Do you believe all the plants survived under water all that time?
No. We have fossils of plants which apparently didn't survive.
So how did all those plants survive almost a year underwater? Apparently they did survive because they are still here. Did Noah take all the species of plants too?
Do you believe that Noah only took limited numbers of animals on board, managed to cater to all their specific needs during that time, and that the animals then hyper-evolved once they got off the ark?
Not sure what you mean here. I believe the history included in Genesis is accurate, and animals produced offspring after their kinds just as they have always done.
This is a nice general statement but it doesn't explain much without some accompanying detail.
Does "producing offspring after their kinds" mean that the species existing today are the same as the species that walked off the ark?
If so:
1. How did the marsupials of Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania get back to those places? Same for New World animals.
2. Why did they only go there and not anywhere else? We know this because no fossils or remains of those animals have been found anywhere else.
3. What kept the other species of animals, like cats, from going to Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania? Cats have caused much trouble for the indigenous populations of birds since man brought house cats to those places.
If not:
1. Then some evolution is required to result in the species we see today. What is the mechanism incorporated by the biology in each kind that limits the amount of change in the genetics of the daughter populations?
The problem with your blanket statement is that, without detail, it's kind of like telling a doctor that you are sick but refusing to provide him with symptoms. Basically, it is a useless statement.
I don't have any doubt that an uncountable amount of questions can be produced. Experience has made me skeptical about the quality of questions about the history of the flood. As it's mandatory for even the OEC's to demonstrate a flaw in the history, one might expect someone should have come up with one or two rock-solid objections.
Perhaps you can provide a detailed evaluation of my questions above and tell us why they are of low quality. Accusations are your forte`. It's the supportive evidence for your accusations which seems to be in short supply.
