Greg is right, the story of the Ark is not a demonstration of man's boat building prowess or taxonomy or logistics; it is the story of God's ability to save and preserve a remnant. It is one more time in history where God displays His great and terrible glory, his justice and mercy, his wrath and his love. The means by which he did it are unimportant except that if scripture says "This is how it was done" then that is how it was done.
Can the scientist give us a better source of truth than God's Word, can the philosopher give us a better starting place than God's revelation? No, they have proven that they cannot. They will both continue to reach ever changing conclusions based on their defiant presupposition that "There is no God" and "we live in a strictly material universe."
As has been quoted countless times, Rom 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools...."
So a man like Robert Moore may appear to be using reason and contemplation (for he is created in the image of God), yet his presuppositions are faulty and have skewed his premise so greatly that the rest of his argument is foolish.
The evidence is the same for the theist and the skeptic, it is only there starting point that is different. This is not a question of science vs bible, this is a question of what forms the basis for truth.
Anyway, that's my epistemological take on the topic.
