[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

That doesn't really make much sense though.. the ark already is too small to house all extant species, if you change the story to allow for 99% of species to die off after the flood, you need an ark 100 times the volume.

This has been explained by countless Creation Scientists. The account of the flood says that 2 of every kind was kept with the exception of a few species where more was kept. In other words the Ark didn't need more than two members of the canine family or deer family and so on. The variations we see since the flood are the variations within species we see today. Also it would make sense for the young to be taken which would require less space. If God drew all these animals to the Ark it would follow that He would have also had a hand in preserving them and dispersing them.

Originally Posted by photon

The evidence does not point to a single mass extinction at the time when the flood is claimed to have happened anyway.

That's because when you look at layers beneath the earth's surface you see millions of years of slow evolution. I see layers of sediment left over by a world wide flood. After all that's how a fossil is formed: the Animal or plant must be quickly covered by sediment to avoid scavengers and allow the minerals to slowly leech in to the space where the bones are slowly disintegrating.

Originally Posted by photon

Plus there is no genetic bottleneck in all extant species at a single time which would be required if the the population of every species was reduced to a handful.

Science doesn't have genetics to work with; They have fossils. Fossils are not produced except in extraordinary conditions. If they were and evolution was true one would expect to easily track the evolution of mankind. Beyond the flood those conditions have been rarely met. I suppose the floods produced by Mount Saint Helens is a contemporary example of such conditions being produced but, they don't happen enough to show any bottleneck.

Originally Posted by photon

Of course the DNA may have been altered in such a way to remove evidence of a bottleneck, space warped inside the ark to house many more animals than physically possible, and the earth changed so that the geology shows no record of a global flood, but then the question becomes why change the evidence?

Your problem as always is in your interpretation of the evidence. History is 5% evidence and 95% supposition based on that 5% evidence. Any science based on history cannot be embraced with the same confidence as science confirmed by the scientific method. It's too easy to see something in your grilled cheese sandwich that's not there.

Legions of scientists and billions of dollars have been spent over the last 100 years looking for evidence to demonstrate this Universe could come into being without a Creator. Today we know much more about the natural world. It's too bad the lines between what we know and what scientists are hoping they are seeing has become so blurred.