It ought to be possible to first ask, "If the Flood occurred worldwide, what evidence ought we to find in nature?" and then go look for it. Even a miracle ought to leave a fingerprint. In the net, though, I am finding very few attempts to answer the question scientifically.
Der, For starters, the earliest geologists like Steno set out to look for evidence for Noah's flood. They didn't find it. For the first 200 years of geological science, the primary concern was finding evidence for the wolrd wide deluge. They found all sorts of evidence for floods big and small, but not for a Noachian world wide deluge. Geologists gave up by the 1820's.
THere has been no research by geologists looking for evidence of a world wide deluge, because the idea was falsified almost 200 years ago. We tend not to beat dead horses to death.
I suggest you read the FAQs at talkorigins.org, particularly the flood fact.
I understand the biblical approach and agree with it but, that doesn't help convince a sceptic.
Sceptics require geological evidence. There isn't any. Sorry. 400 years of scrutinizing the geologic column doesn't yield any evidence of a Noachian deluge. If you want to believe the Flood was a miracle, be my guest. But there's a second miracle associated with it. That it failed to leave a trace in the geologic record.
If anyone is doing this research, they aren't publishing online and they don't have a lot of grant money. I run into the same problem when researching OT texts. Sometimes hardcopy is the only way. I'm off to the library.
Der, nobody gets grant money (no scientists that is) to look for evidence of a Noachain deluge, and they shouldn't, any more than scientists shouldn't get money to study "phlogiston". People should not be paid to research ideas already demonstrated to be false.
It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong. One theory depends on an emotional response, so people won't see they haven't done the research. The other depends on a common-sense fallacy (everybody knows... )combined with an expert-opinion fallacy (smart people say so). Most people doing creation research nowadays are doing so for un-scientific reasons - to convince religious groups to not listen to the non-religious research. As a Christian, I find this disturbing. It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not.