"There was an article that shared the many flood myths of the world cultures. The arguement was that the stories were so differnt from each other, so they must all be myths or only describe local occurances."
Not mutually exclusive. Stories have a way of growing with the telling, like that whole Noah thing plagiarized from an earlier story about a guy who survives a river flood. Spell check can make you look smarter than you are, by the way.
"If the Bible renders a true account of the flood then it also explains the different stories."
It doesn't, so your "If-Then" statement is invalid. Besides, lame excuses abound in the Bible, and the "then" part of your story is not automatically validated even "if" the other part was true. You fail logic 101.
"100 years after the flood the people were divided up and their languages were confused."
IF he Bible renders a true account of the flood, then Noah and his spawn were the only survivors. Too bad the history of the rest of the world in places like Egypt and China disagrees. How confused do you have to be to forget a thing like that? Are we expected to believe that Noah and his kids bred like insects to repopulate the world in 100 years? You fail Genetics, Genealogy, Geology, World History, and Sociology.
"The Bible normally explains things so any one can understand that takes the time to study it instead of criticising it."
You have an abnormal definition of "normal". You fail Psychology.
"When science takes the stories at face value, in the end they will understand what really happened, and come out of their fantasy land of naturalism."
When PEOPLE take the stories at face value, applying the Scientific Method, or other critical thinking skills, the fantastical and often impossible nature of the claims therein prove them to be exactly that; stories. They are tall tales told by idiots, to idiots. You fail Meteorology, Hydraulics, Astrophysics, and Biology.
FAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAILFAIL!
