Watching the debates on this forum, something has struck me.
There are various views we could take with regard to the Flood:
(1) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened.
(2) It could only have happened by a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen.
(3) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it didn't happen.
(4) It could have happened without a miracle; and the evidence shows that it happened.
Now, the curious thing that strikes me is that when creationists argue for the "vapor canopy", or whatever, trying to make the Flood explicable in natural terms, they are arguing for proposition (4).
But this is no use to them.
By analogy, I am convinced that thunder and lightning happen,
and that they are possible without a miracle, since they can be explained in purely natural terms.
For this reason, I don't take their existence as evidence for Thor the Thunder God, because I have a naturalistic explanation for it.
In the same way, if someone could convince me that the Flood happened
and that it was possible without a miracle, then I wouldn't see this as evidence for Jehovah the Genocide God, because the creationists would also have furnished me with a naturalistic explanation. I'd be able to say: "Sure, the flood happened, but we can explain it perfectly well by the vapor canopy theory, without need for any divine intervention. So that's how it happened, and the fact that the Hebrews attributed it to their god instead of the vapor canopy is of no more significance that the fact that the Norse attributed thunder and lightning to Thor."
Surely what creationists need to argue for is proposition (1): that the evidence shows that the Flood happened,
and that it contravenes the laws of nature and so requires a miraculous explanation.
Discuss.