This is an important question to address as we examine the possibility of a local flood. Why save Noah if others could survive? Why not have Noah leave the area? Why build a boat? Why save the animals? Noah could have just left the region with his family, cattle, and belongings. Doesn't this prove that the flood must have been global?
When reading Genesis 5, we are presented with the genealogical record of patriarchs leading from Adam to Noah. Most of the names have very little information regarding them, but one thing that does stand out is the substantial ages that are associated with each person. Methuselah is especially noticeable, as he lived for 969 years before his death. This chapter of Genesis has spawned quite a few questions, and many of them still remain unanswered today. Perhaps, if we break down the way that we approach this chapter, we might be able to glean some additional information.
This is something that is very controversial among Christians in particular. Scientifically, it is generally accepted that there has never been a global flood. Does this mean that there was no global flood? Of course not, it simply means that the existing physical evidence, as interpreted by the majority of scientists, indicates that there has not been one. This is something that could easily change with time. Some new evidence may be discovered which changes everything, but until then Christians will need to be able to defend the idea of a Genesis flood without scientific confirmation.
This is a very important topic to understand as it is in direct contradiction of old-earth creationism. This is only true because the fossil record, as it is currently understood, indicates that there were carnivorous animals prior to the time of Adam. The idea of a strictly vegetarian diet prior to the flood of Noah originated from Genesis 1:29-30. This is obviously an issue, how can we have carnivorous animal fossils that predate Adam if all living beings were vegetarian?