And when the flood dissipated Noah let down the ramp of the ark. Standing at the bottom he farewelled each pair of animals with the words "go forth and multiply". When he said this to two adder snakes they crossly retorted "we are adders not multipliers".
A year later Noah was on the grand tour admiring the gambolling baby giraffe, the romping raccoon, the wallowing water beast and turning over a stone he found the adders complete with a large litter. "So" said Noah " you worked it out", "yes" said mother adder "we used log tables".

But god did it. He made it ok.

Stop trying to debunk th bible.......

Well snails and worms are both sexes

The penguins took an Uber.

Noah did the "flick test" to determine the sex.

The story of Noah and the ark is so outlandish that I'm embarrassed for anyone who believes it. Just a few of the problems:

• either every species existed on the ark in pairs (some in seven pairings), with several million species of land animals to account for
• … or there were "kinds" so there were fewer number, but we'd still be talking about thousands of animals, and most fundamentalists still place the number in the tens of thousands
• "kinds" simplify things on the surface, but that's still a crazy number of animals — even at 2,000 (the smallest estimate I found anyone try to justify) there are way too many animals for one small family to feed, water, and clean up the waste of; this doesn't even take into account the tremendous amount of food storage required to sustain the animals for an entire year (until the flood waters receded), some of which needs to be fresh (e.g., meat for carnivores) — and a single lion would need more than 3,000 pounds of meat to sustain it for a year, and a single elephant (figuring on the lean side) would need more than 50,000 pounds of food for the year
• some animals, like moose, can't survive in captivity for a full year
• if all species existed somehow on the ark, in the millions, we'd have to account for penguins (as you mentioned) waddling through the dessert to get to the ark, and we'd have to account for polar bears coming from the Arctic, and we'd need a way for flightless birds like the kiwi to swim from New Zealand, and make the trip back after the flood
• how did the ark simulate necessary conditions (dry for some, moist for others, hot here, cold there) to keep the critters alive?
• after the flood, and the animals were released, what did they do for food? how did they make the trip back to their respective habitats with no vegetation yet growing and no other animals to eat along the way?
• if only "kinds" existed on the ark, there's a huge problem of re-speciation, getting one breed of cat to differentiate into lions and tigers and panthers and leopards and cheetahs — the speed of evolution (which most deny happens at all) would need to far outpace anything we see in nature today, and in that brief period (at most a couple of thousand years) we'd see obvious transitions between different types of great cats, for instance, in the fossils (which, again, creationists generally complain don't exist sufficiently to justify far more gradual evolution over orders of magnitude greater timespans)

The reason for biblical literalness isn't surprising, despite the hoops fundamentalist, young-earth creationist Christians have to jump through to justify something this ridiculous, even though it seems it would be so much easier to do what other Christians have done and just call it an allegory — but in a strange way it kind of makes sense: For the sacrifice of Jesus to make sense, there needs to be a stain of sin that his blood sacrifice removes from humanity, meaning the creation story needs to be true so there can be an actual fall from grace. Without biblical literalness, the creation myth is called into question, which casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the crucifixion sacrifice. To preserve one myth, they feel the need to preserve the full body of myth, no matter how ridiculous or implausible.

Still like Bill Cosby's Noah -- Right skits.

No, this question doesn't interest me. It only makes sense if the Ark was a Tartis, or that the genetics of the animals was saved. In some of the stories, it is the essence of the animal that was saved.
And before you throw all myths under the bus, I suggest that you read The Memory Code
by Lynne Kelly and understand how our ancestors remembered tons of information.

Not really, because it probably didn't happen. But the interesting part of the story is that by the time the Gilgamesh flood (rain only) made it to Genesis, ground-level flooding took the lead. The actual circumstances of the glacial melt at the end of MIS 2 started as the Missoula / Spokane floods, which were 2,000 years of on and off groundwater flooding. No connection to anybody's boat in Mesopotamia, just something I found interesting.

Ridiculous to hear the phony excuses from The Ark in Kentucky. The biggest fictional story that 2 of each species went on the ark. A nursery tale.

probably using the technology of ancient aliens