The Noah's Ark story is a complete impossibility

I would like to deal with facts first and then delve into the philosophy in my summing up comments. I would like to point out that my opponent has not bothered to counter any of the evidence presented in my first argument. The only evidence presented is something along the line of God made it possible. I feel I can confidently say this as my opponent has pointed out that "There is not a single passage that recounts Noah or his family ever feeding the animals" as well as "I see no reason why God that created the heavens and the earth could not keep the animals in a sort of suspended animation which would not require food or oxygen". This is interesting as my opponent says the animals have to be in their smallest possible form after recent birth, however regardless that still means that the animals need only 0.03 m^3 space which is not the size of an adult Noah. Also how are these baby animals going to survive when they get released after the flood without parents to teach them how to hunt? Also how are the kangaroos going to get to Australia from Mount Ararat now that there are no more land bridges since this was 5000 years ago. (a)Additionally, I am not sure why evidence of human civilization before the so called flood 7000 years ago is evidence that the flood happened, unless my opponent is referring to the Genesis creation story. If this is true and we are looking at the biblical account of Genesis then all I need to prove is that human civilization occurred before 8000 years ago to completely dismiss the Genesis creation story and thereby the Ark story. This is easy to do, as we know the Natufian culture existed between 12000 to 9500 BC and as such we know that the biblical account according to Genesis is wrong. (b, c) Additionally, I would like to point out that the talkorigins link you gave explicitly states that "I have included stories here if (1) they are stories; (2) they are folklore, not historical accounts or fiction by a known author; and (3) they involve a flood. " So none of these should be taken as fact as there is no historical evidence for them. (d)Regarding the two flood stories you gave. Firstly, I am not debating whether a localized flood happened in the Black Sea. In fact, I am completely willing to accept that happened. But we should remember that is the Black Sea and not a world wide Genesis flood. Secondly, Professor Masaaki Kimura work on Yonagumi has been shown to be highly controversial among many scientists saying he is misleading with his evidence. In fact Robert Schoch of Boston University believes it is a natural formation, as the structures are made from one massive piece of stone which is not how construction works. (e) Also it is interesting to note that neither the Japanese government's Agency for Cultural Affairs nor the government of Okinawa recognize the remains off Yonaguni as an important cultural property. (f) I mean if this was so important, why is it not recognized, unless it really is just natural. I believe these facts sufficiently defeat Cons arguments. To the members reading this debate Con did mistakenly call me Con in the previous round so please don't get confused in the next section. In closing I would like to address the statement by Con that states:"If Con is to win he must show that there is reason to believe that there is objective truth and reality. " I would turn this around and say instead that if my opponent at this time still believes the Ark story then he needs to prove that the Biblical God exists to make any of his claims relevant. I gave scientific evidence for my claims, so if my opponent wants to show that god exists he needs scientific facts as well. So it may seem like I am dodging the bullet, but let me explain why I say this. We are operating in the reality we exist in. Now, whether this is objective truth or reality is not important as we have to use whatever this reality is to determine whether the Ark story is true. If my opponent was not in the same reality as me we could not be having this debate, but we are. Again thank you for a highly entertaining debate and over to you. (a) . http://learnline.cdu.edu.au...(b) . http://www.princeton.edu...(c) . http://archaeology.about.com...(d) . http://www.talkorigins.org...(e) . http://www.robertschoch.net...(f) . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...