>So this is, at best, an argument that scientific models are incomplete (which no one would disagree with) but not that scientific models are invalid, or that the supernatural is real.

One could imagine God parting a sea with scientific mechanisms we know nothing about.

> Claims alone don't prove anything

You can be convicted for murder "beyond a reasonable doubt" on claims alone.

>First, demonstrate that two dimensional people exist, otherwise it's a nonsense question.

Okay, I respect that. Thought of a better one later.

How would you explain what it means to be human to an ant? How would you get it to understand thermodynamics or whatever?

I dunno, it just seems like your overall thrust here is that humanity came out of the ooze through natural selection with everything that it needs to understand the mysteries of the universe. If we cannot see, touch, taste, smell, hear, or think it, either directly or through our instruments, it is impossible, and therefore it cannot happen.

> They were literally arguing that the fact that these claims were written in the Bible was evidence of their veracity.

If you're referring to my post, that is not what I argued. I argued that a claim of supernatural events could not be dismissed as "cannot have happened", but must be evaluated on the quality of the evidence for that event.

I did not apply that to events in the Bible, but that is how claims of supernatural events in the Bible must be evaluated. Sure, they're eyewitness claims. All history from that era is eyewitness or derived from it, or archaeology or derived from it. The point is to not say "can't have happened", but rather to actually evaluate how good the evidence is for any claim.