It's wrong to cite only one POV in the flood debate...not everyone says it's not plausible. There should also be links to a page like Answersingenesis.org or trueorigins.org so BOTH sides are represented.
Fly High, Seek Peace Hide / Show Replies
PS I think the key is what's considered 'mainstream'...but these days there isn't just one mainstream view, there are opposing views.
Fly High, Seek Peace
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/global-flood
Putting it here instead of on the main page just because it isn't as neat the other way.
Fly High, Seek Peace
There's only one mainstream view on a Noachian Deluge, is that a literal, submerge-the-entire-globe Flood did not occur.
The percentage of scientists (or those professing to the title) that believe in it is an incredibly small (less than 1%) percentage, especially among people who actually specialize in geology or life sciences. We could have an interesting discussion on the various flaws in a model that hypothesizes a submerge-the-entire-globe Flood (that actually involves more than a few inches of water), but that would be a matter for other posts.
How damaging and high of a death toll should a flood be considered to be added to this page's Real Life section? I wanted to add the Great Flood of 1913, which killed six hundred and fifty people and caused about what was in that day three hundred million dollars, which would be about ten billion today.