The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement

This attempt by Bible believers to explain the flood scientifically, to undo the claims by science that it didn't happen, and the answers by Bible debunkers to discredit our explanations, finally gets tedious. Predictable.Let me just ask: If you were as absolutely convinced of the truth of the Bible account of the flood as a fundamentalist is, absolutely without a doubt knowing that it happened as described, knowing that God is the inspirer of the whole thing, how would you go about answering science's contention that it didn't happen?It's too easy to deny the premise so don't go there. Don't answer unless you can really put yourself in this position.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's the only answer so far given that I can agree with wholeheartedly.But I do think there are some scientific points that can be made myself, so one tries to make them.

When you make some points you KNOW are decent points and they get treated like dirt it makes you less than trusting of the opposition's fairmindedness. I can only assume a sort of work-conditioned blindness since I don't impute evil motives to them.I don't have in mind only points I personally make, though, but the whole creationist enterprise is treated like dirt, everything they have to say is ridiculed, lengths gone to it seems to me to invent discrediting language against them, and to impute evil motives to them. Sorry, this getting off topic is becoming too frequent

I have never imputed evil motives to anyone. Or it's extremely rare if I ever have. Calling someone an idiot is not imputing evil motives. Whereas it is standard here for creationists to be called "Willfully ignorant" or accused of lying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.