nobody can ever say anything with such finality about an event in the prehistoric past, all anybody is doing on both sides of the question is guessing
No. There are no two sides. There's science and then there's the lunatic brigade. Apples and oranges are not different enough - more like apples and bucket of mercury.
Can't you see how silly your magical arguments are? When someone presents you problems that reality present, you wave everything off with magic (this time it's magical olive tree that can withstand soggy soil).
I don't think you read what I said about the wet soil. If you did you didn't think about it.
I read through all your posts and at first you proposed magical paleosoils and after that you said that soil had three years to dry to produce grapes. Nothing I could decipher as meaning that the soil was okay for olive tree to grow.
How can there be "beneficial conditions" at the bottom of a flood? They would have been under fifteen cubits of water.
Magical water, dont you remember? The kind that does not suffocate plants nor gets soil soggy.
What speaks volumes about biblical inerrancy is the fact that it forces a cogent being surrender every shred of honesty and integrity. Ken Ham is a shining example of that - reality has no value to him and what makes him totally evil is that he's actively spreading lies to children unlike those who think like him but are at least decent to keep their delusion to themselves.
What puzzles me a lot is that in order to make any "sense" of floodstories one has to invent alternative reality with water canopy or magical genetic material or 8 people being able to create big cities within few generations...