Literal belief in the flood story

[RobbyPants]

Your initial claim involves so called 'magic'. To initially claim 'magic' as a possibility then reject any concievable possibility is inconsistant.

You are entirely correct. It is possible that God could have "magically" prevented babies from being there. Granted, there is no mention of this, but it is possible. Now, one has to wonder how God kept the world baby-free before his judgment:

He rendered everyone sterile: It's possible, I suppose, but there's no evidence this happened. It also seems ridiculous, given

• He had Noah make a boat,
  
• Guided animals toward the boat,
  
• Magically made people sterile,
  
• Magically sustained and repopulated the planet after the flood...
  

...all so he could drown some people he was mad at. If he had the ability to precision-strike their testicles and ovaries, he could have just given them all heart attacks. The best case for this solution is "God is super inefficient and contrived". Pretty much like any bit of bronze-age mythology.

God removed their desire to have kids: Kills the free will defense, much like when he hardened Pharaoh's heart.

On one side of the coin if you read the judgments in the OT you'll notice that God often waits until the "fullness of sin" or for "sin to be complete." In other words He waits for the crimes to be great enough to warrant the punishment. On the other side of the coin it is written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is patient, not wanting any to perish. Noah was a preacher of righteousness for about 100 years as he called people to righteousness and told them how to escape the coming judgment. Mankind was forewarned then as they are now. No one listened then, who will listen today?

So he lets a known and preventable problem fester until it cannot be easily fixed? Holy crap! This does support my "YHWH is inefficient and contrived, like other bronze-age mythology" stance. A stitch in time saves nine, YHWH.

Also, whatever "warning" God was doing, was clearly ineffective, an as a future-telling god, he would have known it was ineffective. This makes it appear like he drown a bunch of people because he wanted to drown a bunch of people, and not because he was trying to fix any type of problem.

While I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary (burden of proof) and I wouldn't need Biblical support to show that you're using an either-or fallacy, only an example of a third option, I don't mind providing a defense. Actually there is Biblical support for there being no one younger than the age of accountability. The only families named in the account at the time of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives. So there are four married couples, and (after Noah and his wife had the three sons) there was not one child among them their entire married lives (pre-flood about 100 years). 100% of the named families had zero children for at least 100 years. While this is not conclusive proof that no other families had children it is the Biblical support for my claim you have asked for.

No. You asserted there were no children. You're going to have to prove it. Given that in any time we have been able to observe it, there have always been children living with the adults, I think it's reasonable to assume that is the default case. You're "Biblical support" is that a tiny sample size of the population (which was, per the story, not indicative of the rest of the population!) didn't have kids, therefore no one had kids. I'm calling sampling bias on your support.