I used to enjoy doing that public talk "The Flood of Noah's Day has Meaning for Us" , I was good at describing how they worked out the length of a cubit and how practical it was to believe it because the proportions of the ark were similar to a ship- and all that stuff about flood "evidence".
Now I am still not one to rubbish the Bible, but one must question the literalness of the early chapters of Genesis . The recent media coverage about wooden ships as used at Trafalgar has made me think about this . I am not technical, or clever but the following questions occur to me.
Naval architects say that the maximum length for a wooden ship would be around 300 feet. Longer ones might have been built but were braced with metal . This is based on a proper ship with a cental keel and timbers radiating from it giving a residual strength like egg shape, not a rectangular box. I contend that an ark of the size suggested would have broken up on the waves. If it were smaller, it would not carry the loads of animals storage and bedding that was required.
To get the timber would have required levelling miles of trees. Furthermore, one cannot just fell a tree and cut it into a ship. Timber stands for years to be seasoned . The construction of such an ark would be a logistical miracle (Ok I know that dubs believe in the hand of god but....)
The illustations in WT books show an ark that is built up from the ground level, not in a cradle or dry dock. Noah was told to cover it with pitch inside and out. How was he to pitch the bottom? The best he could do would be coat each timber before he laid it down and then calk it from the inside. Not very effective.
We have pictures of a very big door in the side. The door seems to be drawn up to close it. That means that a watertight seal had to be designed around the door, technology only invented in the 20th Century for roll on roll off ferries.
I am sure that there are a lot of other points that could be raised. It is a pity that most of the websites are run by fundamental Christians who wish to prove the account rather than be objective - and I used to think that J W's had thought up their arguments all by themselves.....