It makes sense that Noah fed the animals, of course. It doesn't make sense that he was
able to feed the animals, with only seven other people to help him do it, when there would undoubtedly have been far too many to make feeding them all a manageable proposition.
This is what we are talking about when we say that the Flood could not have happened. I am not asking for Genesis to include every tiny detail about the Flood. What I want to know is how you can take Genesis at its word when parts of the Flood story are so obviously ridiculous (such as the size of the Ark, the logistical problems of housing, feeding and exercising the animals and so forth.) Surely a non-literal interpretation is easier to reconcile with reality?
No, and I don't expect it to. But as I say, miracles are not an adequate explanation, because they do not rule anything out. An explanation is supposed to tell us why something is one way instead of any other way - a miracle cannot do this, because a miracle could conceivably have done anything. Appealing to miracles is never going to convince non-believers.
If you want to argue evidence, I have plenty.
Indeed. But interpreting the Flood myth as a parable can be consistent with reality, whereas a literal global Flood model cannot.