I agree with Coyote, that's just rubbish. Hasn't the guy who wrote that ever talked to anyone who's tried to keep a diverse collection of animals alive? And below decks on a ship as well?
I'd recommend a course of Gerald Durrell's books, he's both run a zoo and been responsible for the short-term (by which AiG mean over a year!) transport of animals on boats. They seem hopelessly naive about the whole thing. I mean, take this:
Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets.
My point is, there are puzzles scientists can't explain on occasion. They just assume they need to keep looking. I never seem to see them discard Evolutionary Theory or other theories when this occurs.
They do however discard problematic theories when presented with alternate theories without any problems. When Einstein explained the precession of Mercury, for example, they abandoned their quest to justify Newton with respect to that phenomenon. When quantum mechanics explained black-body spectra, no-one went on trying to explain them on the basis that energy was not quantized. The heliocentric solar system put an end to the addition of ever more epicycles to the geocentric system. So while it is true that scientists don't abandon an idea just because it has one or two little problems, they'll drop it like a hot brick in favor of an alternate theory which doesn't have any problems.
Now, scientists have a theory for why air-breathing organisms aren't dead which is superior to your problematic ideas about the Ark. Their theory is that there never was a global flood. This is superior to your notion in that it has no awkward problems to patch up and anomalies to explain; in that it is borne out by all the evidence; and in that it doesn't involve magic.
If you want to make like a scientist, you would adopt this superior theory, abandoning your previous hypothesis with a gladsome cry of: "Oh, I get it ... if Genesis 6-8 is completely wrong, that explains everything!" If you don't do that, then it would be more dignified, not to say less hypocritical, for you to cease to draw parallels between the behavior of scientists and your stubborn adherence to the fables you learned in Sunday School.