How about this. An archaeologist (me) says, based on 35 years of work in the western US, there is no evidence in the western US of a large-scale flood such as is claimed to have occurred some 4200-4300 years ago.
Don't quote the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington, as that is way to early for the biblical flood, way too localized, and pretty well understood. The global flood would have made that look like a leaky faucet.
I repeat, there is no evidence of a large-scale flood in the areas I have worked.
Another article: Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak
it boils down to dating....
to except a global flood, would be to abandon the explination that the fossil record (bulk anyway) represents a time line...what you think is "evidence" for evolution is ALTERNATLEY explained as evidence for a global flood,
in other words trying to proclaim "I don't see it" by your time line is counter productive, any one excepting the global flood, would not except your timeline.
I am explaining the position not trying to convince you.
A few weeks ago I read an article in the newspaper about a new theory that a large asteroid hitting the ocean millions of years ago (or maybe it hit in the eastern shore of maryland, now that I think about it), anyway it caused a tsunami that supposedly topped the appalachian mountains.
I'm thinking that, if true, that should leave some sort of flood evidence.
I remember being down in Atlanta and seeing a cut-through which they had as an exhibit, which showed fossils of sea life. They happily explained how this proved evolution, and how this part of the world must have been under sea level and then it "thrust up" giving evidence of rapid sedimentation and aquatic fossils hundreds of feet above sea level. Couldn't have been a world-wide flood, nope, not a chance.....