Was there a worldwide flood?

The story is of ONE mammoth. Where is your source for 1,000's frozen?There are bones found but very, very few frozen. It appears the number is about 40. Your number was 5 million wasn't it? That is one major thing (you would agree that 40 is not near 5 million right?) utterly wrong. (btw, only about 5 or so are nearly complete).You need to supply your source so it can be examined for accuracy. It is entirely possible that you have been lied to.

Once again: Please supply a reference to this. I think you will find that there aren't any dinosaur fossils on Everest.However, as noted above you still have to explain how the flood put any fossils there are up there. You also have to explain why they are the kind of fossils they are and not other kinds.You are being fed very bad information.

North Dakota winter perhaps? And your source that the fur isn't thick enough? And you explanation of the other indications of the climate at the time? Ice age remember?Please supply references and clear reasoning. Your AiG paste doesn't support flash freezing. The conditions described would take days or weeks to cool the earth. No "frozen while eating" nonsense.It also appears that AiG has decided that the Bible is missing a lot. It fails to mention anything of what they need to invent. I guess the God they believe in needs some help. Before you criticize modern science maybe you should find out something about it. You haven't heard of plate tectonics? Do you know what the nature of the fossils on tops of mountains are? (hint: they are NOT the clams you find on your beach today) If you look into these details you'll find that your flood hypothosis breaks down.

You were asked to explain the flood formation of the meanders. I don't see any such explanation in that paragraph. Did I miss it?

That isn't correct, I don't think, erosion rates don't necessarily double just because uplift rates do. In fact, I think erosion rates are very limited by particular things (rock hardness being one and the eroding mechanism being another). I'd guess rock hardness predominates but even if (for some reason) doubling the uplift doubled the amount of, say, water flowing down the mountain I don't think that would double the erosion. My reasoning goes; only the water in contact with the rock erodes it. If you have a much deeper layer of water than the turbulent contact zone then no additional depth will bring more erosive force against the rock.

While these are not primary sources they often do a very good journalist job of presenting good information in a digestible way. Of course, there is junk on there too but it is not to be totally ignored; just used as a jumping off point to find out more.You are neglecting the very real possibility that our source, Refpunk, has gotten this horridly wrong just like everything else he has posted.

Peg thinks what she read says it resembles modern man. It does not say that! It says that the wrist bones do. Someone misread it.

Why does it matter? How likely is it that it would?(actually I think there are a couple of places, depending on how you define "entire")