You can believe that evidence exists for anything you choose, but that doesn't make it actually exist.
I'll admit, I look at the evidence and BELIVE it to be so.
Yes, this is obviously your method. Believing what you want to believe, instead of employing objective methods to determine which conclusions actually match the totality of the evidence and which don't. Try this method on the evidence and your beliefs and see how they hold up. Actually, no need, thousands of people before you have done so, and the conclusion is overwhelming: There was no global flood. Or if there was, someone has done an *awful* lot of "cleanup" to hide all evidence of its occurrence, and I don't know why any such someone would want to deceive people like that.
The Salt Lake, Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, all the oceans, almost every culture speaks of a flood...
...none of which indicates that there was a global flood. Yes, there are lakes and rivers and canyons. These exist just fine without a global flood. And "almost every culture speaks of a flood" because almost every culture has *had* floods. Floods occur almost everywhere at one time or another, especially since people tend to choose sites for settlements/villages/cities which are near rivers/lakes/oceans. None of this provides evidenciary support for a global flood, especially since there are countless bodies of evidence, along multiple lines, which *rule out* the occurrence of a global flood of Biblical proportions.
Plus the eye witness accounts in the bible. (There I admitted it!)
There are no "eyewitness accounts" of the Flood in the Bible. There is a third-person account, which was committed to paper who-knows-how-long after whatever original event(s) might have inspired the original tale. Tales tend to grow in the telling, as they pass orally from person to person, over large periods of time.
LOL!! That's been my whole argument against parading evolution as fact...Gee Wiz am I in a twightlight zone or parallel universe? obviously I must be with you cult, zealotist evo's.