What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.

Maybe you've heard of a little thing called "plate tectonics"? See, all the continents are on these big "plates" that float on top of the earth's fluid mantle. When they run into each other, they push each other up (like wrinkles in a carpet.)Sometimes this means that areas that were underwater for millenia are thrust up above the water. If they go high enough we call them "mountains."Seriously, this is like grade-school stuff. How did you miss this? We've only known that the earth's continents move for about 60 years or so (and been measuring it for 20-30 or so.) Hey, I've heard that Elvis is alive and well in a Louisiana trailer park (and he's pregnant with JFK's love-child.) Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.Anyway, so what? The Smithsonian isn't the be-all end-all of science. Plenty (in fact the majority) of science goes on without any involvment from the Smithsonian. You'll have to do a little better than this. Especially for a guy who said he was a "smart creation scientist" and that he never lost arguments with evolutionists...

And one thing I've noticed about creationists is that they ignore clearly written rebuttals to their position, as you seem to have done in various topics that you yourself started.We explained plate tectonics to you, do you have a rebuttal? Or is your silence to be taken as tacit agreement?The type of seashells in relevant, but incidental. It would only provide specific confirmation of Himalayan tectonic action. But we know from other evidence (measuring the rate of continental drift and mountain uplift) that tectonic action is generally true.

But that is the argument. If your assertation is that only a worldwide flood could have left a whale carcass on a mountain, then the location, history, and very existence of the mountain and whale in question is very germaine to the argument. Otherwise, that's like saying "I know of a book on planet Zorg that says the flood never happened. How do you explain that?" It's a non-argument because if we can't access the evidence how do we know it really says what you say it says?before we're able to address your whale on a mountain argument, we have to see the data. Anyway we've given you a general explanation for aquatic remains on mountains: tectonic uplift. It's incumbent on you now to explain how this explain how tectonic uplift doesn't apply to this particular mountain.

If your email was anything like what you've posted so far (incomplete or non-existant evidence, fallcious reasoning, straw-man arguments) they probably just ignored it, and for good reason. In particular, the "law of increasing entropy" (i think you mean the second law of thermodynamics) has nothing to do with evolution, which you would know if you were familiar with the actual statement of the law and now what Kent Hovind thinks it says.