The only objection I have - and I don't know if this can be proven or disproved by either side - is what the "entire earth" means.
To us, Earth means the globe. But the concept of the globe did not exist back then that we know of.
The word "earth" in Hebrew is eretz, which means "land". Even in our language "earth" is another term for soil. Basically, when it became understood that the land we live on is in a globe shape, people called the entire structure "ground" or "land" - even though we now know the bulk of the planet is ocean!
We live on the land. The planet is the land we live on.
So the argument is:
Was the Lord saying "entire earth" or "entire Earth"?
Or
Was He speaking of the extent of the flood from His perspective, or was He speaking to Noah at Noah's level? (As a point of argument, in Job the Lord speaks of the ostrich about not caring for her young because she lays her eggs on the ground - but scientists having studied the ostrich discovered this isn't an accurate portrayal. The only explanation I could figure was that the Lord was speaking to Job at Job's level.)
There is a theory by a certain man I forgot his name.. but he came to the conclusion that the Pangaea super continent was the geographical layout of the world at that time. The Bible says that the water came from the ground so he theorized that a crack in the crust let out all this water and flooded the earth. If I find the link, I'll add it to this topic but it's very interesting and highly probable from what I gather. It was the flood that caused the earth to separate and form today's land masses according to his description... its very interesting.
Interesting point!