The Flood

I had to write a paragraph (which turned into an essay) in my Old Testament survey class that turned out to be so darn long I figured it was worth posting on here. I guess I just get carried away sometime but hey, I've been needing a good blog post =D.

Being a Christian and a firm believer that God's Word is always true, I strongly believe that when the Bible says it covered every mountain on the earth, it means just that. To claim otherwise as a Christian and say that "God didn't really mean it covered the whole earth, it was a figure of speech," leaves an opening to say the same about any other passage that contradicts what they want to believe. Unfortunately, this argument doesn't hold much water to those outside the Christian community, so a more rational argument must be used. Needless to say, the modern scientific crowd utterly shuns the notion of a worldwide flood. I believe to admit to such would also force a belief in a Young Earth and the rest of the Bible, but that's beside the point. Even Wikipedia slams a flood account with the mere title of flood accounts ("Deluge Myth"), shutting down flood-favoring evidence that even the ancients recognized without even an attempt of explaining the discrediting. I find it ironic that our society of "open-mindedness" is so closed minded to anything that poses the slightest opposition to their beliefs. Before I go quoting other sources I would like to insert my personal evidence that I have scraped together. At this time twelve days ago I was gazing down into the Grand Canyon, by far one of the most beautiful, jaw dropping places in Creation. It was almost too amazing to fully take in. The fact that it's there is evidence of a Creator to me, but again this isn't good enough in the scientific community. I was reading all the info on how over 400-some-odd-million years ago the canyon began to form and blah blah blah, and the more I read the more holes in the theory I saw. The biggest being the geography around the Grand Canyon. It does not flow down into a valley and continually cut deeper, but it cuts into a 2,000-foot-high plateau. This fact seemed to have puzzled those who came up with the popular theories, because the river could have much more easily gone around the plateau. How does water go up two thousand feet and the cut through solid rock down to where it should be? Well, a darn big flood seems like a good answer to me. The Bible says that the earth opened up and poured out water as well as with the rain, and the Grand Canyon could very likely have been one of those places. We also have no idea of the power of the currents that could have gone on during the rise and fall of nearly 30,000 feet of water. I realise that my Grand Canyon argument doesn't hold much water (aside from the Colorado River, haha) but it is definitely a reasonable hypothesis.
Some evidence mentioned on the Wikipedia page (that I have also read elsewhere, but wasn't able to find it right off) is the bounty of fish and sea shell fossils found way up in the mountains. Those salmon would have either jump several thousand feet, or they swam up there, and fish don't swim so well in the ground or air. Scientists often use the fact that so many flood accounts were given by so many ancient people to discredit an actual flood event because none are very much alike, but instead this seems to be evidence for a flood instead of against it. Why would everybody across the face of the earth write about an event that never happened? A catastrophe of that magnitude would certainly not be ignored. I could find more evidence if I continued to search but I'm sure I've breached a word limit somewhere a while ago with this post.