Dear Christians: What does your god actually do?

[Godscreated]

---

 Surely you can't mean you do not understand what I was saying, let's go at it again. God gave man the permission to eat meat of some animals that were on the Ark. Man also eat vegetation, there were probably many nuts laying around, nuts will last for years. As far as eight people eating up the animals they were allowed to eat, why do you think God told them there would be seven pairs of those animals. Many animals reproduce at quite a good rate, and fish would have been abundant, not just for man but also for the animals who would need meat to eat along with vegetation. Many animals that eat meat also eat vegetation, seaweeds would have be in great supply, seaweed is a great source of food. Milk from sheep and goats would have supplied a great source of nutrition. There would have been fourteen supplying milk, eggs from birds like chickens would have supplied more eggs than they could eat and still have plenty of chicks, in a years time there would have been hundreds of chickens alone to eat and lay eggs which would have supplied most of there food needs until other animals had a chance to grow their populations. Chickens start laying eggs within six months of hatching. I have three chicken I got as chicks back in the spring, they are now laying more eggs than I and my pup can eat and these are not even a huge eggs producing breed. I have three others that very good producers and there are days those three will lay as many as nine eggs a day, what do you think fourteen would produce and in six months an abundance of chicks will have grown up and started laying. There would have been plenty for the people and some of the animals. Need I continue, sheep, goats and chickens would have supplied the eight with plenty until a good recovery was under way, plus the vegetation they would have, seems to me they would have eaten quite well.

GC

---

Somehow I doubt they ate better than the Egyptians, the Chinese, the early inhabitants of the Americas, or any of the other civilizations that seem not to have noticed the worldwide flood. Why are you so wedded to this particular story? There are Christians who don't think there was literally a worldwide flood, yet they continue to believe in Christ resurrected. If you were to acknowledge that it is a myth or a legend of a particular people of a particular time and place, would that invalidate your faith or cause you to consider the Bible, as a whole, suspect?

I'm not trying to play gotcha. I mean that as a serious question.

 This is what I believe, if any one thing is not true in the scriptures how am I to trust any other part. If the flood is false then how do I know that Christ isn't false. It has to be true from the beginning to the end, if any part is false then how do I determine what is real, or how could you. People who start reading the Bible and come to the conclusion that this part or that part isn't true, then they put doubt into the equation before they can find the truth through God, in other words a person stifles the Holy Spirit's conviction without being able to be lead to the truth. Why people do this is beyond me, it's like telling your math teacher he/she doesn't know what they are teaching simply because when the student first encounters the math they do not understand it so they reject it.
 You know I didn't say they were eating a king's meal, what I did do, was point out it was very possible for Noah and his family and the next generation or two to easily survive and not cause any extinction of any animal before the world could recover from the flood. I did this with only three animals and some vegetation, there are more possibilities to go with what I proposed, viable ones.

GC