The language of the bible does not, in fact, demand such an assumption.
Sadly, the only thing more stupid than many fundamentalists are the skeptics who assume they are always right when they approach the bible.
If you want to argue against the veracity of the bible, then go for it. Better men than you (or me!) have tried. However, please try to know what the hell you are talking about when you start. It helps reduce the unnecessary palaver.
[ha eretz does NOT necessarily mean the entire earth. there are many biblical scholars who at least hold open the option that the flood was not the entire WORLD but the entire LAND
The language of the bible does not, in fact, demand such an assumption.]
Then riddle me htis, if it was just a ‘land’ that flooded, why the need to save the animals to preserve them? Surely their same KIND surviving in other parts of the world that were not flooded would have been sufficient to preserve the KINDS. As well, why the Ark? Why not ride horses out of the area and say the heck with getting wet? Noah obviously had plenty of time to leave the area entirely- why go through the bother of building a boat of immense proportions with crude tools working with massive timbers, day in day out for a very long time?
Someoen mentioend that the Grand Canyon couldn’t have been carved by flood waters rapidly and that is in fact not true, great massive canyons have been carved very rapidly, sometimes in matterso f days as localized floods and volcanic eruptions of mud ripped down htrough solid rock leaving 500 foot trenches in their pathway.
no evidneces for worldwide flood? Sure htere are, but either eyes recognizes the evidneces or biaeses comes up with some convoluted Hypothesis with no proofs to explain away the obvious.