Asked and answered a number of times on this thread.
Where did the water for the global flood come from and where did it go, and how are the scientific calculations on this subject "not scientific"?
The historic event as related in the Bible states that there was a Canopy above the atmosphere - possibly ice but water at the very least in one form or another as it references the waters above the heavens and the heavens are the sky or atmosphere. The Bible also tells of a cache' of water stored beneath the crust which broke open. After the flood, scripture says the see floor sunk in places and mountains were raised up. Afterward, only 3% of landmass was liveable, roughly which is the way it remains today. I find nothing in the story that isn't supportable in the fossil record.
With a canopy, ultraviolet light would be filtered. Oxygen levels were likely higher which is spoken to in samples of atmosphere captured in air bubbles in amber - showing upward of 35% oxygen. As far as I know, evolution can't account for this. Things are supposed to be getting better, not worse - which begs the question of why one finds such things as 60 foot cat tails (the plant) in the fossil record. They cannot and do not get that big on their own now; but, interestingly, saturating plants with an oxygen rich environment of 32%+ oxygen makes plants grow really big. It is also found that the affects of this on humans increases response of the body's defenses. Canopies are not unknown to the other planets, and I'd imagine if Mars follows suit with Earth, the place to find water there is below the crust. A way to test it here is to test water supplies beneath mountains for their saline level and compare it to modern oceanic levels. It's been done and the saline content is much higher under mountains and in underground stores found elsewhere - which should be no surprise to you if you have bothered to listen to any of your major opponents.
What exactly is a species, and how is science wrong in defining species?
Did science care what anyone else thought about this when they defined them originally. No. The reason you ask is to try and make a case that while Science's notion of it is flawed, nobody else has tried redefining it which isn't true. It is rejected on the basis that every creationist has a different answer. Which isn't entirely true. But to answer it directly, a species is a group of animals that under normal circumstances can interbreed. Example - dogs would include anything from Siberian Huskies to coyotes, wolves etc. Science has different defined species for different types of dogs if I'm not mistaken, yet they are all dogs and can interbreed. Cats cannot breed with dogs and are thusly a different species and always have been since they were created. Not difficult to understand. We just draw the boundaries in obvious places.
What is the biological barrier preventing variation from becoming speciation, and exactly how does this barrier function?
It's generally called DNA and RNA and the full system which governs cell reproduction. The system has multiple redundant backup systems to maintain integrity within a body and while mutations may exist within a creature, you don't observe individual mutations being passed on generationally to effect the population as a whole in any manner, to say nothing of a beneficial one. The barrier you seek you've already found and known about for some time. It's just inconvenient to dwell upon.
Does selection occur ever? Has it been observed? If so, where does the information come from that makes selection work?
Sure selection occurs. That's life - period. And absent morality, selection takes on some pretty grim forms. That doesn't do anything for your theory; so, I'm not real sure why you bother asking it when you know it doesn't.
How does the growth of a fertilized egg occur within the confines of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
The system has the capacity to put energy to use for the purposes of building itself up within the defined limits provided by DNA/RNA. Beyond that, it is fully subject to the law in that it proceeds toward an end - devolving and decaying over time till it's dust. It fulfills the expectation of the law by resorting to disorder ie dying at the end of a hopefully productive life. And I would again note that adding energy to a system is useless unless that system expects that energy and can put it to use. Absent that, the energy is destructive, not constructive.
Where exactly does it say that?
Afterward, only 3% of landmass was liveable, roughly which is the way it remains today.
Say what? Please provide a citation for this amazing claim.
I find nothing in the story that isn't supportable in the fossil record.
Uhh... For just a small starter list of problems, see Problems With A Global Flood, especially parts 6-10... Also The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood and The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water.
Oxygen levels were likely higher which is spoken to in samples of atmosphere captured in air bubbles in amber - showing upward of 35% oxygen.
Tens of millions of years ago...
As far as I know, evolution can't account for this. Things are supposed to be getting better, not worse - which begs the question of why one finds such things as 60 foot cat tails (the plant) in the fossil record. They cannot and do not get that big on their own now;
Absolutely none of that is in any way contradictory to evolution. What cartoon version of evolution are you using which leads you to erroneously think it is?
But to answer it directly, a species is a group of animals that under normal circumstances can interbreed. Example - dogs would include anything from Siberian Huskies to coyotes, wolves etc. Science has different defined species for different types of dogs if I'm not mistaken, yet they are all dogs and can interbreed.
So... Is it really your contention that all canids are actually the same species?
Cats cannot breed with dogs and are thusly a different species and always have been since they were created.
And cats are the same species? Were they all the same when they were created, and then diversified into today's cat family, or what?
Cheetahs have features of both the cat family, and the dog family. What then are they?
What about the basal carnivores in the fossil record -- which "species kind" do *they* belong to?
How about "kinds" where variety A can interbreed with B, and B can interbreed with C, but A cannot interbreed with C? Is that one "species" or two?
Which primates are the same "species" and which are different ones?
Some of the "horse kind" can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and others can't, which ones are actually the same "species" and which aren't?
Not difficult to understand.
*cough* Only when one is hugely unaware of the biological complexities one finds in the real world...
[What is the biological barrier preventing variation from becoming speciation, and exactly how does this barrier function?]
It's generally called DNA and RNA and the full system which governs cell reproduction.
...which is no real answer at all. Namedropping some terms from biology does not an answer make.
The system has multiple redundant backup systems to maintain integrity within a body
Non sequitur, that hardly answers the question.
and while mutations may exist within a creature, you don't observe individual mutations being passed on generationally to effect the population as a whole in any manner, to say nothing of a beneficial one.
ROFL!!!! Maybe *you* don't, but countless numbers of biologists have. Please name your source for your amazing claim...
The barrier you seek you've already found and known about for some time.
No, actually, he hasn't, and neither have biologists. If you could actually identify such a "barrier", you'd have a very good shot at winning the Nobel Prize. Go for it.
Now, please name the source you relied upon for your amazing claim.
[Does selection occur ever? Has it been observed? If so, where does the information come from that makes selection work?]
Sure selection occurs. That's life - period. And absent morality, selection takes on some pretty grim forms. That doesn't do anything for your theory; so, I'm not real sure why you bother asking it when you know it doesn't.
You sort of "forgot" to answer the second half of the question.
[How does the growth of a fertilized egg occur within the confines of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?]
The system has the capacity to put energy to use for the purposes of building itself up within the defined limits provided by DNA/RNA.
So you admit that increasing complexity is not actually "outlawed" by the laws of thermodynamics, when "the system has the capacity to put energy to use". Thanks for admitting that, since it demonstrates exactly what's wrong with the creationist claim that evolution somehow violates those laws. Evolution, being a byproduct of the processes of life, achieves increasing complexity via the same metabolic processes ("the capacity to put energy to use") which life uses.
Beyond that, it is fully subject to the law in that it proceeds toward an end - devolving and decaying over time till it's dust.
There is no such "law", sorry. Please name the source from which you "learned" such an amazing claim.
It fulfills the expectation of the law by resorting to disorder ie dying at the end of a hopefully productive life.
Yawn. This still has nothing to do with thermodynamics. And to burst your "it's the law" bubble, I'll point out that unicellular organisms are immortal (unless they go extinct entirely). They don't "resort to disorder and die" through senescence.
And I would again note that adding energy to a system is useless unless that system expects that energy and can put it to use.
Please define "use" and "useless" as you are using them in this context.
Absent that, the energy is destructive, not constructive.
Ditto for "destructive" and "constructive" -- is a river cutting a canyon "destructive" because it's eroding rock, or "constructive" because it's making a fancy canyon? Is this a "useless" or a "useful" application of energy added to the system?
And what exactly is supposed to be the relevance of this to the actual laws of thermodynamics (the real ones, I mean, not your made-up versions)?