Is it possible to debunk an object, like a coffee cup?

Is it possible to debunk a story, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears?

What is it? It's a fairly tale - a morality play. It conveys a lesson. Is it intended to be literally true?

Is it possible to debunk the story of Noah and the Flood?

It's a story - a very old story - which stands on its own as a story.

Is it possible to debunk the CLAIMS of a minority that the Flood (and everything else in the Bible including the Creation) is literally true?

Lest you think this last point is a straw man argument, see the Institute for Creation Research Tenets of Creationism

The Bible can not be literally true

• It is impossible to hear or read ANYTHING literally, without interpretation. Every language contains idioms. Also - there are words in the Bible whose meanings are not accurately known. This arises because the words have not been found in any non-biblical text.
• The Old Testament began as Aramaic oral tradition. It was written in Hebrew, translated into Greek, then into Latin, then into English. Every translator brings an interpretation to the text.
• There is no such thing as "THE" Bible. Even in English, there are several translations.
  • English Translations of the Bible
• There are twice as many books left out of the Roman Catholic Canon as there are books included. Were some authors inspired by God while others were not? Who decided which books to include? When?
  • See http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon.stm and http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm for a description of the different canons.
  • The Dead Sea Scrolls were found sealed in clay jars in the caves of Qumran, Israel, between the years 1947 and 1956. Thirteen papyrus volumes of Gnostic and other texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. See http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside2.stm and http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html and http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html
• Not only do some parts of the Bible conflict with scientific evidence, but the Bible often is in conflict with itself. It is not self-consistent.
  • The famous Creation story is in Genesis Chapter 1. There is a different account of Creation in Genesis Chapter 2. They can't both be literally true. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
  • Whom did Cain marry?
  • "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18
  • Giants are mentioned 13 times in 11 verses. Search for "giants." http://www.blueletterbible.org
  • The Earth does not move. "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." Psalms 93:1 While the Sun and Moon move around the Earth. "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
    And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." Joshua 10:12-13
  • There are two genealogies of Jesus descending from David, one in the Gospel of Matthew 1:6-16 and the other in Luke 3:21-31. They disagree in names and number. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html
  • etc., etc., etc. Find your own contradiction; it's easy.

Why not? Creationism is not disprovable.

Anything like this that cannot be disproved is a "construct." It is assembled to explain a specific set of facts and nothing else. If another circumstance arises that the construct does not cover, it is simply extended as needed. When needed, another construct is generated.

This sounds like an advantage, but it makes a "theory" useless.

Creationism makes no testable predictions.

This makes it useless for gaining any understanding of the universe. If God makes everything happen, then what has science learned that is useful? If you look at the predictive power of science, the answer is PLENTY.

Are scientists arrogant?

Are people with no background in science whatsoever, who do not know what evidence exists, but still claim that over one million scientists worldwide are wrong, arrogant?