The Flood - Animals and their minimum food requirement

Except the problem with that notion is receding flood waters would have salted the Earth. The number of salt tolerant plants is comparatively low, and very few of them are useful as feed. Plus such a flood would have wiped out the top soil, leaving conditions very poor for growing anything but weeds.

There's a serious problem with that notion. As already calculated on this site, the release of such water through rain would have raised temperatures significantly. Not to mention that any glacier bobbing in trillions of gallons of water started to melt instantly. It is simply a big ice cube in a cup. So unless it was magical ice, that didn't happen. How did these vegetation mats survive 6 inches of water falling every minute for 40 days and nights? Not to mention the massive waves, storms and associates flood issues? Not to mention that they need to eat in the first place. Furthermore, species that live in the desert cannot tolerate such humidity levels. So unless they were magical mats, it didn't happen. Come again? What fossil record agrees with that? The fossil record shows that the period before the Triassic had a massive die off as well as the one following the Cretaceous. There are a few others, but nothing supporting a 6,000-4,000 year ago die off.Granted some species their yearling do have such capacity, but that still has to deal with the glacier problem with warm seas, massive friction and the problem of instant melting.Few insects actually have the ability to go into statis, and the vast majority of them live in high mountains. Which means the vast majority of insects would have died. And it still hast he same problem as the fish.

Where are you getting these numbers? The atmosphere is only a hundred or so miles upward from the surface of the earth. And rainfall only comes from clouds that are a few miles above the surface of the Earth. Your argument is based upon a planet that doesn't exist. Furthermore, your notion requires that the 700,000,000 or so cubic miles of water would have to be the same temperature as the oceans. That occurs nowhere in Earth. So unless this was magical water using magical physics, your argument is bull. That makes no sense whatsoever. As stated before, rainfall comes from clouds a few miles above the Earth. The interactions would be limited to these few miles of atmsophere, quickly limiting any heat transfer. Not to mention that if it rained in the first place, everything would be dead in the first place as the pressure from 700,000,000 cubic miles of water would make liquids in tissue lethal. Sources like Answers in Genesis state that the water came from within the Earth. The problem is it would be superheated steam. The mantle is often 800 degrees farenheit. 700,000,000 cubic miles of steam released at once would have boiled away the oceans as well as killed all life instantly. So unless it was magical water, it didn't happen. Given that nothing would be alive after the rainfall, that isn't a problem. That explains nothing and isn't even relevant. That isn't possible as the temperature changes would have melted the glaciers. Try a little experiment. Get a handful of icecubes. Put them under the facet and turn it on. How long do they last? How did glaciers survive 6 inches of water falling every minute for 40 days and 40 nights as well as the increased temperature from the superheated steam? Your argument requires a set of physics that is completely removed from this plane of existance And what did they eat? No top soil, salted earth. Not great growing conditions eh?All your link does is argue for a quick happening Ice Age. Nothing more. Plus it has dates that contridict creation. Did you not read it?Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Then the oceans would be virtually dead or on their way except for chemoautotrophs and bottom feeders.The foundation for the ocean's food pyramid is plankton, specifically phoytopankton. No sun = no phoytopankton. No primarily food souce removes the 1st level of predators which quickly removes the next, which then removes the next until all you have left is starving teritary predators and bottom feeders. Not to mention massive die offs of plantkon as well as all plants results in chemical decomposition which more or less results in a red tide effect, consuming all of the oxygen and killing everything left in the oceans. Given that the oceans provide the majority of the oxygen on the planet, how does creationism get over this massive problem? As the bible does not state Noah saved marine animals, the oceans today should be completely empty. So unless there were MAGICAL animals with MAGICAL Algea, and MAGICAL Plantkon that didn't need light to produce food, your argument is bull. Well, no food in the ocean = no fish. So that quickly eliminates that argument. Secondly, fresh water is no more rich in sediment and minerals then salt water. Fresh water is merely water without salt. And if it rained (unlikely as that is), it would be more or less pure without such minerals or sediments. It is a basic fact that water flows down hill, and downhill is towards the ocean. Top soil would have been taken with the receding flood waters depositing top soil on the bottom of the sea floor. Thus, the land would have been stripped of the fertile grounds necessary to grow plants in necessary quantities. Not to mention that receding flood waters would have despoited millions of tons of salt on the land, resulting in virtually impossible growing conditions. So unless God sprinkled top soil, pulled out a vaccum to suck up all of the salt, the flood didn't happen

it's not revelant at all. he just went searching for anything and posted it hoping we wouldn't read it.The link is irrelevant because it requires a near vaccum, nothing of the sort which has ever existed naturally on Earth.Plus the sheer amount of kinetic energy released by 700,000,000 cubic miles of water override anything in that article. Not to mention that these chillers require a source of power. That itself negates any relevance of the article, unless he wants to argue it was a magical, free energy god powered mega chiller...

We all know that Christanity stole the flood story from Enmua Elish which jacked it from Gligamesh.What is the basic outlines of those in terms of animals, food, etc?

Archer Opterix, i know both of the outlines of the stories. What I don't know is the specifics of Gilgamesh, specifically what the sole friendly God told him in what specifics to save. Utnapishtim gains imortality remember, Noah doesn't, plus the flood part of Gligamesh is pretty small in comparsion to the rest of the epic. Noah doesn't have his best friend get murdered by a God.Enuma Elish doesn't detail anything specific about the flood.

I agree. It's pretty clear his arguments make no sense whatsoever. Where on Earth has a near vaccum occured? Oh yes, NEVER.Furthermore, we all know that the vapour canopy holding that much water means toxicity. He just ignores it.I do find it amusing how he links articles that are completely irrevelant to his post.So why can't you guys just block his IP?

I'm taking brian's advice. No longer feeding the trolls. I await your banning.

The same fundemental argument behind everything else he has: magical polarity!

{identify problem with a scientific Genesis} => {insert ad-hoc spastic, insane asylum style reasoning} => {self gratifying plausability to maintain worldview}(shameless stolen from another user here)Magic makes everything better. Have a problem? Magic solves it!

how does a cube shaped ship survive huge broadside waves?

Correction, you mean magical, legendary ships!Many conventional ships designed to take broadsides go down in large storms.Mental backflips of biblical porportions!

Nothing you wrote about is relevant to preventing broadsides. The shape of a ship is what is relevenat, not it specific construction. Conventional ships turn into a wave to prevent a broadside. You can't do that with a cube ship. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.