I've heard that, but it's just as plausable as any ape to man theory or or fish putting their shoes on and walking right out of the ocean.
It's funny what evolution fail to realize about the flood that is factual. Almost every culture on earth has a story about one! So the theory of a global flood MUST hold just as much water as any evolutionary theory. ;-)
"Great Moments in Evolution" by Gary Larson.
Anybody got this one. I haven't been able to find it yet.
OK, here is a flood story for you.
I am an archaeologist with 35 years of experience in the western US. I have been in a lot of sites all over the west, but there is no evidence for a "global flood."
Rather, there is evidence for continuity--uninterrupted--of Native American populations for thousands of years.
A flood of this magnitude would be noticed! We have a "little" flood in eastern Washington, resulting in the Channeled Scablands, but that's just a leaky faucet compared with the "global flood." And we can see it just fine-we can define its boundaries, time periods, and cause. The global flood should have been much easier to find.
On the other hand, we have residential sites with continuous occupation on both sides of the dates suggested for the flood--continuous faunal and floral evidence, continuous population and cultural development, and continuous mtDNA on both sides of the dates generally given for the flood.
If you are privy to some evidence to the contrary, please share it.
If it is your belief you are relying on, fine. But don't confuse your belief with scientific evidence.
Almost every culture on Earth had their start by a river, lake, sea or ocean. All of these locations suffer from local floods.
For your hypothesis to hold any water at all, you need to show that all of these stories are referring to the same time period. You would also have to explain why there are areas of the earth that show no evidence of flooding.