The usual answer to this is that they took animals which were important to
man. They didn't take all animals even on the flooded land for precisely
the reason that you suggest. One other possibility is that not every land
holds every kind of animal. So there very well may have been animals which
didn't exist elsewhere and required saving or re-evolving.
>
>I believe that some have suggested, and I would concede, that it could
>be that Noah was basically preserving domesticated livestock, but Genesis
>does say every kind of living creature on the land, and also every bird.
>Surely the birds could have survived by flying away to somewhere the flood
>was not occurring?
If the flood were in Mesopotamia (as is popularly contended) I would
absolutely agree with you. That area is so small that birds could fly and
animals could walk to the high ground. But not if the region were large
enough as in the case with the Mediterranean. I calculated once that the
rising water which is forcing the air out of the empty basin, would most
likely cause severe rainfall all around the edges of the mediterranean for
a couple of hundred miles. In other words, the flood wouldn't be localized
just to the basin itself but would have extended partway through the
Sahara. The birds would have to fly a long, long way.
Secondly, some birds don't fly.
>
>If you have good answers for this argument, I would love to hear them,
>because, as I stated, I do struggle with this question.
>
Don't know if they are good, but they are my answers.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm