-sized animals, using the smaller figure of 340 trailers in Ark volume.  Since we only need space for 16,000 worst case, that leaves much space left over for food and water. And there would be many methods of reducing, for example, the volume of hay needed for large plant eating animals, such as substituting grain, high fiber hay alternatives, or compression of hay. Water could be gathered from rainwater, but even if all water had to be carried aboard, it would only take about 9.4 % of the Ark’s volume.  Also see article: Students surprised to find Noah’s Ark feasible.
And how did these animals all get to the Ark? News flash-Noah did not have to go and get all of them! The Bible clearly teaches that the animals were supernaturally caused by God to migrate to the Ark: “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee,to keep them alive.” (Genesis 6:20, also see Genesis 7:9,7:15) Remember, if God can create, I am quite certain he could also cause animals to migrate to a certain place! For those slow moving animals or those that lived far away( although there was probably just one continent in those days-see article #4 in this series) Noah could also gathered some of them (Genesis 6:19, 7:2), or have kept a menagerie in preparation. Also see article: How did Noah gather the animals?
Were heating, light and ventilation a problem? Excess heat would be dissipated by convection. A long window at the top of a building, such as in many of those that house animals, is the best ventilation design,  and such a window was present on the Ark (Genesis 6:16, where the word “roof” is tsohar, which is better translated as “window”  Lighting levels did not need to be very bright as in modern rooms, but the window at the top would have provided some illumination, and artificial sources such as biological, non-fire sources like fireflies (collected and used for illumination from ancient times) for some of the areas deep inside the Ark. Of course, darkness might have also been an advantage, in causing the animals to be less active. There are other sources of bioluminescence that could have been used as well  Also see article: Fantastic Voyage: How could Noah care for the animals? and Wavepower and Ventilating the Ark, also Living Light.
Follow-up question: So how then did fish, invertebrates, whales, insects, plants, and some amphibians survive the Flood, if they weren’t passengers on the Ark?
Answer: First, most of the fossil record consists of marine organisms. So actually most of these creatures did not survive the turbulent, sediment laden waters of the Flood. It makes sense that most fossils would be marine, since the majority of creatures were not on the Ark, and this majority was mostly marine. But enough would have had to survive to repopulate the earth today. Drowning or swimming would not be a problem for fish, whales,and other marine creatures. The Flood would kill most of them due to being buried in the sediment, changes in water temperature due to volcanic activity, or in the salinity of the water. So how did some marine creatures survive these conditions? And how about land plants, and insects?
If the waters had been heated by volcanoes, it would be hot in those ocean areas, but cooler in others, enabling some creatures to escape the extreme heat. Similarly, sediment in the water would be unevenly distributed, with clear water in some areas, permitting survival.  Many fish can also tolerate significant changes in water salinity, especially if they have any chance to acclimate to it gradually. And many fish that are very intolerant of salt changes are in the same genus as fish that are much more tolerant, which raises the possibility that the salinity sensitive variety arose by variation within those kinds of fish after the Flood. And only small changes in their salinity tolerances would determine whether they would have survived or not. There can also be differences in salinity with depth in ocean water, so fish that were intolerant could have migrated to less salty or more salty waters.  See article: How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?
How about frogs and other amphibians? Just like fish, there are frogs with high and low tolerances for salinity changes in the same genus, or even within the same species.  Some of the amphibians could also have rode out the Flood on floating mats of vegetation or other objects. Many of them lay their eggs on sticks, plants and logs. These floating mats of vegetation could also have provided food sources for the animals that got off the ark after the Flood, along with other possible food sources such as carrion, seaweed, or fungi Insects are very hardy survivors, as most of us have found out by experience. Some of them could have remained airborne, as insects have been found airborne in large numbers, far out at sea. Insects and their eggs could also have ridden out the Flood on floating debris as well. And of course they take up so little space that God could have ensured that many of them made it on to the Ark anyway.
Finally, plants are also hardy survivors. Many kinds of seeds can stay afloat for long periods, and could have been protected from the sea water by being attached to other parts of the plant that floated. And even if they were soaked, many seeds are very soak resistant, and so retain their viability. Some of these soak-resistant seeds remain viable for years. Other seeds may have been buried early in the sediment and re-exhumed later, and so missed most of the soaking effects of the Flood. And seeds have survived in wet soil for many years [13} Finally, plants can also survive by vegetative propagation, such as trees growing from fallen branches. Uprooted trees found floating in the ocean have had fresh living sprouts growing out of the trunk. Indeed, the olive branch in the Bible account could have arisen by vegetative propagation, since they are very hardy and easily reproduce in this way by way of shoots, branch fragments, and even bark fragments.
What all this shows is that although many plants and animals died, there are plenty of ways enough of them could have survived to repopulate the earth after the Flood. (See article about the recovery of the ecosystem of Mount St. Helens, which has many similarities to what would have happened after Noah’s Flood, and how resilient the creation is: After Devastation…the Recovery
Furthermore, landing in the mountains, which might have seemed a disadvantage to those animals that did go on the Ark and survive, was actually better, since it provided a variety of microclimates. It should also be mentioned here that the floating mats of vegetation mentioned above could also have provided food sources for the animals that got off the ark after the Flood, along with other possible food sources such as carrion, seaweed, or fungi 
For a give and take debate style article about the feasibilty of Noah’s Ark, see: Refuting Noah’s Ark critics, It seems that many times these critics are unaware of the proposed solutions to the problems they raise.
Question: Is a large wooden boat the size of the Ark even possible? Wouldn’t it spring leaks as some smaller wooden ships have done throughout history?
Actually there are historical records of wooden ships that approach the Ark in size, or are even a bit larger. The ancient Greeks had a wooden ship called the Syracusia or Alexandris, that could carry about 4,000 tons of cargo, and this account cannot be dismissed as mythology . The ancient Chinese junks were as large or possibly even larger than the Ark. So it was possible to build wooden ships in the general size range of the Ark. The Greek warship Leontifera was described by ancient writers was estimated to be between 400 and 500 feet long (see links below). Another Greek ship called the Tessarakonteres, was a catamaran galley described as 420 feet long, and is today considered to have been a real ship, not mythological ,[ 20]
The Ark itself was made of what was called “gopher wood”, which was either a type of wood or a process that makes wood very hard. Some scholars think the Hebrew indicates a type of teak wood. The Chinese actually buried their teak wood underground to make it harder. A recent study showed that even untreated wood would have kept the Ark intact if immersed up to 30% in salt water. So if the Ark’s wood had been treated by “pitch” (Genesis 6:14), it would have been well waterproofed. 
Just because some other wooden ships have had problems in history, this does not mean that the Ark had the same kind of construction and problems as these other faulty ships. Compared to these other ships, which had plank to frame connections that were flimsy, the Ark may have had a “single shell ” construction, where the external skin provides support rather than the internal frame. This is how many ancient ships differed from the European method of construction. The ancient shipbuilders also used a technique not found in the later ships called the mortise and tenon method, which is where one piece of wood has projections called tenons that fit into sockets drilled in another piece of wood which are called mortises, and the connection formed is very tight and actually tightens even more when wet.  The Greeks were using this method at least four centuries before Christ, which was ideal for eliminating what was called plank shear which was the primary cause of leaks in later wooden ships. So the workmanship actually declined over time . A method called cross-lamination is another way to avoid the problems of the 18th century leaky ships.
Finally, the Ark, unlike the Babylonian version that is an unseaworthy cube, has the perfect ocean line type proportions that prevent the types of motions that would harm or destroy the ship in rough water. Surely these proportions did not come about by accident!
As you have noticed by now, I have referenced John Woodmorappe’s excellent book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study repeatedly. I believe this is the best reference out there defending the logistics of the Flood and providing exhaustive references to each subject. I heartily recommend this book if you want to chase down these references and get into great detail on the feasibility of Noah’s Ark.
I hope you see now that Noah’s Flood, when read as the Bible actually portrays it, is far from a child’s fairy tale. Indeed, if we cast aside our preconceived notions of what can and can’t happen, as well as the assumptions we have about the rates of past geological processes, and take a fresh look at the evidence, Noah’s Flood, far from being impossible, is a very feasible event. Jesus confirmed that it happened (Matthew 24:37-39). And if we don’t believe Jesus, we have much bigger problems than whether or not we believe Noah’s Flood really happened! We have the only eyewitness account, written in our Bible, from our Creator, about what happened all those centuries ago. And Saint Peter believed in the Flood, and used it as an analogy to how Jesus Christ now saves us from our sins as Noah and his family were saved in the Ark (1 Peter 3:20-21.) Jesus is our Ark today!
 Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA 1996, pp. 2-13.
 Sarfati, Jonathan D., The Genesis Account, a theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA, 2015, pp. 499-500.
 Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA 1996, pp. 95-98.
 Ibid., p. 20.
 Ibid., pp. 58-81.
 Ibid., pp. 128-135.
 Ibid., pp.37-39.
 Sarfati, Jonathan D., The Genesis Account, a theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA, 2015, pp. 510-511.
 Woodmorappe, pp. 42-44.
 Ibid., pp.139-142.
 Ibid., pp. 143-149.
 Ibid., pp.151-152.
 Ibid., pp. 154-156.
 Ibid.,, pp. 161-162.
 Ibid. pp. 165-172.
 Ibid.p. 50.
 Sarfati, Jonathan D., The Genesis Account, a theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA, 2015, pp.496-499.
 Ibid., pp. 502.
 Lovett, Tim, Noah’s Ark-Thinking Outside the Box, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2008, p. 37.