Then the whole animals on the ark thing was unnecessary
“It could have submerged all the areas that humankind lived at the time without being global in scope.”
“Then the whole animals on the ark thing was unnecessary”
And maybe the people on the ark thing was also unnecessary. After all, even on foot, I reckon one could cover a considerable distance in 120 years!
A fair point, but there are problems with the other view as well, namely that freshwater fish would have died in saltwater and vice versa. And then there's the problem of getting all the species on the ark.
Complicated matter, overall; I don't pretend to know the answer but the question intrigues me.