How did Noah's Ark flood not melt any snow on Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole and everywhere in between?

The Flood covered the Earth. The North an South Poles froze with the floral and fauna being encased in ice. Before the last ice age all of Alaska was tropical. It is the life cycle of the Earth that occurs about every 26,000 years. First stage is global warming. Due to mankind polluting the Earth, global warming is accelerating. The North an South Poles are about to flip. Then comes the new ice age. Many will die. Only those who live underground will survive the coming iceage.

The polar ice caps are made of ice. Ice floats

The flora and the fauna were buried under the mudflows and became fossilized during the flood.

What do you think? 'Washed away' means they didn't exist anymore? No... we have all the evidence we need for the flood: fossils EVERYWHERE.

As far as the glaciers go... the world used to be, for the most part, sub-tropical.... there was no snow pre-flood. The glaciers ARE the remnants of the floodwaters that were frozen as the waters receded and the earth's orbit changed.

I met the Lord when I was 42. Up until that time I believed all the garbage they fed us in school too.

But I knew that God had created everything and could not reconcile the two, so I yelled out... "What about the dinosaurs?!!?"

To answer that question He patiently took me on a year and a half journey - using secular science - to show me truth. The following is just a snapshot of what I learned. What I know about the creation goes very, very deep and can never be changed.  

The word 'dinosaur' came from two Greek words that mean 'terrible lizard'... a word made up in the 1800s to describe reptile fossils.  

Under the forces of EXTREME PRESSURE everything that was engulfed in mud during the world-wide flood turned into stone. 

For about a year and a half silica (mostly) permiated plant and animal tissue. The mud also became stone as it compressed under the weight of billions of tons of water. 

Stone cannot be dated.  

When a fish or an animal dies it rots, turns to dust or gets eaten... it does not turn into a fossil. Every fossil in the world is the result of the flood. Period. 

Before the flood everything lived ten times longer - that's why tusks, antlers, fangs, trees and reptiles grew huge. I used to work with reptiles before I met Jesus.... among many things I learned about them was that they NEVER stop growing as long as they live.  

Pre-flood the air had 50% more oxygen in it. Like a hyperbaric chamber, everything lived longer because of the air quality. We know this because we have air samples from before the flood; extracted from bubbles trapped in fossilized sap (amber).  Adam lived until he was 930. Noah was 600 when he built the Ark (Google Noah's Ark Turkey - a tourist attraction since the 1970's A.D.). 

Believing in lies about evolution makes you guilty of making God out to be a liar. This is spiritual treason.   

You've heard of bacteria 'evolving'? No such thing: simply, the hardier bacteria were never killed off by the antibiotic in the first place. The weaker bacteria were. All that's left is 'resistant' bacteria. They were never subject to antibiotics to begin with. They never 'evolved'. 

PS. If God wants to raise children for Abraham from the stones He can do it. He doesn't need any of us. He can change what is in the blink of an eye.... He doesn't need millenia.

they never mention where they got all the seeds for the plants...a global flood would turn earth into one big mud ball devoid of all plants,trees,grass...i think they mentioned noah grew grapes so he could get drunk and be angry drunk didnt he curse his sons for covering up his naked body?.....but even then how would he have grown anything due to the soil being all messed up?

Noah flood hade take place in the middle east too far from the icy erea....

I should preface this by saying I don't believe in the flood story, as described in the Bible. But...

Bear in mind "global" would have its limitations, per any region/culture's understanding of "global"; the "known world" really didn't include all that much of the world. As ice sheets from the last Ice Age receded, parts of the world were underwater. For example:

* Roughly 8-6,000 years ago, the Sahara went from tropical to fertile grassland, as ice sheets melted and the monsoon cycle shifted, until finally (again) becoming desert (it was desert at the end of the last Ice Age, then shifted, then shifted back). Periods of flooding were prevalent in that period - nothing covering the entire globe, but still flooding beyond what we tend to see today (and today we see floods where regions within a couple miles of a major drainage point - a river - are effectively underwater), with Saharan floodplains being underwater - seasonally - for good portions of that.

* Roughly 8-14,000 years ago, much of the central US was underwater surrounding what's now the Mississippi, caused by drainage from Lake Agassiz, which itself was fed by glacial meltwater (as glaciers melted, the lake overflowed and flooded much of what's now the central US, also contributing to the formation of the Great Lakes). Likewise, the region surrounding the Columbia River in the Western US was also underwater. These floods - primarily via Lake Agassiz - caused sea levels to rise up to 9 feet in a relatively short span of time.

With those glacial icemelts contributing to a rise in sea level, weather patterns were also extremely different, with a long period of heavy rain (far longer than 40 days), and the shifted monsoon cycle that - again - saw places like the Sahara become fertile regions covered in tropical vegetation.

Point being: the Earth's climate is in a constant state of flux (to note: this doesn't negate arguments about global warming, particularly as it affects the Anthropocene) and always has been. Today's climate is not like that of thousands of years ago, which wasn't like the climate of thousands of years before, which wasn't like the climate of hundreds of thousands of years before, which wasn't like the climate of millions of years before. Assuming Earth's climate and topography were identical at any previous point is prehistory is a flawed argument. Also, since much of the flooding was BECAUSE of glacial icemelt, I mean... yeah. The poles haven't always been exactly as they are now, either. With the Ice Age, there was more ice/snow/glacial region than there is now (and obviously as that melted, the water had to go somewhere, which would ultimately change weather patterns) - the glacial region at the poles was significantly larger than today.

It's entirely possible that the Biblical story of the great flood - or any other folklore of flooding throughout the world (and virtually every culture has such a story) - was, thousands of years later, reinterpreted (through folklore and tradition) to become the depiction of the great flood that we see in this mythologies. The fact is: the world did flood. Not all of it, but some fairly large portions of it that are now dry and populated, and over the course of a few thousand years at the end of the Ice Age that not only flooded many currently (and then) populated areas, but also changed weather patterns so drastically that areas that were previously desert (like the Sahara) became tropical, monsoon-drenched regions of heavy rain. It makes sense that - which would surely be soon as catastrophic by the people already living in those regions - would pass down through folklore and tradition, and eventually be reinterpreted in religious text (which itself is a product of folklore and oral tradition).

Anyway... such a flood wouldn't melt the snow because, well... the snow (or, ice mostly) melting is what caused the floods. But it is documented that many now-populated regions were flooded, it's documented that there was a dramatic rise in sea level, etc... It makes sense that a culture that only knew of the world in, say, the Saharan region would see that flooding as global, because to them it was. And it also makes sense that, after thousands of years of the story being retold to each new generation, it would become a bit exaggerated and take on a symbolic meaning (I mean, that's what happens... duh?).

Today, some may scoff at people from thousands of years ago for not knowing the totality of the globe, which is a ridiculous misunderstanding of the very nature of discovery (that is, it's gradual and the result of constant progress). In a few thousand years, assuming our species hasn't killed itself, I'm sure people will be laughing at our archaic "knowledge" and how we were dumb for not having charted - in detail - the universe beyond our planet/solar system. Does the fact that people in the future will know more mean we currently know nothing, complete with archaic science and a worldview not extending beyond superstition? No. It means that very course of discovery and progress being what it is will continue to build on what we already know (and meanwhile, technologies we now see as modern will become archaic and forgotten by all but scholars, forgotten/unknown to most as new topical information fills their perspective).

Not all the continents are mentioned in the Bible. So God must have added on to the Earth later on. Places like Australia and North America are like a sun room or a family room that he built on later. South America could be like adding a mud room. The cold top and bottom were like a root cellar or a deck that God put on later.

I'd be impressed to find out the authors of that fairy tale even knew there was a north pole, let alone that there's snow there.

it probably stayed ice under water

Better proof that a GLOBAL flood is impossible: Not enough water exists in/on earth, in all states, combined, to flood it, even if all states became liquid immediately, and all came to the surface, immediately.

😁

But who gives a shyt about facts. Facts Schmacts..