"Why, is it because the bible contradicts what you want to believe? It certainly could not be because you think the bible to be an unimportant or unreliable source of historical information."
Not at all, but it is only one, and one that is a compilation of other ancient texts. The point is that the corroborative accounts of every major nation of a
global cataclysm referring to 10,500 B.C. should take precedence over one single source that
could also be placed at that time if we change our interpretations of biblical texts or refuse to follow what others tell us - primarily the egyptologists who move around dynastic dates like they're timetravellers.
"Friend, that record you are referring to could not be a reliable source of information: the speculations of a philosopher Plato could hardly be construed as hardcore science and he certainly is not writing history either because he is not taking his story from those closest in time and place to the scene of the events."
I hope you didn't close the site solely for your noticing Plato, because you would have missed volumes of hardcore science that for the first time in history gives solid proof of the biblical flood, and accurately places other accounts accordingly. Further, with regards to "those closest in time and place to the scene of events," the correlating "heaven-and-earth" astronomical maps of ancient civilizations point exactly, and only, to the end of the pleistocene era. -
http://mars-earth.com/earthpage.htm