What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.

Simple enough.There is no evidence for it.There are continuous records by both the Chinese and the Egyptians through the period it was meant to occur.There is no layer of flood deposits in the right age range that extends globally. There are lots of flood deposits - we know what they look like - but they are small and isolated incidents, compared to a putative "great flood"There is no evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all species around that period.Whatever Woodmaroppe may say, the Ark is not feasable. Just ask a zookeeper.

But it doesn't matter how far you go down - there are no world-wide flood deposits anywhere.If the entire column was only 6,000 years old, why are traces of human civilisation found only in the very top layers? Why no cities in what we call the Cretaceous? Why no prehistoric middens in the Triassic?