Since Noah and his sons lived many hundreds of years after the Flood there is clearly a vitality that was imparted to them in their pre-Flood lives that carried them through that long. This extra vitality would also have been the case with olive trees and grapevines. It took some centuries after the Flood for the perfect created world to cease its influence and the fallen world to manifest completely.
If the olive trees and grapevines had some non-magical but still imaginary properties before the flood that allowed them to survive the flood... why not the animals too? Why couldn't the pre-flood super-cows hold their breaths for a year? It would have saved Noah a lot of carpentry.
An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits.
Wrong. An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation. For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising. Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed.
Sure I have reason to make my assumption. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years. But I believe it took place in a nano second or less.
Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.
As I've already pointed out to you, the Bible doesn't say that. It says the water was in one place, not the land.
Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.
The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).
It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science.
And continental drift has nothing to do with what we would see if the Flood had happened.
Someone who believes the Bible is a myth telling me I am wrong about what the Bible says is hilarious.
If you believed in Zeus you'd be wrong, whether I thought Zeus was a myth or not.
With the two different Hebrew words used in Genesis 10:25 and then in Genesis 11:8, 9 there is no way the text in Genesis 10:25 can be translated as the nations or people being dispersed over the land mass.
Of course it CAN be translated that way and it always IS translated that way. Can you cite any translation that agrees with you?
The translators don't ignore the context like you do. As I pointed out, Genesis 10:32 uses the same word "divided" and clearly associates the division with the families of the sons of Noah. It was the people who were divided, not the land.
But even IF the Bible mentioned continental drift, it is NOT something that we would expect to be associated with the Flood.
The Hebrew word ôøã means separate. Genesis 10:32 The Hebrew word ôìâ means divided or split. Genesis 10:25
Your English needs a lot of work. Separate, divided and split all mean the same thing, which the translators understood even if you do not.
Well the Bible don't mention continental drift. It just states that in the days (during his lifetime) of Peleg the earth was divided.
You can't just ignore the context. Genesis 10 starts with the generations of Noah and ends with the generations of Noah. Verse 5 says that the Gentiles were divided by their tongues. The next chapter tells how the nations were divided by their tongues at Babel.
Two chapters talking about division of people and no mention at all about division of continents. And nothing to do with the Flood.
In fact there are so many I'm amazed you couldn't find a single one.
Faith's own source says that her map happened millions of years ago. It's funny how she cherry-picks the parts she likes and ignores the rest. It's right when it agrees with her misinterpretation of the Bible but the same source is wrong when it disagrees with her other misinterpretation of the Bible.