The word species and the Biblical word "kind" are often used interchangeably. This is incorrect since they are not synonymous. The Biblical word kind denotes an organism that reproduces others like itself. The species concept is much narrower than this; therefore many species can be included in a single Biblical "kind." The word kind is probably closer to the modern taxonomic unit of genus, and in some cases the larger taxonomic unit, family.
First off this is incredibly vague and seems to indicate the writer having no friggin idea what these classifications mean. But let's just say for the sake of argument that "kind" is equivalent to genus, that still means packing roughly 37,000 different "kinds" on the ark. Of course since these "kinds" would then have to speciate to get what we have today would mean some sort of super evolution taking place. Something that would be further made unlikely by the extremely low genetic diversity that only two of each "kind" (in most cases) would provide.
The following animals could have survived outside the ark (Whitcomb 1998, p.68):
25,000 species of fish
1,700 tunicates (mane chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas
600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins
107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters
10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids
4,000 species of sponges
31,000 protozoan, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
Now we seem to be back to using species as "kind", consistency much?!
At any rate, no, almost all of these would surely die in a global flood due to changes to the water's salinity and pH levels. The only exception might possibly be some of the single celled organisms listed.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Noah and his family would have had to contract every human virus and would have needed to be infested with every human parasite in order for them to exist now.
Let's be conservative and use the figure of 40,000 animals. This allows for extra animals to represent those that have gone extinct and those animals that have not been properly cataloged. This figure of 40,000 animals is 5,000 more than largest previously mentioned numbers. Based on our present understanding of the number of animals this figure should satisfy even the most skeptical.
Closer to 74,000+ This estimate only accounts for the "kinds". we also have to factor in the food. Now a zoo site that lists having 6,000 animals on their blog gives these numbers for a single days feeding.
"The Commissary building boasts a state of the art kitchen that includes commercial-grade appliances and equipment, 540 square feet of freezer space, three walk-in coolers, 2,000 square feet of dry storage, and a 4,000-square-foot hay barn. Despite all the activity, at the end of every day the kitchen is left clean and sparkling."
Using the sites estimate of 40,000 (just to be fair) and given amounts from a zoo to feed 6,000 animals (above) we times this all by 40 days. We come up with a square footage requirement of 1,744,000 just for the food alone. now we can probably figure most of this storage is crated so the 1,744,000 number probably pretty evenly converts over to cubic feet rather nicely. To figure out the cubic footage of this food we would multiply the square footage with it's height. Even if this food was say only 1 foot height we are already over the arks capacity of 1,518,000 cubic feet with the food alone. Add in the animals and we get an ark that would have to be almost twice as big.
It is obvious that when all the facts of the Genesis account of the flood are examined that there is no reason to doubt that the ark could easily have carried its intended cargo.
Yes, yes there is...
