Jst, we pay attention of evidence and logic.
We are told that the ark came to rest on Mt. Arat. Which is over 16,000 feet high. Water has a bad tendency to level out on its own, which means that for the water to be that deep, it had to cover all of the globe, even if some mountain rangers were not covered.
Now you just said that maybe that the water might have only flooded that region. It would have had to be much shallower not to affect the rest of the world. And remember your argument about sea shells (you didn't mention that they were fossils, but you did mention the sea shells) that you said prove the flood. They are found near the tops of the Himilayas, which are, like, you know, almost twice as high as Mt. Arat.
And while you are saying maybe, we are saying definitely. That there is definitely not enough water to flood that deep, that there is definitely no evidence to show that it ever did. We are saying that there are definite explanations, with multiple proofs, that the continents move around, that mountain ranges are formed out of low lying rock when such masses meet and cause the surrounding land to be pushed upwards. We can map the specific rock formations that match exactly where South America broke away from Africa. We can also map the same exact fossilized species that existed in both of those rock samples.
We have living tree colonies that are over 35,000 years old. We have amazing cave painting in France that are dated at 35,000 years old. Which have never been under water, or they would have been destroyed. We have a planet full of plants, few of which would be able to survive so long under water. Especially 6 miles of water, which would put thousands of pounds of pressure per square inch on the land and grind most anything organic into dust. Biblical adherents ignore the fact that fresh water fish cannot handle salt water, and vice versa. Only a few can do that, like the salmon, and then only during certain parts of their life cycle. So how did the fish survive water that was too salty to be fresh, too fresh to be salty?
Why is Crater Lake, an extinct volcano in Oregon that is , at the lowest point on the rim, about 7,000 feet high, filled with wonderful, fresh, drinkable water? Were it once filled by flooding seas, it should be salty. It has no runoff and it's water level is controlled by rain/snowfall and evaporation. Were it at one time full of sea water, it would still be salty. Even if the water was not as fully salty as the ocean.
And there is other evidence. We have drilled through the ice cores in Greenland, where every winter a new layer of ice is formed, and where every years layer is discernable because of seasonal changes in the snow, which becomes ice as it is buried under the next decade worth of snow. And we have ice cores going down through over one million such layers. Just to be clear. One million layers equals one million years.
We have living tree colonies that are over 35,000 years old. They could not have survived a flood. We have amazing cave painting in France that are dated at 35,000 years old. Which have never been under water, or they would have been destroyed.
A geologically explainable flood and deluge occurred at least ten times in the Pacific Northwest, where Lake Missoula, an ancient body of water, occasionally breached ice and rock dams, allowing water to flood across Northern Idaho and Eastern Washington, then down the Columbia to the ocean. Those floods left huge, and I mean huge, deposits of river rock. The largest such deposits in the world. Water came out of the lake in such huge volumes it equalled ten times the flow of all other rivers in the world. Water that sat in the lake right where I am sitting right now in Montana (I would be under water if it were 12,000 years ago) ended up in my home town in Oregon just a couple of days later. A distance of about 450 miles as the crow flies, 650 via the route it took.
There are no other, and I repeat, no other rock deposits in the world that large. None. If an epic scale flood of the sort you think happened covered, or mostly covered, this planet, time and time again the evaporating waters (and where would it go?) would get trapped behind mountain ranges until it could all flow out and such huge floods should have happened all over the world. But they didn't.
12Monkeys Haida tribe and other native Americans have oral histories that go back to the time of the migration from Asia, 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Archaeological evidence confirms humans have inhabited this continent at least that long. The many pieces of evidence that have been excavated from sites on both the North and South American continents would have been washed away in any flood that covered them that deeply.
Sandals woven of sagebrush, over 10,000 years old, were found in a cave in Oregon. Any worldwide flood would have destroyed them completely. They survived because they were in a dry cave in a desert.
My list could go on literally for days. We have a multitude of reasons to know (not doubt) that there was no flood.
None of this evidence was gathered specifically to disprove a flood. It was gathered in efforts to find out what the history of our planet has been via geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology and other specialties. Chemists and physicists, botanists and ethnographers, all have gathered evidence that matches well with other evidence of a much older and never flooded earth. And all have gathered evidence that matches not at all with the biblical account of a flood.
In other words, we can explain the whys of many an earthly phenomenon, and not one requires or even hints at a huge deluge. Not one. Yes, there have been regional floods which left plenty of evidence. The whole of the Mediterranean sea filled up via a flood when a natural dam near the Rock of Gibraltar broke. The Black Sea filled from the Mediterranean in a similar fashion. But those events took place long before there were people. And the evidence for those and other localized floods abound. But for a world-wide flood? Not one shred of evidence. Not one.