whereru, "Personally I find it amazing that some still believe in the literal interpretation of the flood"
Yet you believe in evolution,but cop out and say you dont know what the origin of life is and wont,but yet mock anyone who does
"To cover the mountains would require the sea level to rise by more that 8,000 metres. To be conservative let's call it a global rise of 4,000 metres to take land into account and to consider that not all the highest peaks would have to be covered to wipe all animals"
Wrong,the windows of heaven were opened,and the fountains of the deep,the world and its land mass before the flood was an entirely different place to after the flood,the land masses joined and the sea didnt basically cover the whole world,you ASSUME the way things are now,are the way things have always been
http://youtu.be/F5t7setGSN4
'In order to flood the planet in 40 days would require an average of 100 metres of rain on every location of the planet for 40 days. That works out to be approx 2.7 inches for each and every minute on the entire globe for 40 days. The volume of water to fall would be more than twice the volume in the oceans."
Once again,an assumption,the world was covered by a water vapour canopy which filtered out radiation from space etc,this is why in many cultures beliefs there is said to have been a golden age where men had mighty intellect and lived to a much greater age because the world was a different world pre flood than it is now
http://youtu.be/AjheQjMwHJA
"Not only that, but where did all that water go after the flood? It could not run off into the oceans; they would have been full. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition."
The only ridiculous proposition,is your straw man question which you fashioned and then tore down,the oceans are the remnants of the flood,they wernt there before the flood
"The problem has been explained away by saying that only a pair of each kind (translated by some to be a pair of each family) was all that was needed."
Spot on,you answered your own question
"This doesn't consider the problems related to ensuring that each pair survives and breeds to produce healthy populations from a severely reduced gene pool for each saved species. There is no evidence that this has happened. Either way the story of current species being saved from the destruction of a worldwide flood is clearly a ridiculous proposition"
Yet when put in a similar way when reffering to evolution,all of a sudden its not ridiculous that a breeding pair evolved at the same time and were suxually mature at the same time and age?There is 148 flood stories throughout the ancient cultures,the fact of the matter is,you have been taught what to think,not how to think,you say there is no evidence,the fact is,you will only accept evidence that supports your bias and view,and that is clearly a ridiculous proposition like the dawkins quote at the end of your posts,anyone who quotes him,shows his/her intelligence
