I could interpret objects falling to Earth as a result of static electricity rather than as a result of mass bending space-time. My interpretation would not have the same value or weight as a physicist's, nor should it.
Evidence must be interpreted in light of other related evidence not other preferred outcomes. The global flood would leave some very specific evidence that would be world wide, ubiquitous and obvious. The mass of the water, the speed of accumulation, the type of accumulation, the mass of continents, the mass of the sediments, the movement of the continents, the movement of the sediments, the direction of terrestrial water flow, the rate of terrestrial water flow, the mass of terrestrial water flow, the direction of aquatic (I'm using this to specify under water flows) currents, the rate of aquatic water flow, the mass of aquatic water flow, and many other conditions would all leave interrelated and recognizable telltales in the geologic column. The telltales modern geologists see do not match what would be necessary for a global flood.
The only people who interpret the evidence differently than modern geology are those with a vested interest in matching the evidence to their interpretation of an ancient book. To accomplish this they make up wild stories such as a water canopy, which of course creates a problem with atmospheric pressure. To overcome this problem, the source of the water is modified to include underground water (Walt Brown - hydroplate theory). This of course brings up the problem of heat generation. This is fixed by ... and so on, and so on.
Each subsequent correction is found to not comply with some physical law or another so has to be changed in some radical way or another. This is what happens when there is a need for the evidence to match a conclusion. This is what happens when individuals try to make the world fit the Bible.