No, you are reading your pre-conceived notions into the Bible.
Geology confirms to us that there was no world-wide flood. If there was a world-wide flood, don't you think that there would be signs of it? And, yes, I've read plenty of YEC "scientific" papers claiming evidence for a world-wide flood. Unfortunately, they're garbage.
So which is it: (1) Did God lie to us in his word; (2) Did God lie to us in his creation; (3) Are you misinterpreting the Bible?
The correct answer is number 3. You're just like the people in Galileo's time whose misinterpretation of God's world led them to fight the evidence that the sun revolves around the earth.
“If there was a world-wide flood, don’t you think that there would be signs of it?”
You are entrenched, and I will not spend much time, but to say:
For example:
ammonite fossils near the top of Mount Everest
crocodiles (a new species discovered in 2002, much smaller than the Nile crocodiles) living in the middle of the Sahara
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1295748/posts
The flood didn’t need to cover Everest anyway. The mountains rose up after the flood. That is why the major mountain ranges follow the same path as the continental shelf. The shelf sank down and the mountains rose up. Conservation of mass.
Well thank God you don’t have any pre-conceived notions then huh?! /s
Or should I have said ill-conceived. Look at how much mental gymnastics you must do in order for the Bible to conform to your viewpoint. It staggers the imagination and leads me to believe that you are not at all sincere in your postings and belief in the God of the Bible.
Good Day, Sir!