Just applying some logic here Russ -- if God knew, before he even created humankind, that there would come a time when all of them apart from 8 people would be so evil that they deserved to die, why would he go ahead and create them in such a way that this would inevitably come to pass? Being a loving and just God, presumably he would decide to avoid this whole situation from the start? And why was it also just to kill them in such a way as to also wipe out most of the rest of the innocent life on earth? It makes no sense to me. But I have no wish to labour this point, I'd rather talk about the scientific feasibility, or lack thereof, of the ideas posted here.
OK, so it seems that your interpretation of the Bible allows for the insects on floating vegetation mats. Is this what you believe happened? What about all the microscopic organisms and parasites, including those that are lethal to their host organisms? Did they hitch a ride on the two of every kind?
Also clear on how you are defining "kind" as meaning something more general than what we categorise as a species. Does this mean you are also advocating the extremely rapid "microevolution" that would give rise to hundreds of thousands of new species in a few thousand years? Bear in mind that no evolutionist thinks this is possible; do you have evidence or a model that can show how it happens?
Can you explain how what you are saying accounts for 80% of my post? Which post exactly? I've posted a number of questions here and I've also shown you in the past few days how creationists make scientific errors, accidental or deliberate, and quote scientists out of context. How does your post address that?
So you're saying that a significant amount of fresh water mixed with the salt water of the oceans. In that case, all of the fish apart from those specially adapted to brackish water would have had problems; can you explain this?
How were underground water sources involved in the flood? What caused them to burst out of the earth? There are some significant scientific problems with this. Where, also, did enough rain for a continuous 40 days and nights come from?
I think a couple of people here misunderstand what "genetic bottleneck" means. It's got nothing to do with fossils. Here is what an online genetics encyclopedia says about a genetic, or population, bottleneck:
Population Bottleneck
A population bottleneck is a significant reduction in the size of a population that causes the extinction of many genetic lineages within that population, thus decreasing genetic diversity. Population bottlenecks have occurred in the evolutionary history of many species, including humans. Present-day bottlenecks are seen in endangered species such as the Yangtze River dolphin, whose numbers have dwindled to less than 100. Endangered species that do not become extinct may expand their numbers later on, but with a limited amount of genetic diversity with which to adapt to changing conditions. The genomes of future populations will reflect the narrowing of genetic possibility for thousands of years.
Reconstructing Genealogies
The genomes of living organisms record both genealogical and population histories. Our own genome tells a remarkable story of events in recent human evolution. Relatedness of individuals within and between populations and species can be determined by measuring the number of genetic differences between two individuals. When applied to segments of the genome that accumulate mutations at relatively constant rates over time, they can provide information about the time that has elapsed since the existence of their last common ancestor. Research shows that human and chimpanzee lineages diverged about six million years ago, that neanderthals and anatomically modern humans diverged 500 thousand years ago, and that all living humans can trace their ancestry to a maternal lineage that lived in Africa about 130 thousand years ago.
A genetic bottleneck is not seen in all living species at a concurrent point in time. This would be essential evidence for a worldwide flood that killed all but two of every "kind."
The great flood laid down numerous and massive layers of sediment in a relatively short time.
There is no evidence of this on the sea floors. A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] According to them, a worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
You have also not addressed why fossils are "sorted" in such a precise order all over the world. They are not mixed together in one thick stratum of sedimentary rock. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
Why are no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata? If, at the time of the flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils? Didn't they all die toegther?
How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
Beaches.
Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]
How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood? They are also found within the mountains that you say are such good evidence for the flood.
Also, the "rocks" that you speak of are younger than some of the antiquated "scientific" assumptions would say they are.
Are you referring to radioisotope dating? If so, how is it in error? If not, explain what you are talking about please?
There is much evidence for this, but some can be found here:
Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks
For the nth time, I do not rebut entire videos or websites. I have explained my reasons for this a number of times. Buddika's 300 creationist lies index -- have you been there yet? She's already gone to the trouble of pointing out all the errors in Hovind's claims anyway. We are discussing with each other here and responding to what each person says.
You still have not told me how old you think the earth is. You say it's older than 6000 years but I see a lot of evidence that you don't believe it's billions of years old either.
