From my original post: "And yes, I am talking about unique species here- each with a particular genotype, not variations within one species. Each species is a separate animal."
You are talking about variations within a singular species. All dogs from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane are part of one species- Canis familiaris.
Similarly, the races of human beings are just variations within the species homo sapiens.
I am talking about anywhere from 30- 100 million SPECIES on earth. Not variation within a species, but an entirely different animal (species).
Creationists disregard macro-evolution which necessitates that every animal of a particular kind (species) had to have been singularly created.
Thus, you have somewhere between 30-100 million species, which translates into 60-200 million creatures (by twos, right) fitting into a 450 foot long ancient wooden boat.
You left out the room needed for food for forty days and nights. Plus, many animals were supposed to have been taken in greater quantities than just two per species. There was also a wee logistical problem of gathering up all those species from around the globe, much of which had not been discovered and/or was not accessible. Would have required one heck of an aquarium . . . well, actually two aquariums (one salt water, one fresh) somewhere.
Now, while I don't know about any "shittim" wood and won't pull out the ol' "miracle" card, I would guess that it would have surely taken something akin to a miracle to dispose of all that animal, insect and human "shittum". Good thing there was only a couple of flies from each species, huh? But surely could have used a few extra dung beetles . . .
Hey - what about all the critters that ate or damaged wood?
Irreverently,
DQ
"There is no need for twisting and turning to try and prove something unprovable, irrational and illogical."
Yeah, you could call it mental gymnastics. Fundamentalist christians have to go through some serious psychological contortions to try make their wholly irrational ideas seem tenable and cohesive. They are trying to quiet their cognitive dissonance by trying to rationalize the irrational.
If Moses only saved the animals around him that he and his family needed to survive and the earth was covered entirely by water by whatever means, how then did all the other millions of species survive?
For that matter, why would a perfect God who could do whatever he wished not get it right to begin with and have to wipe the slate clean and start all over again?
Too many things don't make sense when you try to take too literal of an interpretation of the often changed and edited Bible. It appears the message you are passing on from Moreless in (self-imposed) exile is saying as much.
And, hey, no fair pulling out the old "Who are we to question God" argument. That is akin to the ol' "Miracle card".
Whatever may or may not have happened regarding the big flood, it sure is one rife for argument between literalists and questioners. But it surely is hard to have a discussion or debate when one side trys to look at logic and science and the other just says "cause the Bible says so" or "God works in mysterious ways" and the like.
The Noah's ark scenario also lends itself to a bit of humor too. Given the futility of debate between the two sides, I vote for the humor.