Noah's Ark- is the Qur'an more believable than the Bible?

Many Muslims, including such dubious luminaries as Maurice Bucaille and Zakir Naik, claim that the story of Noah and the Flood as related in the Qur'an does not contradict common sense or archaeological evidence as does the Flood story in the Bible. The main reason for this it seems is that the Flood as described in the Qur'an was not the global catastrophe that all Christians have been brought up to believe, but a much more credible LOCAL affair. They thus dismiss the Biblical flood narrative as childishly naive, scoffing (see later for more on "scoffing") at the idea of Noah having to load his Ark with every animal and of a world-wide inundation.

Here is an excerpt from Zakir Naik's book on the subject:

The Biblical description of the flood in Genesis chapter 6, 7 and 8 indicates that the deluge was universal and it destroyed every living thing on earth, except those present with Noah (pbuh) in the ark. The description suggests that the event took place 1656 years after the creation of Adam (pbuh) or 292 years before the birth of Abraham, at a time when Noah (pbuh) was 600 years old. Thus the flood may have occurred in the 21st or 22nd Century B.C.This story of the flood, as given in the Bible, contradicts scientific evidence from archaelogical sources which indicate that the eleventh dynasty in Egypt and the third dynasty in Babylonia were in existence without any break in civilisation and in a manner totally unaffected by any major calamity which may have occurred in the 21st century B.C. This contradicts the Biblical story that the whole world had been immersed in the flood water. In contrast to this, the Qur’anic presentation of the story of Noah and the flood does not conflict with scientific evidence or archaeological data; firstly, the Qur’an does not indicate any specific date or year of the occurance of that event, and secondly, according to the Qur’an the flood was not a universal phenomenon which destroyed complete life on earth. In fact the Qur’an specifically mentions that the flood was a localised event only involving the people of Noah.It is illogical to assume that Prophet Muhummad (pbuh) had borrowed the story of the flood from the Bible and corrected the mistakes before mentioning it in the Qur’an. 

This all seems very credible until we read the Qur'anic version more closely. For if experience has taught us anything, it's to take with a giant ladle of salt anything Muslim miracle seekers tell us.

So what about 71:26-27 which plainly states that NO-ONE, NOT A SINGLE PERSON will be left alive on Earth?
71:26 And Noah, said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth!
71:27 "For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones.
That doesn't sound like a LOCAL flood to me.

Or how about 11:40-42 which says that the waters gushed over the face of the Earth and talks of the waves being the size of mountains and requires Noah's Ark to act as a depository for breeding pairs of EACH animal? LOCAL flood? Hmm...
11:40  [And so it went on] till, when Our judgment came to pass, and waters gushed forth in torrents over the face of the earth, We said [unto noah]: "Place on board of this [ark] one pair of each [kind of animal] of either sex,  as well as thy family -except those on whom [Our] sentence has already been passed  -and all [others] who have attained to faith!"-for, only a few [of noah's people] shared his faith.
11:42  And it moved on with them into waves that were like mountains. At that [moment] noah cried out to a son of his, who had kept himself aloof [from the others]: "O my dear son!  Embark with us, and remain not with those who deny the truth!" 

So, just to re-cap: we have
1. Noah asking God to drown ALL the non-believers so that NOT A SINGLE ONE is left on Earth so they can't breed again (a pretty big ask for a LOCAL flood!).
2. We also see Noah being told (just like in the Bible) to load breeding pairs of ALL animals onto the ark (to what purpose if this is a local flood? Wouldn't it be easier simply to restock from an area unaffected by the LOCAL flood? You'd also avoid the inherent risk of having future animal stock forever cursed with genetic problems from the inbreeding necessarily required when you restock from just one breeding pair.)
3. And we have waves the SIZE OF MOUNTAINS.
4. And we have the waters covering the FACE OF THE EARTH.

And we're asked to believe that this story is MORE believable than the errant nonsense in the Bible?

Come on Muslims! Challenge the patronising jerks who feed you this nonsense! Ask your immams to explain.

And if they can't, then ask yourself why. Why might a supposed holy book contain a story so full of holes an intelligent six year-old can see the logical flaws- "Er, Daddy - how big did you say the ark was? And Noah had ALL the animals in his boat....? For HOW long...?"

I'm not for one moment suggesting that a disastrous flood (or two) didn't happen at some stage in our pre-history. Why should there otherwise be so many FLOOD MYTHS. Look at the Gilgamesh flood story, for example. In fact it might be enlightening for any reader who believes the story of Noah to be original and hence divine to google it right now. Go on - I dare you! You'll find disturbing echos of the Biblical/Qur'anic story right down to birds being sent out to test if the waters had receded.

Note: i. Since the Flood and the building of the Ark, we are apparently supposed to regard all ships and boats as signs from God. Did you know that?
54:15  And, indeed, We have caused such [floating vessels] to remain forever a sign [of Our grace unto man]:  who, then, is willing to take it to heart? 
         ii. It's interesting to see how much "scoffing" went on at the time. Look at this, for example:
11:38 And  set himself to building the ark; and every time the great ones of his people passed by him, they scoffed at him. He said: "If you are scoffing at us-behold, we are scoffing at you , just as you are scoffing at us. 
and then remember how the style of the Qur'an is supposed to be utterly inimitable and perfect. So perfect and inimitable, in fact, that no-one can write a verse like it. Hmm.... (Sorry - doing a bit of scoffing here myself, I've just realised.)

Top 5 reasons to believe the Qu'ran is man-made: # 5- The Ark on Mount Judi

# 5 - The Ark comes to rest on Mount Judi 

When the word went forth: "O earth! swallow up thy water and O sky! withhold (thy rain)!" and the water abated and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi and the word went forth: "Away with those who do wrong!" 11:44

The Bible and the Qur'an both relate the eponymous story of Noah's Ark. In the  Qur'an's version, however, the Ark comes to rest not on Mount Ararat, but on Mount Judi. The Qur'anic version is also silent on the "unnecessary details", such as the dimensions of the Ark, unlike the Bible which states that the Ark is 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide.
Why should the author of the Qur'an have specified these differences?  
Perhaps this might explain.

This picture shows what appears to be the imprint, or the fossilised remains, of a giant boat near the foot of what has been identified as Mount Judi, mentioned the Qur'an as the Ark's final resting place. Surely this is proof, say Muslims, that the Qur'an is the word of God and that the Bible has been corrupted, just as we've been saying all these centuries...
Except that it's not. What you're looking at is indeed a boat-like structure and can indeed be found near the foot of Mount Judi. And it must doubtless have seemed like an awe-inspiring confirmation of the biblical stories of a giant boat to those desert dwellers who came across it 1,400 years ago. (There was the slight problem of it being in the wrong place and and the wrong dimensions [50% too wide] but it was no doubt the remains of an ancient ship) 
But the unusual rock formations at the now infamous Durupinar Site in the Tendurek Mountains are just that - unusual rock formations. (For those wishing to investigate the veracity of the Muslim miracle-seekers claims and read the conclusions of the numerous scientific studies carried out on this site since the 1960s I refer you to my earlier post )
And, at the risk of being accused of recycling old material, I quote from another previous post : How likely is it that such an unusual rock formation - in the very distinct and unusual shape of a boat - should happen to be on the very same mountain that it is claimed in the Qur’an that the Ark came to rest?
Either one perseveres with the supernatural/divine hypothesis and claims, faute de mieux, that God shaped the rocks in such a way (perhaps as another of those tests?), or one must look for another, more rational explanation. And the only explanation that I can think of is that the writer of the Qur’an knew of the “remains of the Ark” on Mnt Judi and decided to make reference to them in his revelation - leaving out the dimensions as they were obviously not correct.  It is perhaps relevant to quote a part of the conclusion from the Collins (Department of Geological Science, California State University) article: "Finally, [it has been] suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation." Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444. If we replace "the ancients" with "Mohammed" we are left with an unpalatable, (for Muslims) but not unreasonable, supposition.

Ark on Mount Judi - some difficult questions

Having tried to establish with "Kevin" the fact that the so called Ark on Mount Judi was just a natural phenomenon, I then raised the following issue:
"If this site isn't the Ark, then doesn't it raise the very real problems concerning the reasons why Mohammad claimed this site as the resting point for the Ark in the first place? Might it possibly be that he saw/heard stories about the boat shaped structure and thought to include it?
I think this whole episode raises some fascinating questions."
And my next mail pursued this idea:
"With regard to the Mnt Judi controversy, these are my thoughts:
The reason I think this is so important is as follows:
1.       If it turns out that Mnt Judi is the resting place of the Ark, then it strikes me you have a good case and I will perhaps need to re-think my lifestyle..(stop drinking and start washing out my nose every morning ['If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.' Bukhari 4 -516], to name but two...)
2.       If it can be proved conclusively that this strange rock formation is not man-made, but rather the product of natural and totally understandable geological processes, then we have a coincidence of such mind-bending proportions that only the most stubborn of zealots would persevere in their belief. Let me explain...

The "Ark" discovered on Mount Judi - another miracle...

"Kevin" wrote to me some time ago suggesting that I might like to look into the apparent discovery of the remains of Noah's Ark on Mount Judi - just as was reported in the Qur'an -by someone called Ron Wyatt . He attached some photos and "radar scans" and presumably hoped that this at last would convince me of the divine nature of the Qur'an.

The pictures looked convincing (see above) but I always like to do my own checking and research. It didn't take long to discover that Wyatt had also "discovered" the Ark of the Covenant, the true Cross, and just about every other long-lost Judeo-Christian artefact. It was time for another mail...
"The aerial images are genuine in the sense that they are images of someting that really exists. I don't think they can lay claim to that epithet in any other sense of the word - please see below..(there is a plethora of articles all dismissing this site and the work of Wyatt. Please ask me if you still need convincing that the Ark search is a wild goose chase....at least for the moment!).
How many Muslims are labouring under the misapprehension that this "proves" the divinity of the Qur'an? How many Immams know (because they bothered to check...) but are happy to let their flock remain in ignorance? And the same could be said for so many of the apparent proofs of the Qur'an. Can you understand why I get so frustrated?