As usual, nothing concrete on offer here, just more remarks about how you refuse to engage with any evidence.
There is evidence for local catastrophic flooding in different places at different times. No evidence for a worldwide flood at any point. As others have mentioned here, you can look at the geological record and see evidence of climate change, wet and dry periods, fossilised raindrop and animal prints, corprolites, burrows that living creatures have made, varves, etc. Can you not see how clear it is to everyone here that your beliefs demand that you must simply ignore these things? Since when was ignoring reality a legitimate route to any truth?
It isn't difficult to superimpose patterns, particularly when one is allowed to take anything that does not match & claim it actually does match, or just turn an evogoggled eye to it.
Like I said: learn about dating methods. But you won't, because then you would come up against solid evidence for why rocks and fossils are dated the way they are, and this would not sit easily with your creationist beliefs.
I enjoy discussing the issues here, I learn a lot myself by it. But at the moment we simply seem to be stuck with denial after denial. Anyone can claim anything they want, without a shred of evidence to back it up. We may as well be debating about whether Santa Claus lives at the north pole, and you'd be telling us that it's true because you said so and because millions of people across the world believe in it too.
Don't try to confuse me. First you want me to ignore evidence then you don't. Make up your mind.
The sarcasm obviously passed you by. Seriously, I'd really like you to learn about dating methods. I'm not talking about chat-up lines either, just to clarify that as well. Then we can have the beginnings of an educated discussion.
I've "slandered" Woodmorappe? He wrote a book attempting to explain in minute detail how Noah and the ark was a historical event. I was having a look at his claims yesterday and taken as a whole, it's the most amusing thing I've read in quite some time. He thinks, for example, that the animals' urine could have drained out the bottom of the ark, despite the fact that the bottom of the ark would have been below sea level. I wonder why someone would think that writing stuff like this is a useful way to pass his time and that there's nothing better to be doing.
You omit the serious issue of Mrs. Noah spending so much time confined with three daughters-in-law. Yikes!
If you had looked into the feasibility problems of caring for so many different species of animals on the ark, you'd see that this would hardly be a concern, as they would be rushed off their feet 24/7 with feeding and watering them and shovelling poo. If you still think this is realistically possible, think about how many people a single zoo has to employ.
So are you going to attempt to answer even one of my questions? Can you? Don't you think that if Noah's ark is a true story, these issues ought to be considered? Did God not create brains for us to use?
