Gavin Ortlund just posted a new Youtube video on the subject: "Was Noah's Flood Local?" Actually I think a better word than "local" might have been "regional", but other than that, Gavin does a good job with this subject. I can appreciate the viewpoint better than I previously could.
Very sensible stuff, considering his aimed at audience, but is there really any tendency for churches in the USA to drive out from their midst those of us who don't think the entire planet was ever completely flooded as high as the Himalayas and the Andes or that there were almost certainly no koala bears, kangeroos or polar bears on the ark, let alone penguins, lemurs, fossas and Tyranasaurus Rex? The tone of the video leaves me with the distinct impression that there must be some places in the USA where large numbers of the religious population have yet to experience the Enlightenment but nevertheless amazingly managed to catch the Reformation somehow. .
Since we have no photograph of the original, no blueprints or drawings, only some dimensions in archaic measurements of uncertain accuracy measured against metric or imperial units, how can it possibly be a 'replica'. It must be the product of someone's imagination. The bible does not even record what SHAPE it was. It might have been a BIG multi-decked rectangular box with a deckhouse on top, according to the description. It had no engine and probably no need of a sail or rudder. All it needed to do was float and drift until it settled somewhere. I can't figure out why the video needed to prove the flood was obviously not a 'worldwide' affair using the Bible, in order to convince supposedly sensible people the flood must have been only regional. There has obviously never been, at least in the last 50,000,000 years sufficient water on planet earth to reach to the top of the highest mountain ranges, so the whole earth could never in that time have been completely inundated. The chap who made the video made a good job of explaining how the wording of the story and the Bible itself proves the flood must have been regional and a mythic retelling of a widespread common folk memory, probably dating back to the end of the last ice age. The highest sea levels have ever been was 550 feet (170 m) higher than today, in the late Cretaceous period, about 80 million years ago. There would have still been plenty of dry land somewhere on earth though, even then. .
Most cultures have some sort of flood story in their traditions and stories of origin. I am conscious that does not seem to be true of the Australian Aboriginal Peoples, and that may well be consistent with their claim for having been here for 65,000 years give or take, which would mean that they were here before the events memorialised in the account of the flood in the Bible, and had no experience of it and did not bring the story of it when they came here. Science sees the origins of the human species about 300,000 years ago. The dating of the flood is a big question, seemingly perhaps as old as 35,000 years ago, to as late as 3,000 BC. This may well account for the ancient peoples of this age not sharing in this story.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the flood could have been worldwide but not so high as to cover all mountains. Evidence of a catastrophic flood exists in North America as well as on other continents. I'm not going to defend the position; after all, it is impossible to know for certain what took place so long ago. And there are much more vital things to concentrate on, such as evangelizing the lost (both inside and outside of the visible churches). I'm just saying there's not much value in ridiculing those who subscribe to a worldwide flood since we are all brethren.
It's far more likely that floods happened on various different continents and different regions at different times in the history of the earth. The evidence of that is all there, going right back beyond the Kamchatka incident, which itself would have caused catastrophic tsunamis on a global scale. There is evidence in the ground for a flood of huge proportions in the Mesopotamia region in the whole area of the Euphrates and Tigris, dating back to the end of the ice age but this would still be 'regional' by our standards nowadays. "The whole Earth" or "The entire world", when written in the Bible, should not be taken literally. Nobody who actually wrote that down even had a true conception of what 'The whole world" was in its extent, let alone that it is a ball floating in space where there is neither 'up' nor 'down' but simply 'out' and 'on'. .
All that is required of any believer is to believe this, and that refers not to the bible, (because at the time it was written the Bible didn't yet exist as a single entity), but to the ability of the person, Jesus of Nazareth - The Christ, himself. No one is saved by believing the Bible is true. They are saved by believing The Truth, written of in the Bible. .
I took my kids there during summer break a couple of years ago. There were people from all over the world at the park that day. Expensive place. Ken Ham is rather obsessed with having dinosaurs on the ark.
I thought he was putting forward his point of view without seriously engaging with the arguments of those who believe it was a global flood. At one point he conceded that the ark would have only carried land vertebrates, but then at another talked about insects being on board. Overall I think it was fairly superficial.