1. Large fields of biomass (plant and animal) buried under other sediment.
2. Large numbers of animals buried intact.
3. Catastrophic rearrangement of land masses, valley creation and mountain upheaval.
4. Evidence of a worldwide greenhouse, with evidence of tropical plantlife qat the poles.
5. Evidence from mankind in a variety of cultures, either oral or written.
This seems ample evidence to me...
And all of those have better explanations than a global flood.
Lets try something very simple: The commonly accepted date for the global flood is about 4350 years ago. That is a time period that is well-known by soil scientists and archaeologists (not geologists, as you are dealing with soils, not rock, at that young age). Find a soil column that spans, say, the last 10,000 years. If there was a global flood about 4350 years ago it will show up in that soil column. Given the claims made about the flood it should be noticeable.
In fact, there are many areas where such soil columns have been examined spanning the 4350 year old date attributed to the flood and there was no evidence of a global flood. Even worse are the cultural and genetic continuities before and after the date attributed to the flood. The Egyptians were keeping good records of the annual flooding of the Nile 4350 years ago, but they failed to mention a global flood. DNA has been found in many areas of the world which shows a continuity before and after the date claimed for the flood, but no replacement with Near Eastern DNA.
You also mentioned flood legends in early cultures? Almost all early cultures lived near water, and floods happen all the time (hear about New Orleans?). Now if you could show that all of the flood stories originated at the exact same time that might be better, but wasn't that supposed to be the time when there were no people left to tell tales?
I don't know why you are asking about biomass, fossils, land masses, valleys, mountain upheaval, etc., as those events took place millions of years ago. The claims for a global flood were only 4350 years ago.
It seems you have not thought out the supposed evidence presented in support of a global flood, and examined that evidence in light of scientific findings.
Here is a link that might help: Problems with a Global Flood, Second Edition, by Mark Isaak
1. The Bible is arguably the most concise, accurate historical record we have before 400BC, and has been proven correct repeatedly, never disproven with archaeology. However, you discount it in favor of Egyptian records that a full of holes & contradictions, and the timelines commonly accepted for the dynasties are often disputed amongst Egytologists.
2. Dating that relies on decay methods have numberous assumptions, such as intial amounts of parent/daughter elements, decay rates, and no outside influences, e.g. migration of elements, cross-contamination, etc. Often, dates are off by 50% with different methods, and some dates can be off by more. Several methods argue for a young earth, buit of course you will discount those immediatly.
3. Verify the earth is the age you assert, without any assumptions in the so called dating methods offered for evidence.
The real crux of the matter, is can the New Testament be trusted in it's account of Jesus resurrection. And if so, do I choose to believe he did, and if so, who is he?