Draka said:Writings and scientific evidence are two different things. Not to mention that you are still in the general area referenced to. It is quite possible that there was a flood in that particular REGION. Those there would veiw that as "the world", doesn't mean it WAS the whole world that was flooded.
Granted,the "world" could mean a particular region. However, if we are assuming that the narratives of the world's major religions fall under the "non-fiction" genera, we must note how the stories unfold. In the Bible, for example, the story does elaborate on some specifics of how the waters rose and receded. It also indicates the approximate location of the Garden of Eden (between the pre-flood Tigris and Euphrates rivers) and it indicates the location of the Arc's landing (Mt. Ararat). A dove was sent out from the Arc several times to find dry land. Obviously, no dry land could be seen from the Arc. Finally, after several attempts, the dove returned to the Arc with a small branch. Later the dove was sent out again and it never returned.
As far as the direct cause of the flood, other than just "God caused it," the Bible describes both the world's FIRST rain and it describes watter coming up out of the Earth. Perhaps a large meteor hit could have done this? (just speculation) It was obviously a HUGE cataclysmic event...
In response to "Science and writings are two different things," I'm not sure what you mean. There is a science involved in writing and communicating and the only way you can do keep up with "science" is to write it down. "Science" is a lot more than just Biology, Geology, Psychology, etc. It also inlcudes History, Philosophy, Theology, etc.