@ROBROY01 “I have not seen a single mention of Noah’s Flood”
Yeah, we don’t go in for mythology much around here. And that’s what the global flood “theory” is—a myth.
“Let us not forget there are world-wide flood myths in nearly every culture of the ancient world too.”
Actually, this is false. Global flood myths were very common in ancient cultures that were located near a body of water that flooded regularly. But they are not at all common in ancient societies that were located near stable bodies of water or that relied on rainfall, reservoirs, and/or aqueducts for their water supply.
“Archaeology does an excellent job of proving the Bible”
Not really. Archaeology tells us that a few of the historical people, places, and events mentioned in the Bible were real. But it does not verify the majority of the Biblical narrative. In fact, it raises quite a few questions about stories found in the Bible. Sometimes these questions are just a matter of scale (i.e., the Bible seems to depict things in ways more grandiose than the physical record suggests). Other times, there are questions about the very reality of elements described in the Bible.
Ultimately, however, discovering that the Bible kept an accurate record of the size and placement of cities, the lineage of their rulers, or the wars in which they engaged wouldn’t really do anything to validate the theology found alongside it. After all, I could take a collection of the most accurate history books ever written, duplicate and combine their contents, and then sprinkle completely made up passages of religious propaganda all throughout the book; but the reliability of the historical passages wouldn’t do anything to support the religious passages. That’s just not how evidence works.
“The Bible notwithstanding, there is still plenty of archaeological evidence to support a world-wide flood event anyway.”
No, there is not. What there is evidence for is that much of the world has, at various times in (relatively) recent history, been subjected to flooding events. What there is not evidence for is that these flooding events were actually a single flooding event that occurred everywhere in the world at the same time. In fact, the pattern of geologic evidence suggests a protracted series of separate flooding events. Given that the planet started retreating from an ice age about 12,000 years ago, this is not even remotely surprising.
“Ancient buildings built on bedrock, out in the middle of nowhere, with very little water, STILL gets buried”
As has been more than adequately covered by previous answers, flooding isn’t the only way to bury a city. In the case of a stone city, which seems to be your main concern, the most likely scenario is that it was abandoned, went through a period of decay, and then was built over by new settlers.
But even if flooding were the only way to bury a city, that still wouldn’t require a global flood. Many rivers flood every year. Plenty of places get occasional flooding just from rainfall. Abandoned aqueducts will eventually collapse and cause water damage to a crumbling city. And there are non-global weather events that still have a massive impact. The 2004 tsunami, for instance, hit coastal villages in eleven different countries.
Furthermore, just because a place is in a desert in the middle of nowhere today doesn’t mean it was always that way. Weather patterns change. Rivers get diverted. The Sahara desert used to be wet, lush, and fertile. Now it’s not. The world is not static.