Those verses are clear. Animals will have knowledge of the Lord and their fallen nature will be removed. They will not die. They'll be in Heaven. You don't believe in the Word of God

That's a heavy accusation.

What was argued was that dogs go to heaven. Not that there will be animals on the New Earth at the end of time. I don't disbelieve that God will have new animals on the New Earth. I do disbelieve that animals which are alive now in the fallen world will go to heaven when they die. They do not possess immortal souls. Only rational beings do. Therefore, Fido does not go to heaven when it dies. But, this does not prevent God from creating animals to dwell on His New Earth.

Another little detail in Genesis, that God closed the ark from the outside for Noah and his family.  Does Father Robinson believe that or was that just more fanciful story-telling by the Holy Spirit.  If of course it was the Holy Spirit who wrote Scripture, and that it wasn't just a scrapbook made up of various J, P, and E "sources".

Scientists know nothing, and the scientific reasons against a worldwide flood given by Catholic Encyclopedia were lame and borderline laughable, and they all assume uniformitarianism.

I've seen very credible theories, including from the Kolbe Institute, about how there was a massive tectonic upheaval that caused the whole thing from below.  And then there's the water canopy theory where the original atmosphere had a large canopy of water at the outer edges of the atmosphere that collapsed.  This water canopy also shielded the earth from radiation, so that's why people didn't live as long after the flood.  What if a huge asteroid or comet hit the earth in the ocean and blasted a tremendous amount of ocean water into the atmosphere.  There are probably a dozen plausible natural theories regarding a potential mechanism for the flood.

These "scientists" have proven over and over again that they're a bunch of morons making things up, making up fairy tales, to promote their atheistic agenda.  And we need to bow to them?

I wonder if Fr. Robinson believes that God actually parted the Red Sea or whether that was just a lucky low tide in a reed marsh ... like most of the Modernists believe.

Oh, BTW, they've found tongs of Egyptian chariot parts at the bottom of the RED SEA ... sorry, Modernists.

Here is where one can find out much of what Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX. believes.

https://therealistguide.com/

Now go to Q&A and see what he has to say about everything, including the Kolbe Center which he calls Protestant, and sides with Ken Cole and David Palm. As regards his opinion on geocentrism, he, like Henry Newman, dismisses the decrees of 1616, the agreement of them by Pope Urban VIII in 1633, and the 1820 history of the Galilean U-turn as not worth the paper they were written about in history. In other words he is like Galileo, thinking his opinion is greater within the Church than Popes, Cardinal Bellarmine and even the Council of Trent.

Geocentrism is not a scientific matter as science cannot prove it false or true. It is a metaphysical matter that popes in 1616 and 1633 have ruled it is a dogmatic revelation of Scripture. A ceertain SSPX priest told me some years asgo that the new recruits, probably like Fr Robinson, are not the same as those in the first years of the SSPX. I now know what he meant.

Anyone can submit a question to him.

Are not the creatures that witnessed the birth of Our Savior Jesus Christ in Heaven? 

Is not the creature that Blessed Joseph, Blessed Mary and the infant Christ rode on to Egypt to flee Herod in Heaven? 

Is not the donkey that was rode on by Jesus Christ into Jerusalem in Heaven? 

Are not the creatures that witnessed the birth of Our Savior Jesus Christ in Heaven?

Is not the creature that Blessed Joseph, Blessed Mary and the infant Christ rode on to Egypt to flee Herod in Heaven?

Is not the donkey that was rode on by Jesus Christ into Jerusalem in Heaven?

The only aminal one might see in Heaven is a white dove.

Animals were given animal souls as a means of life only, they die with the animal. Only humans have eternal souls. Most animals kill one another, so next we could say many go to hell.

As a mink farmer in the past I have had to fight the animal-rights people who probably also think animals have a right to go to heaven. Animals were given a certain nature by God. They do as their nature makes them do, no more, no less. They have no consciences, they cannot distinguish between good and evil like humans. Animals do not have intelligence like man was given, a lion does not care when it kills a victim animal and they start eating it alive until it dies. Nor does an animal understand things like a human does. When God asked for the lambs to be slaughtered as a sacrifice the lamb does not understand his capture and death like a human being would. An animal can suffer pain, but does not understand pain like a human does. A chicken in a cage for all its life only cares about eating and drinking and does not go insane because of its captivity. When Jesus told the Apostles to cast out their nets that came back full of fish dying because of their being out of water, none of the Apostles in the boat objected like the animal rights people. would have, Nor will those fish be found in heaven like those donkeys.

Oh yes, I know many a Catholioc would love it if their best friend a cat or dog was waiting for them in heaven, but that is mere wishing. Recently Pope Francis said he would baptise a martian if asked. Now why would a pope make a mockery of a sacrament that applies only to descendants of Adam? No doubt he thinks maybe there will be aliens up ther too.

And just to round out and close the argument that animals go to heaven. Here is St. Thomas, by the opinion of some here, supposedly "denying" the Word of God :

Summa, Book I, Q. 75

Article 3. Whether the souls of brute animals are subsistent?
Objection 1. It would seem that the souls of brute animals are subsistent. For man is of the same 'genus' as other animals; and, as we have just shown (Article 2), the soul of man is subsistent. Therefore the souls of other animals are subsistent.

Objection 2. Further, the relation of the sensitive faculty to sensible objects is like the relation of the intellectual faculty to intelligible objects. But the intellect, apart from the body, apprehends intelligible objects. Therefore the sensitive faculty, apart from the body, perceives sensible objects. Therefore, since the souls of brute animals are sensitive, it follows that they are subsistent; just as the human intellectual soul is subsistent.

Objection 3. Further, the soul of brute animals moves the body. But the body is not a mover, but is moved. Therefore the soul of brute animals has an operation apart from the body.

On the contrary, Is what is written in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xvi, xvii: "Man alone we believe to have a subsistent soul: whereas the souls of animals are not subsistent."

I answer that, The ancient philosophers made no distinction between sense and intellect, and referred both a corporeal principle, as has been said (Article 1). Plato, however, drew a distinction between intellect and sense; yet he referred both to an incorporeal principle, maintaining that sensing, just as understanding, belongs to the soul as such. From this it follows that even the souls of brute animals are subsistent. But Aristotle held that of the operations of the soul, understanding alone is performed without a corporeal organ. On the other hand, sensation and the consequent operations of the sensitive soul are evidently accompanied with change in the body; thus in the act of vision, the pupil of the eye is affected by a reflection of color: and so with the other senses. Hence it is clear that the sensitive soul has no per se operation of its own, and that every operation of the sensitive soul belongs to the composite. Wherefore we conclude that as the souls of brute animals have no per se operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything follows the mode of its being.

Reply to Objection 1. Although man is of the same "genus" as other animals, he is of a different "species." Specific difference is derived from the difference of form; nor does every difference of form necessarily imply a diversity of "genus."

Reply to Objection 2. The relation of the sensitive faculty to the sensible object is in one way the same as that of the intellectual faculty to the intelligible object, in so far as each is in potentiality to its object. But in another way their relations differ, inasmuch as the impression of the object on the sense is accompanied with change in the body; so that excessive strength of the sensible corrupts sense; a thing that never occurs in the case of the intellect. For an intellect that understands the highest of intelligible objects is more able afterwards to understand those that are lower. If, however, in the process of intellectual operation the body is weary, this result is accidental, inasmuch as the intellect requires the operation of the sensitive powers in the production of the phantasms.

Reply to Objection 3. Motive power is of two kinds. One, the appetitive power, commands motion. The operation of this power in the sensitive soul is not apart from the body; for anger, joy, and passions of a like nature are accompanied by a change in the body. The other motive power is that which executes motion in adapting the members for obeying the appetite; and the act of this power does not consist in moving, but in being moved. Whence it is clear that to move is not an act of the sensitive soul without the body.

I jumped to the last page of this thread to discover a debate about animals in Heaven!!!🐄🐕🐱🕷🐙🦀🦐🦞🦖🐢🐛🐺🦇🐴🦅🐫🐎🦒🐋🦜. This is just my opinion, but I think there could be animals in Heaven, but they are not the same animals that lived on earth, ie. Your dog’s soul did not get saved! I won’t see Mr. Schnapps (pet dog) in Heaven!  (Sorry, ol’ boy!🐕). After all, there is plant life in Heaven, so why not animal?  
Back to the topic question!  Yes, I believe the flood of Noah was worldwide.  The Scripture, Sacred tradition, and “science” all lead to that conclusion, regardless of any traditional priest who writ s modernist books.  

I wonder if Fr. Robinson believes that God actually parted the Red Sea or whether that was just a lucky low tide in a reed marsh ... like most of the Modernists believe.

The church uses the Red Sea miracle from Exodus, which saved the Jews, to show us that Baptism is just as important, for it saves our souls from sin.  See the liturgies of the vigils of Easter and Pentecost, when catechumens used to be baptized formally, where the Church has us re-read the Exodus miracle.  
.
Oh, right, but the parting of the Red Sea was simply the tide going out...  Evil, evil Modernists!
.
For a positive story, I know multiple families who didn’t see the gradual modernization of the new-sspx, but as soon as Fr Robinson did his book review tour, they left the new-sspx pronto.  God showed them the modernization in a new way.  So that’s a good outcome from Fr’s evil book.