Literal belief in the flood story

[RobbyPants]

and who knows maybe they did kill some animals that were on the ark, those that God desired to go into extinction and feed the wolves, there's nothing wrong with my biology nor my population mechanics.

Doubtful. God explicitly told Noah to bring the animals on the ark specifically to save the species from the flood.

Genesis 7:1-3

1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

(Emphasis mine)

You ask for evidence, yet you haven't given one scientific fact to discredit what I've stated.

It's because you're asserting baseless crap and demanding I prove it wrong. What you're doing is failing at induction. You take a small bit of evicence which applies to a certain population in a certain situation, and you expand it to say that maybe it would have worked for every surviving species of the ark, because you say so. This is no different than me noting that I am capable of growing a beard, therefore all men must be capable of growing beards.

But, if you insist:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html


Now, I think it's fair that you provide evidence for your claims. After I said the flesh would have rotten off the bones, you told me that the animals can survive by eating marrow. Your citation was to call me a "city boy".

I can only find one animal that specializes in eating bone marrow, yet you're insisting that every animal can do it. Also, how long does bone marrow last? Does it take longer to decompose than the rest of the flesh?

As for finding the leaf, I answered that possibility in a earlier post, I'll state it again, why did the dove have to go in the direction of the tree the first time out. The scripture doesn't say the dove lit on anything to get the leaf, what makes you think the dove couldn't hover at the very small tree and pull the leaf from the tree. Have you ever watched a dove city boy, they are able to hover with great skill.

So... the trees were growing under water now? I thought you said earlier that they didn't grow under water. Which is it? In order for your "doves don't hover, city boy!" argument to hold, you have to assert that trees were growing under water so that the branches weren't available for doves to land on them, and that in 47 days, they'd be large enough to sustain herbivores.

Weird.

After the dove returned with the leaf the scriptures say it took 1 month and 17 days for the land to become dry, it was at this time that God told Noah to release the animals not when the dove returned with the leaf. Want to take a guess at why, no, I thought so, could it have been to muddy and silty for the animals at the time of the doves return with the leaf.

Did you mean "too" muddy and silty? So... now we go from at day X + 7 that the tree finally had a branch for the dove to land on to at day X + 7 that the waters are completely abated, yet it's too muddy and silty.

You really need to make up your mind. Come up with a single, consistent story that holds true to what Genesis says, and we can discuss whether or not it's scientifically possible, or whether or not God would have had to intervene. As it stands, you are shifting the goal posts left and right to try to maintain a "scientifically accurate" version of the flood as I poke holes in your earlier musings.