We have as much real evidence for a global Flood as we do for Evolution! Really? OK, I'll show you just a tiny bit of evidence for evolution, and provide a link to more. Then you show me some evidence for a global flood at about 4350 years ago.
First the link: Patrick Henry's Un-Missing Links.
Now, here is some evidence. I await some evidence of a global flood.
Fossil: KNM-ER 3733
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
"We have as much real evidence for a global Flood as we do for Evolution! Really? Care to make some predictions of what we should find if the Flood happened and then compare it to what we do find? Don't base your predictions on what has been found and then make them fit the data, create a fresh set of predictions based on the known laws of physics and what can be reasonably expected by that mass of water.
As the water comes down, what erosion patterns should we find?
As it flows up from the deeps, what energy requirements are necessary and how much heat is produced? How much will that heat raise the temperature of the oceans? Should we find evdience of that heat in current geological features?
How fast will the glaciers melt and how much will the water rise?
How will the skeletons of the masses of dead animals accumulate? How will the speed of water level increase affect that accumulation?
How will the sediment settle out of the water as it evaporates?
What would the average salt content of the ocean be? How much salt should be found in dried up basins?
What would be the average flow rate of streams and rivers at the beginning of the flood, the mid point of the flood and at the point where the water level drops below continental features?
How fast could the water evaporate?
What sediment types should be found on the continental shelves? What types on the continents themselves? How much soil should be left?
All of this can be done before considering the actual data and be based on known processes. That is just a taste of the question which need to be asked before you can make logical predictions. Once you've done that then compare the reality to the expectations.
None of the apologists have done this. What they have done is examined the data and post hoc formed 'predictions' that can be matched up to the data. To make those predictions fit they ignore and/or twist the natural laws. This is why I brought up the idea that the Flood contained enough energy to fling a substantial chunk of Earth's mass into orbit beyond Mars.
That type of 'science' produces evidence with nowhere near the weight of evidence gained through methodological naturalism (the scientific method).