Unless you are a geologist, and actually take a look at the record directly, rather than theorising about it from a PC terminal, never having stood at an exposure with a hammer in your hand in your life.
No way does the geological record make any sense whatsoever in terms of a global deluge, and this had been realised by before Darwin's voyage. If there was a global deluge in the last 5000 years (or even the last 50,000,000 years) the perpetrator of the watery genocide went to a great deal of trouble to hide all the evidence of it. (as well as fabricating a great deal of contradictory evidence, such as far more fossils in the geological column than can possibly have been alive at the time of the flood, unless the world was 100ft deep in writhing flesh and plantlife, multiple cross-cutting angular unconformities and intrusions, etc, etc, etc)
The worldwide presence of fossils, including some at the poles, is generally good evidence for a global flood. Former living creatures encased in sedimentary and volcanic deposits on a global scale. In fact, the evidence is stark. It only remains foggy, or contradictory, to those who are inclined for personal reasons to reject the biblical texts. The only thing one can do is scoff in disbelief. The physical evidence remains fairly clear. Furthermore the account of the flood is by no means fantastic from either a literary or historic standpoint.