See, I have to stop right here, because I believe there is plenty of evidence of a Global Flood, I'll admit, I look at the evidence and BELIVE it to be so. The Salt Lake, Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, all the oceans, almost every culture speaks of a flood...Plus the eye witness accounts in the bible. (There I admitted it!)
So your 35 years of ignoring evidence doesn't mean there is none. I love how you evo's pick and chose your evidence...it's laughable!
Most ancient civilisations were beside the sea or great rivers. To these people their local areas *were* the whole world. When you read the Old Testament for example you don't get any sense of a world outside a small area in the Middle East. If you cannot see why such cultures would have folk-tales about devastating floods in the past that killed nearly everybody "in the world" then you need to talk to the citizens of New Orleans. Imagine the stories that would be told a hundred years later about Hurricane Katrina in a pre-literacy S Louisiana culture with no flood-defences to speak of.
If you think that there is any evidence for a global flood then you need to talk to some geologists. They went looking for the evidence in the 18th Century, as geology became better understood. They found none, and no-one has found any since. Our modern understanding of geology is used by mineral and petroleum companies when searching for deposits. Those companies follow the money. If flood geology predicted anything in any useful way those companies would employ flood geologists, not conventional ones.
Amongst the things you need to explain if you want to sustain flood geology is angular unconformities. These make perfect sense with conventional geology, and none at all with flood geology.
Truly, a wasted life.
</internet idiot mode>
You can believe that evidence exists for anything you choose, but that doesn't make it actually exist.
I'll admit, I look at the evidence and BELIVE it to be so.
Yes, this is obviously your method. Believing what you want to believe, instead of employing objective methods to determine which conclusions actually match the totality of the evidence and which don't. Try this method on the evidence and your beliefs and see how they hold up. Actually, no need, thousands of people before you have done so, and the conclusion is overwhelming: There was no global flood. Or if there was, someone has done an *awful* lot of "cleanup" to hide all evidence of its occurrence, and I don't know why any such someone would want to deceive people like that.
The Salt Lake, Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, all the oceans, almost every culture speaks of a flood...
...none of which indicates that there was a global flood. Yes, there are lakes and rivers and canyons. These exist just fine without a global flood. And "almost every culture speaks of a flood" because almost every culture has *had* floods. Floods occur almost everywhere at one time or another, especially since people tend to choose sites for settlements/villages/cities which are near rivers/lakes/oceans. None of this provides evidenciary support for a global flood, especially since there are countless bodies of evidence, along multiple lines, which *rule out* the occurrence of a global flood of Biblical proportions.
Plus the eye witness accounts in the bible. (There I admitted it!)
There are no "eyewitness accounts" of the Flood in the Bible. There is a third-person account, which was committed to paper who-knows-how-long after whatever original event(s) might have inspired the original tale. Tales tend to grow in the telling, as they pass orally from person to person, over large periods of time.