Most of this article really ought to be heavily edited for style and content. Some of the counterarguments are good, others not (e.g., it doesn't seem right to say that "wood is a bad ship building material." It may not be suitable for building a battleship, but that doesn't mean it's bad for all types of ship).
A lot of the rhetorical questions come across as snarky or arrogant, e.g.:
- Is a polar bear going to swim from the north pole just to get on a boat? Is a sloth going to walk there?
Better to rewrite these as statements, perhaps along the lines of
- A polar bear could not have survived in a temperate or subtropical climate long enough to make the trip to the Middle East. At its maximum rate of travel of X mph, a three-toed sloth could not have traveled the Y miles from its native habitat in South America to the ark in the 100 years that the Bible allows, even assuming that there was a land bridge that allowed it to travel in a straight line.
Some of these counterarguments require more than one paragraph to explain properly, so perhaps a bullet list isn't the best format.
Would it be worth mentioning the apparent contradictions in the Bible, that disprove the flood? For example: [Bible| Genesis 2:10-14] says that there was a river going through the garden of Eden, that split off into four sections, including the Tigris and Euphrates... Now with all the mountains being formed, the oceans lowering, and all that. It seems pretty unlikely that those rivers would have survived. LtCmd.Lore 14:44, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
One creationist argument is that many fossil animals have their heads arched up as if trying to catch a breath, and they claim this is because they were drowing in Noah's flood. And this link here debunks that quite nicely: http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/opisthotonus-in-dinosaurs/ Any room for that? I think there should be a sections with arguments for the flood and their respective rebuttals.