The Biblical Flood account is historical

This kinda helps for my Rebuttal and my argument rebuttal...1R. The Green River Formation is usually a creationist argument, due to the fact that fossil records cannot be trusted, because spread out through many layers of The Green River Formation and other such areas claimed to be 'millions of years old' are soft tissue samples.... Whats that you may ask? (probably not)Soft Tissue: body tissue except bone, teeth, nails, hair, and cartilage. "A new study showed that a “fossilized” lizard leg found in the formation is not made up of minerals, but instead still has the original skin and connective tissue" (ICR)What are the chances of soft tissue being found in an earth being only 4,400+ years old at least since the flood?decent...but for an earth where the fossils found in the rock date back 40+ million years uh yeah...about that..."Scientists have conducted experiments that track the decay rate of collagen protein. One team, led by origin of life researcher Jeffrey Bada, found that "internal hydrolysis [the decay of a molecule involving the splitting of water molecules] fragments the original protein," so that it spontaneously falls apart. They calculated that the collagen locked inside solid bone decays faster than the collagen embedded in seashells" and "A numerical estimate in a standard biochemistry textbook further demonstrates the erroneous nature of the "millions of years" age assignment for this mosasaur. The textbook states, "In the absence of a catalyst, the half-life for the hydrolysis of a typical peptide [short protein segment] at neutral pH is estimated to be between 10 and 1000 years." What this means is that after 1,000 years, one half of the original protein sample, if kept cool and dry, would be expected to have broken down. Then after another 1,000 years, half of that would also be gone. Eventually, none would be left" (Thomas).2R. Tree Rings? really? Here is why that theory doesn't work"Tree growth is sensitive to temperature. Consequently, tree-ring width and tree-ring density, both indicators of tree growth, serve as useful proxies for temperature. By measuring tree growth in ancient trees, scientists can reconstruct temperature records going back over 1000 years. Comparisons with direct temperature measurements back to 1880 show a high correlation with tree growth. However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960. At this point, while temperatures rise, tree-ring width shows a falling trend. This divergence between temperature and tree growth is called, imaginatively, the divergence problem" meaning that tree groth being based on temperature will most likely fluctuate and that trees are not a reliable piece of information.R3. There are always scientific problems with everything when certain data is unknown...In Genisis it speaks of there being multiple heavens and God putting an expanse of water over it and throughout the beggining of the bible people live for insaine amounts of time... s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" />What you are missing here is that earth might have had a cloak so to say of water surrounding the earth this would support the fact that dinosours can live on earth at all... In current atmosphiric conditions dinsours would die becouse their noses arn't any bigger than a horses in most cases if the earth was surrounded by such a veil, then conditions would make it so sustainable life would be much much more livable infact humans would have lived for hundreds of years and run miles on end without being tired. "Was every species on the ark? No! From chapters such as Leviticus 11, it is obvious that the created kind (min in Hebrew, in Genesis 1:11–12, 21, 24–25) was a much broader category than the modern term of classification, species. Current baraminological2 research suggests that the created kind most closely corresponded to the familylevel in current taxonomy. However, to be conservative in this study, the genus was set as equivalent to the original created kind. As for the clean animals that entered the ark in seven pairs, this added a modest number of additional animals, notably bovids (cow-like mammals) and cervids (deer-like mammals). Under these conservative assumptions, there were no more than 16,000 land animals and birds on the ark. According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight. It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth (Genesis 7:1–3). Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old. Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space" (Woodmorappe). What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same. s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Ark Cross Section" />What Did Noah and His Family Do with the Animal Waste? s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Animal Enclosures" width="350" /> Figure 4. Animal enclosures with sloped, self-cleaning floors, emptying into a manure gutter or pit. As much as 12 U.S. tons (11 m. tons) of animal waste may have been produced daily. The key to keeping the enclosures clean was to avoid the need for Noah and his family to do the work. The right systems could also prevent the need to change animal bedding. Noah could have accomplished this in several ways. One possibility would be to allow the waste to accumulate below the animals, much as we see in rustic henhouses. In this regard, there could have been slatted floors, and animals could have trampled their waste into the pits below. Small animals, such as birds, could have multiple levels in their enclosures, and waste could have simply accumulated at the bottom of each. The danger of toxic or explosive manure gases, such as methane, would be alleviated by the constant movement of the ark, which would have allowed manure gases to be constantly released. Second, methane, which is half the density of air, would quickly find its way out of the window of the ark. There is no reason to believe that the levels of these gases within the ark would have remotely approached hazardous levels. Alternatively, sloped floors in animal enclosures would have allowed the waste to flow into large central gutters and then into collection pits, allowing gravity to do most of the work. Noah’s family could have then dumped this overboard without an excessive expenditure of manpower. The problem of manure odor may, at first thought, seem insurmountable. But we must remember that throughout most of human history, humans lived together with their farm animals. Barns, separate from human living quarters, are a relatively recent development.It always seems hard to believe but it is hardly impossible... I will leave scientific dating to laterLinks:http://creationrevolution.com...http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.icr.org...http://www.skepticalscience.com...https://answersingenesis.org...;