Indeed, the absence of evidence of a global flood is the most damaging to such.
OTOH global Flood advocates argue that a) the language for the extent of the
Flood seems global "...all the high mountains under the entire heavens were
covered" (Gn 7:19); "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished ...and
all mankind." (Gn 7:22) ; b) there would be no need for an Ark if the Flood was
only local because the animals and men outside the extent of the Flood would
survive anyway.>>
Yet such a theory lacks 1) where did the water come from and where did it go 2) how come that there is no evidence of a global flood.
Stephen: Under this proposal, to those who insist that it was a local Flood, I will say
"You are right!" And to those who insist that it was a global Flood, I will say
"You are right!" That is, you are *both* right. It was *both* a local *and* a
global Flood!>>
Yes, the bible makes for such a great explanation of what really happened <g>
Stephen: This proposal, if true, would go a long way to answering all the intractable
problems of the Flood. There is no way to prove it, but it is the only model of
the Biblical Flood that I know that is consistent with *all* the facts.>>
What facts ? There are no facts other than a story, supporting a global flood. Why insists on something for which there is no evidence, mechanism ?