We are of the age where mankind is just discovering the vast information involving the oceans and the earth itself, leaving much to be discovered and understood. Before we draw any conclusions about what Noah knew or didn't know, all we can do is postulate.
Nothing meaningful can be said about The Flood without proving the first claim:
That god exists and can be demonstrated to be true.
(faith, visions, voices, or other personal claims, will NOT be considered as evidence . . . )
I may misunderstand you, but that seems to me like saying that we cannot say anything meaningful about the moon with out first proving that God exists. There are things we can say about the moon and there are things we can see about the Flood. If you are really interested, there is a movie showing in many theaters on February 23 that talks about this: "Is Genesis History?" Check out http://isgenesishistory.com for locations.
I can agree with you to some extent - we can say things about the moon and about the Flood: the former is real, the later is bullshit. That’s just my opinion but it’s consistent with the Science.
What you do fail to understand in John Straub’s point is that the Bible claims a great flood occurred and it was caused by God, hence why we refer to it as the Flood rather than just the flood.
If Science was to find evidence and establish as fact that a great flood occurred, by the rigors of Scientific method it would not be enough to provide the Biblical claim. Science would have to go further and establish God exists before we could even contemplate pinning the flood on Him. Otherwise the event remains just a flood.
Now I speculate that if Science could find evidence and establish that a great flood did occur, such a discovery would include an explanation of where the water came from and where it went. And given the way Science establishes facts I would further speculate that such a scientific discovery would explain everything through entirely natural processes.
If everything can be accounted for through natural processes then we could not conclusively attribute the flood to God because clearly the flood could have simply happened on its own, naturally.
And if the scientific discovery of a global flood uncovered something which defied our current understanding of the Laws of Natural, for example that vast amounts of water suddenly appeared and disappeared seemingly in violation of energy conservation laws, then Science would still fail to prove the flood was caused by God because to say at this point that “God did it” amounts to abandoning the rigorous scientific method and adopting a unproven claim as your conclusion. Science wouldn’t do this of course. The correct answer would simply be that Science did not yet understand what was going on.
So John Straub does make a very important point, establishing that the Flood occurred (as opposed to just an ordinary flood) is inextricably linked with proving God exists. Before this happens, all talk is simply about an alleged flood, not the Flood.
After the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign that He would never again do this. My question is, Was there no such thing as diffraction of light before the flood?
Good and legitimate question. I think that God took a natural phenomenon that existed before the flood (the rainbow) and gave it a new meaning when he established his covenant with Noah that "never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." There was diffraction of light -- and probably rainbows -- before the flood, but now the rainbow had a covenantal meaning.
I have another question. If the world was covered in water for about 1 year, where did all the plant life come from? tI could not have survived for that long under water.
I don't have a quick answer to your question. My suspicion is that your assumption that plants could not have survived for a year under water may not be correct, but I would have to research that.