100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood

You are leaving out some critical things. First, as far as energy and the improbability of the Ark's survival, we see God directly intervening in the story and so it would be quite easy for that to occur.The second area, more fruitful to discuss, is whether the Flood would leave evidence in the earth and whether we see that, but to suggest there wasn't enough water or that it couldn't happen is a poor approach because we are dealing with God. So if you are going to challenge the story, you must do so accepting it first and then seeing if the story fits. Merely insisting God cannot be an agent doesn't work. Heck, Noah didn't even gather the animals, nor control them.I don't know if Noah's Flood, so to speak, was regional or global. I am not certain the text tells us, but I think YECs attempt to discuss the evidence of the geologic column in the context of the Flood is admirable. I see problems with their analysis, but equally see problems with evo analysis. Certainly, we do see at times whole herds or groups of creatures seemingly buried together.So for me, I remain unconvinced it was a global flood, but unconvinced of evo hypotheses as well.

Who said that miracles are unexplainable?Moreover, all I was doing is correcting the false premise that somehow a story with God as an active agent cannot be considered on it's face and somehow must be true without God as an active agent. Quite simply, that is an absurd fallacy which attempts to win the argument by definition rather than facts.As far as science education, it's pretty clear the evidence is in favor of the existence of a Creator. Seems as if you believe we must disbelieve the evidence if it leads to acceptance of a Creator.