I've given lots of reasonable specifics in this discussion
You've said very little that could be considered "Reasonable"
The idea that any nonscientist -- OR scientist -- creationist should try to answer every conceivable objection to the Flood is irrational
if you could make a decent attempt at ONE it would be a start. But your idea of responding to a point is to say, "I don't know how, and I can't show it, but the flood has to be the only explanation" despite all the evidence telling you otherwise.
Obviously I do not impute anything about the Flood to miracle
Huh? so god, who decided he made an almighty balls-up when he created man, called forth a flood, with impossible amounts of water, violating the laws of physics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and many more. HE then made the flood dissappear(where?) and cleverly hid the genetic bottleneck that we should see, and apparently went out of his way to ensure that everything gave the impression of being millions of years old.
and you say there's no miracles or miraculous occurances here?
do you even have half a clue how utterly ridiculous your arguments are becoming?
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.