Hi mignat. I would like to clear up a few things in your post. Some of these may be more or less off-topic, and probably shouldn't be discussed further, but some may be relevant and of course should be continued in the discussion should you choose.
I hope you read this with the same respect and calmness I'm feeling as I type.
Of course. We only get annoyed when people say stupid things or when they disrespect others for no real reason. Often there's no true malice in the comments either; as one poster includes in their signature and as I believe one thread discusses, ridicule and dickishness is a valid tactic when reasonable debate fails. I don't think you'll have that problem though
If the account is assumed correct, we're talking about a God that lives in a plane above all laws of physics (some big band theorists talk of the pre-bang being above those laws). The bible refers to the One who 'inhabits eternity'. Not lives FOR eternity. Inhabits (lives IN) it. I know. We who live in finiteness and inside time can't grasp life outside it. No earthbound creator is limited to living within his creation. Why should an unlimited-powered God?
Add into that the feeding of thousands with one boy's lunch, miracles of dead coming back to life. That means it's possible that all those animals to be still alive at the end of the flood.
Two things here:
The question is regarding what happens after the Ark has landed. However they survived onboard is not discussed, but we assume for the purpose of argument that they did. There are several other threads in the 'Geology and TGF' forum if you want to talk about the journey itself.
Whether the survival was miraculous or not, there exists no evidence for it. That is the second part of the deal; you not only need to explain how something happened, but also explain the evidence left behind. Again, much of this is covered in other threads, but specifically for this one: where are the remains of animals travelling from Mount Ararat? Others will likely move onto discussing evidences like this.
Size? How many species? The account says two of every kind. We don't know what the words kind meant in Noah's culture ...
And this is a problem for creationism.
Today, there exist definite groupings of animals (and plants and bacteria and other stuff, but anyway); groupings like families, orders, genera, etc. These groupings are determined by large amounts of physical evidence including genetics and the fossil record. From these are derived clear chains of relation between each animal and its ancestors (however long they existed, they did exist).
To this end, "kind" has been a panic-word for creationists. As you began describing yourself: does the word refer to the species? In that case, there was certainly not enough room on the Ark. Does it refer to the genus? In that case, where did the other species come from? There are contradictions no matter which way you choose, and hence no creationist has ever tried to define the word.
I point out that these modern groupings are not "a different way of understanding". They (or the equivalent) are used globally by every country's biological scientists. There is no other term, because everybody uses that term.
Thus, the word either has a meaning which clearly contradicts the facts and hence cannot refer to any such grouping, and then has no relation to reality, or it is not a word with any intelligible meaning and hence indicates a lot of further problems for creationism (which are very off-topic, so moving on).
Noah lived at about the time of Egypt's height, in our assumption. Those Egyptians had a technology we know nothing about. We don't know how they built the pyramids. We can't build them with our technology. Don't assume Noah's resources were limited to what we know about.
No, they didn't.
We know relatively much about their tools; we know relatively much about their methods; we know relatively much about how the pyramids were built. As for replicating the feat, the only thing stopping it is cost: labour, stone, transport, etc.
Our modern technology is actually sufficient to build a pyramid, and I think one better than the originals. Stonecutting tools, surveying equipment, heavy lifting machinery, transport vehicles, skilled and trained labourers... we have everything.
Hence we can assume that at best, Noah had technology limited to at most equal with our own, and at worst, only the equivalent of the contemporary Egyptians. These give rise to further problems for creationism in trying to validate the Ark myth (which are off-topic, and some of are which discussed in the aforementioned forum).
If, like me at one time, you're bothered about the number of species we have and how they all fitted in, look up the reports of rapid speciation. Two mice might have been able to give rise to many, many submice in the last XXX years. Think of yourself being told to take an elephant somewhere on the back of a pickup. How could you even fit an elephant on one? Easy: use initiative. The order didn't specify size, so take a baby one.
That is not rapid speciation. It is rapid reproduction; the terms mean completely different things.
Again, we are not dealing with the Ark journey itself; however, the concept of using baby animals is not a new one, and runs into enormous problems for what would happen afterwards such as not knowing how to care for itself or many of the little tricks all animals pick up from their parents. Which would be on-topic if you care to discuss it, though.
If God could make the universe and all life in it , I doubt he'd have trouble dealing with a boatload of animals.
very well then. If your explanation is "Goddidit" then what evidence supports this action happening?
As to some of your questions, I might ask you why Henry Ford named his son Edsil. Would your inability to answer it prove Ford to have been a myth? Of course not.
I'm not aware of the question you refer to, but your point seems to not work the way you want it to. If you care to explain it for me? PM would suffice so as to not clutter the thread.