What I am saying is that the ark believers are starting with their conclusion (there was an ark) and then filling in the details with a bunch of "maybe", "perhaps" and "what if" types of thinking rather than offering any solid proof to try to explain away the enormous holes in the story.
Scientists gather facts and come to a conclusion based on those facts, you can't do it the other way.
Well, that's not making things up, it's just two different worldviews. Christianity is a revelation faith. It presumes there is a God who can perform miracles and who has revealed Truth to us through His Word. No one has to believe that, it's just that many of us do. Anything God might do would violate the rules of science.
I can understand someone saying they don't believe in God and thus don't believe the Noah story. What I find odd is when people say they do believe in the God of The Bible, but don't believe the Noah story because it wouldn't be scientifically possible for God to engineer it. If you follow that line of reasoning, it voids everything that makes God who He is. Virgin births are impossible according to science. So are all of Christ's miracles, including His resurrection. Do you believe Christ rose from the dead? If so, how is that something God could pull off, while being unable to pull off the flood?
horse pucky
Even Einstein admitted to it - because he didn't like where his research evidence was leading him - away from his theory.
Scientists have an idea - a theory - in their head to start with and go from there. Some will follow the evidence that present itself, others will bend the evidence to fit what they were hoping to prove or disprove - point: the recent admission of the scientist who now admits he fudged his stem-cell research