While I do not really care if the flood happened or not, or of Noah ever existed (it makes no difference on my Christianity), I do think the flood did happen.
Now I am happy to discard this belief if the evidence is presented, but from what I have seen it very well could have.
I remember seeing a short film with a non-believing specialist talking about how there was intense flooding over large portions of the known world at that time.
I also remember when (about a year ago) they said they had found the ark. They carbon dated it and it matched the time it should have.
Now all this could be wrong, and I am happy if it is. This is not something I am going to have a fight over. I just believe for the moment that it did actually happen, but that the Biblical story of the flood could be totally incorrect.
[/quote]
Honestly, there are just too many variables that can't be explained concerning a global flood even if you remove Noah's Ark from the story. Where did all the water come from? The water cycle alone won't cover it so there must have been another source. That other source had to have been massive as well since, if the waters covered even the highest mountains, it would have to rise at least 30,000 ft. There would also be a universal band of flood stratum across the planet as well as universal forms of erosion on virtually every surface. At this point, there's just not enough evidence to say a global flood ever occurred. The story itself may have been based on a large localized flood. When you consider the area that the story originated (between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) this seems more likely since when know rivers periodically flood.
There have been periods of time on this planet where water did cover a larger portion of it but their all before man ever existed. During the Cretaceous the planet didn't have ice caps for example but again this long before man ever existed.
Actually, there are two sites in Turkey that are believed to be the remains of Noah's Ark but all the results have been inconclusive as of yet. One is referred to as the "Ararat Anomaly" and the other is known as the "Durupinar Site". I believe there were multiple teams that went to the Ararat Anomaly and carbon dated it but their results were also inconclusive since the dates were off. Also, it's not particularly that large as far as I've seen. It may be smaller than the measurements indicated in the bible. The Durupinar Site is also questionable since metal components were found in it which would be inconsistent with the materials used to construct the Ark.
There's just too many questions marks at this point.