That's nice did that happen over 5000 years?
BTW, what did the animals eat after they ark landed? Carnivores needed meat and there was none, herbivores needed plants and there was none. No matter where the ark landed in any scenario you make up, the floods destroyed all the plant life and the surviving animals had nothing to eat.
And since it was a world wide flood, why wasn't there banana plants all over the world until man planted them? Same goes for corn, rice, and any number of crops. Where is the fossil data of marsupials on any other continent other than Australia? Did the kangaroo just learn how to swim back to Australia?
Admit it, its a fable. And every time you attempt to bend logic just makes your story more laughable.
If you're looking at the flood story from the Bible, it
says that the the animals which were destroyed were those
that had the "breath of life"...it didn't talk about all
the fishes, or plants being destroyed.
As far as when the land masses were altered, I don't know.
I do know that after the Mount Saint Helen blast occured
in 1980, there was a small canyon that was formed complete
with sedimentary layers, in a period of months to years
post the eruption. It is in National Geographic magazine.
It would be an interesting study to see what fossils are
in those geological structures, or how radiometric
dating dates those structures...I would guess that a major
shift in the land masses would cause lots of destruction and
erasure of its pre-cataclysmic state, especially if it occured quickly. No?
You really must be more careful with your assumptions.
You say that carnivores must eat meat, and there was none.
How do you know that meat provisions were not kept on the Ark,
(assuming it existed)?
I am curious to know why you thought that no meat was
available. (especially after a flood which killed many,
many animals)