What the Bible says depends on which Biblical Flood you are talking about Faith.
Really the Bible doesn't say all "living" creatures but those on "the face of the land," leaving the sea creatures in the ocean, which were killed in great numbers (I judge by the fossil record) but not totally wiped out. And then, as you point out, the list of creatures also leaves out sea creatures and plants.
As you have been shown, that depends on which Biblical flood myth you pick.
The Bible in Genesis 6 writes:
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
but in the fable found in Genesis 7 it says:
Bible in Genesis 7 writes:
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Note what the Bible actually says Faith because this gets important as you try to deal with the bottleneck.
In Genesis 7 is clearly says every living thing. That would be animals like man, birds, fish, pigs, rats, pond scum, insects, single cell organisms, plants, trees, seeds, butterflies lions and tigers and bears oh mys ... every living thing.
Or is the Bible jess funning us?
It's simply a way to explain where the sediments came from that formed the strata, and it makes sense, based on the idea of forty days and nights of rain, that pretty much everything that could be dissolved or turned into mud would have been.
And I suppose you have evidence of forty days of rain wearing lots of stuff away? Remember that we can observe far more than forty days of rain almost annually in Asia. It is called the "monsoon." So far it has not dissolved even a single mountain.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Me, I'd look for the percentage of junk DNA in a creature's genome as a clue to whether it went through the Flood bottleneck or not, thinking of junk DNA as a record of death in a species: the more junk DNA the less the creature was affected by the bottleneck.
What is your reasoning for this? Why does junk DNA indicate a genetic bottleneck?
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
More genetic research will probably reveal more. The micro-evolution of the original animal kinds and diversification of the human race that occurred after the flood probably caused scientists to think the bottleneck was 70,000 years old, rather than 4,300 years old.
If you are proposing a bottleneck at 4,300 years ago, give or take a few, then you have to explain the massive evidence for continuity, rather than a bottleneck, at that time period.
In analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), there are a lot of examples where skeletal DNA from prior to 4,300 years ago matches the mtDNA of living individuals in the same area.
One such example is from On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska. There, a skeleton dated to 10,300 years ago has the exact same rare mtDNA haplotype (D4h3) as 46 or more living individuals found along the coasts of both north and south America. And interestingly, that same rare haplotype has been found in a Clovis skeleton dating to about 12,600 years ago in Wyoming.
My own archaeological research has produced a similar match from 5,300 years ago to living individuals in the western US.
If there had been a global flood about 4,300 years ago, those mtDNA types would have been eliminated in living individuals, to be replaced by the haplotypes of Noah's female companions.
That this is not what we see, this is solid evidence that there was no global flood in the time period you claim.
I would be interested in your reaction to these facts.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
Aquatic life, insects, amphibians and small, semi-aquatic animals such as otters and monitor lizards would not need to be on the ark as they could survive either in the flood waters or on floating vegetation mats. ...
Ah the old make up ways for organisms to survive by other means canard. I'll let the others handle this.
... rather than 4,300 years old.
Curiously the problem here, is that the earth is old, very very old, and there are living trees older than 4,300 years.
I believe this problem could be solved with my theory about the flood. Aquatic life, insects, amphibians and small, semi-aquatic animals such as otters and monitor lizards would not need to be on the ark as they could survive either in the flood waters or on floating vegetation mats.
Then why don't elephants show that genetic bottleneck? Did they also float on vegetation mats around the world?