Regional flood?

I've found a paper that attempts to explain the flood as a regional event happening in the mediterrian. Seems to fit all of the details, and answers all of the questions I have with the original story. It also doesn't invalidate the Biblical account, it just makes it sound like a historical disaster that didn't require the input of a God.http://www.asa3.org/...rton.html#The%20Bible%20and%20ScienceWhat does everyone think of that as an option?

It isn't a new idea. One or the other region floods are, I think, taken as the basis for all great flood myths. The mediterrean, the black sea, the Tigris/Euphrates etc.I will read your link now, I'm curious as to how a regional flood can't "...invalidate the Biblical account,"

---

Common sense isn't

Maybe I should have clarified that a bit, of course the Bible says God did it but what the link suggests is that it was a natural disaster that Noah saw coming so he took steps to save himself and his family. If the Biblical account is looked at without God involved as a historical news report then it matches pretty well what the site claims. I'm no scientist so I don't know if it acutally makes sense, thats what the rest of you guys can help fill in for me.
Regional flood just fixes all of the obvious impossibilities with the world flood idea (animals just domestic from the area, human race survived in other areas, rest of world untouched etc).

Of course. I don't think anyone argues with that other than fundamental literalists. That is the whole point. If everyone agreed with the idea that the story was an exaggeration of one or another regional floods there wouldn't be any issue.

---

Common sense isn't