These threads are fascinating, frustrating and futile. It's like a car accident that you can't look away from. Because no matter what, even when backed into an inescapable corner, there's always the "goddidit by magic" clause.
It's just a question of how long it takes before it kicks in, because most of those who believe in a literal flood are still happy enough to use it at the very start to explain things such as how Noah procured all the animals needed, or how they all got back to their original habitats, etc. Yet they insist on trying to argue the feasability of actually building the ark, or having it be seaworthy rather than just say "god just changed the laws of physics for that instance".
On the surface, it can sometimes read like an actual discussion/debate, but since there is no way to believe the story is actually true without at least SOME divine interference, there's really no set line at which such interference negates the "truth" of the story.
One keeps trying to chip away at it thinking that surely there will be some point at which the theist's mind will open enough to acknowledge at least the possibility of a flaw in the narrative, but as long as there's that god clause, it's just not going to happen. Or, at least, hasn't in my experience.
And SW's premise that the world of the time could have been so different from the one we live in that Ararat could have been 5 feet tall for all we know is actually new to me. Are there actually people out there for whom this line of thinking makes any sense? Because that train of thought seems that it would lead to a whole NEW bunch of impossibilities to explain.