"Actually I am more interested in reading scientific facts that completely rule out the flood, then find it confirmed"
when you allow yourself to insert "magic" every time the flood crash with reality, you can never rule out the flood. just like you cant rule out any random myth in norse mythology.
"It all comes down to what we are willing to believe that is not proven"
nothing is proven in science. and its a good indication something is not true when it keep referring to magic to fix problems.
" It could as well be a local dramatic event that was described as divine because people of the time could not explain it."
entirely true. i think every flood legend begin that way.
It does not take away that the issue at stake is here, that God is kalled a liar, using the flood myth as touch stone.
who is calling God a liar? it sure cant be any atheists for simple reasons, so it must apparently be the theists who call god a liar. i personally find that strange, but hey, its not my position to judge.
If you want to expose him as such, you have to bring real evidence to court.
wait a second, you think i believe a fictional creature can lie? oh dear lord...
Otherwise the case is dismissed.
i merely pointed out that if your standard of truth in a story was:
- problems could be explained away by magic
- when science seem to agree with a small part of the story, that support it
you have to accept most of the myths in the norse mythology as actual events or rethink your standards of evidence.