Why was a flood needed?

God's word is written in the universe around us. It is man's word that is recorded in the Bible. I agree with you that God is not a liar, and so when the fossil record and geologic layers tell us there was no flood it is easy to believe that this record of God's universe is truthful and that man's record of God's words as recorded in the Bible is flawed.--Percy

I agree with you, though I would state it differently: the fossils are a record of God's word. But you're not being asked to believe men over God. You are instead being asked why you accept the words of men recorded in the Bible over the actual direct word of God as recorded in the earth and universe.--Percy

You seem to be missing the point. The Bible was written by men, and it is being interpreted by men.The earth and universe, on the other hand, were writ by God, and are being interpreted by men.Both are interpreted by men, so we can drop that common element. Why do you accept the words of men in the Bible over the word of God in the universe?--Percy

You're answering a different and improperly formed question than was asked. You can't drop consideration of the interpretation stage from one and not the other. Both the Bible and the universe are being interpreted by men, and so this common element can be dropped from the discussion. This leaves us comparing the words of men in the Bible with the word of God in the universe. Why are you giving the words of men greater credibility than the word of God?To put this in flood terms, why does the testimony of men in Bible that there was a world-wide flood find more prominence in your perspective than the testimony of God himself in the layers of the earth and the stars of the sky that no such flood ever happened?--Percy