I didn't say God built the Ark by hand. I said you bring in God as the cause of something everytime you run into a brick wall. Maybe that's what you don't want to hear.
So when the dove came back, Noah rammed the Ark into a mountain and waited for the water to recede so all the animals could walk down the gangplank two by two. How did he know where to guide the Ark to where the water level was low enough so that when the water receded there would be level land? Not every animal has the agility of a cat or mountain goat. They would get killed on the way down wouldn't they?
That would be a real problem for a scientist to figure out, but for Creationists it's not a problem at all. Can't figure it out? Just say God did it. HE figured it out and told Noah. You ought to see a movie made by Kevin Costner(sp?) called "WaterWorld" (I think). (You could probably rent it.) See for yourself what it looks like when everywhere, as far as the eye can see, there is only water. If you were on his ship or the Ark, with only water around from horizon to horizon, and the only dove was the one on your ship, how would you know where to sail without any visible landmarks? If you sent one dove out and it didn't come back, then the other one couldn't reproduce--now there's a real scientific problem to solve.
But for the Creationist you just have to bring your theory of God out of your box and say since God has many powers, telling the dove to fly back before it went out too far is just one of his powers. Problem solved. Except first you have to prove there is a God, before you can use that argument, which you haven't done.
You said that nothing rotted. Why? Because you said so?
And what about the bacteria? Bacteria were here on earth before Noah ever got on the scene. How did those animals live off putrid, mangy, smelly vegetation without getting food poisoning after they left the Ark? You didn't answer that either.
I have seen how trees, bushes, flowers react just when there is TOO MUCH PLAIN WATER.
They rot. And there isn't any bringing them back. Salt water kills and destroys everything. There is an imbalance between the stuff inside the pant cells and the outer environment. The environment was changed from air to salt water. I'm assuming the Bible said that the oceans rose and there is archeological evidence for this. The salt comes in and water leaves the plant cells. Dehydration. Dead plants for plant eaters. Leaving slim pickings for the hundreds of Ark animals even though they may have been small as you say. How come they all didn't die after eating all that salt (in their food)?
Just because seaweed is vegetation that survives underwater does not mean most of land plants and trees would survive after being under water, salty or not, for 1 year. If you have posted studies on this elsewhere, it is not in your post above. Do you have any interesting vegetation studies of your own? I don't know if another explaination was posted on this and I'm curious what yours is.
There is the scientific problem that if the food the animals ate is gone while they continued to eat their same food on the Ark, how did they suddenly evolve into being able to find, eat and metabolize foreign food when they left the Ark? It would have killed all of them since there was only 2 of each.
Small changes in the quality of food (like a pesticide) kills off massive amounts of species like butterflies or birds leaving only a few small groups of one type, only individuals in other groups and wiping out other subgroups completely. So how could every single group of 2 animals survive the poisoning of every single food they ate? Could you?
There isn't any time to reproduce and develop progeny resistant to that poison. There isn't any time for the new progeny to evolve to seek out the new food and be able to use it metabolically (in the body). Without the adult animal to provide for its young, survival is not possible because the young do not know how to hunt and feed. And yet only 2 were needed for that species to survive despite impossible odds? Ha,ha that's funny. Why don't you quote the statistics now and see how huge that number would be?
How could you answer in 5 sentences (your post above) questions I've taken about 10 paragraphs to explain? Why aren't all these questions included in your answer which was simply that there wasn't any rotten vegetation because it survives under water. Why don't these omissions bother you?
Is it because you consider these omissions too small? If it was a big omission you would bring in God who could make it possible for the animals to get out of the Ark where there was plenty of fresh, green grass and the animals'regular food for them to eat. Problem solved. Creationists create facts out of thin air (like God) rather than study empirical facts that exist. That involves too much hard work or is not their kind of work.
Creationists who laugh at the idea that man decended from ape and that ape is still here has a rudimentary understanding of the theory of evolution. Although I know you can work a vending machine, it's a wonder you understand it. You put the quarter in the machine and pull the knob or push the button which changes the quarter into a candy bar, yet the quarter is still there. Is it?
And changing a regular watch into a Rolex by evolution, I'd like to know what you would set up to test that.