The Biblical account of Noah's Ark is false.

I am taking the Con position in this debate and contend that my opponent does not have sufficient reason to label the story of Noah's Ark as "false". The first thing my opponent mentions is species. The modern view of classification did not exist at the time Genesis was written and there is no reason to think that "two of every kind" would mean "two of every species". That's a simple anachronism. Despite making the argument, my opponent seems to understand that reading "species" back into the text is highly objectionable and anticipates the objection as a premise for his next argument. My opponent says there could not have been 2 of each "kind" of animal on the ark, because we would not be able to get all of the species we have today. There isn't an explicit reason given for this, it is simply stated. I imagine he means that there would not be enough time for speciation. But before that case can be made, perhaps it would be best for him to argue that "kind" would equate to a specific taxonomic rank. He should also determine an approximate date for the flood. This would allow him to at least set forth how much speciation would need to take place and over how much time. In addition to the amount of speciation over an approximate amount of time, many other considerations must take place. For example, some kinds of organism speciate faster than others. I would not expect Proboscidea (Elephants) to speciate as quickly as Coleoptera (Beetles). But, there are also not as many Proboscidea to account for as there are Coleoptera. (Don't take this to mean I think "kind" = Order, I was just using this as an example.) I am not sure why my opponent thinks Genesis is contradicting itself concerning how many animals to take. There is nothing inherently contradictory in God telling Noah to take 2 of every kind in one place, then telling him to take 7 pairs of certain kinds of animals. Perhaps if you use some sort of hyper-literalistic approach to the text you might think so, but these passages aren't a syllogism, they're a narrative. Even with this nonsensical approach to the text, taking 7 pairs of an animal still means you are at least taking 2 of them. I don't know that the story of Noah is "suspiciously" similar to the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but I agree that several details they do share are striking. I agree that there is definitely a relationship between the two stories, but I don't think it is fair to immediately conclude that Genesis is just a wholesale ripoff of the story of Utnapishtim. Genesis doesn't seem to share much with the Epic of Gilgamesh other than the flood account, and within the flood account there are similarities and dissimilarities. Noah's ark wasn't a 6-story cube made from reeds. Noah's flood lasted at east 150 days, and Utnapishtim's lasted around 19 days. Given these dissimilarities, I would say the Genesis account is far more plausible. What explains the similarities? Well, my opponent suggests that the author(s) who wrote Genesis ripped off part of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Another explanation for the sharing of details is that they both describe the same historical event. Yet another (though not mutually exclusive) explanation is that both Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh drew this part of their narratives from a shared source. Some scholarship maintains that Genesis has several authors and editors (JEDP). This literary analysis is what would give my opponent the late dating for Genesis. It has the Genesis account of the flood come from two separate sources. These sources (JEDP) are either written or oral tradition. It should be noted that these sources would be narratives, since a reason for thinking they exist are "doublets" (telling the same event twice) in the Genesis text. If Genesis is from multiple sources, the flood story doesn't stand by itself within the sources, but exists in a larger narrative. Genesis is not the only flood story thought be drawn from prior sources. The flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh is widely though to have it source in the Epic of Atrahasis. Perhaps one of the most notable reasons to think this is because it uses the name Atrahasis to refer to Utnapishtim. Both the larger narrative of Genesis and the immediate narrative about the flood are very different from Gilgamesh. God is angry with sin. Noah is saved because of his righteousness and God's favor. New creation and a covenant are established. In Gilgamesh, there is strife among the gods and they plan to flood the world. Ea leaks the plan and saves Utnapishtim. We are not told why Utnapishtim was saved. Utnapishtim receives immortality. All this lends itself to the idea that the Noah and the Utnapishtim story could be drawing from a common source or sources. The common details then find themselves in the midst of two very different larger narratives. In any case, the existence of multiple, similar flood stories does not in itself make the Noah story "false", even if one or more of them predate the modern composition.