The issue is that the Earth would not have the characteristics it has now, had the flood actually occurred. It would take a geologically long time for the Earth to recover from such a cataclysm, assuming of course that the excess water could be destroyed somehow.
But if there were some magic means of destroying the excess water without destroying the Earth beneath it, one wonders why God did not simply bring it to bear against the evil men and babies, who were themselves two-thirds water, rather than the more ham-handed technique he used.
I agree with the fundamental teachings that lie in the text, and I am lover of the King James Version. However, there is so much allegory and interpretation in these texts that it is impossible to understand the true, untranslated, intent.
In the times of "the flood", the "whole world" consisted of where you lived and the twenty miles around it. We must keep all of this in proper context. It is not God's word--but man's perception of Gods word. I think it is a big difference. Three thousand years from now, people will be trying to figure out our constitution from a paradigm they know nothing about. That should be interesting.
I think we can all agree that sometime, a long time ago, some big water event happened. I think it is interesting to determine the cause and figure if the whole Ark thing is plausible. For me, it doesnt impact my faith or understanding of the message.
Blind interpretation of some English King's version of the original Greek, translated from the Hebrew, is just silly when you think about it.
Makes me wonder why God didn't just poison the atmosphere with sarin gas and give Noah plans to make gas masks. Or better still, just waive his magic god wand and make all the evil people vanish.