Sorry, but scientifically speaking, there is no controversy, and there are not two sides to consider.
There is only scientific evidence and theory on the one side, and any number of non-scientific assertions -- mostly religion based -- which by scientific rule cannot be considered, except as coincidence may suggest correlations.
As I said before, the scientific evidence is chock-full of regional and world-wide catastrophes, from asteroid strikes to volcanic eruptions to outburst floods.
But none matches precisely the Bible's Noah story, and any "scholars" who claim otherwise are simply not scientific.
Indeed, I would ask you again to consider that the point of Noah's story is to show God's Promise that no such flood will ever happen again.
So think about this: does not science prove that God's Promise can be relied on?
In that sense doesn't science, once again, confirm the Bible?
;-)
I’m trying to get a handle on this arrangement that says before you can discount the story of Noah you must first disprove the existence of God, but it’s okay do discount any other theory simply because it sounds implausible.
“Sorry, but scientifically speaking, there is no controversy, and there are not two sides to consider.”
This is exactly what they used to say about “global warming” before they saw it wasn’t working and switched the name to “climate change.”
Again, look at Walt Brown’s “In the Beginning.”