I'm not sure if the above clinches it, crossnote. The earth was not literally destroyed with water as we are required to read 2 Peter if doing so literalistic ally, and then apparently replaced by another earth (as opposed to "the world that then existed"). Going from the account in Genesis, it was the people and the animals (and also presumably many plants) that were destroyed, not the actual earth (though of course the earth may have moved around some). His reference to the earth is strictly to living things, otherwise it becomes incoherent.
So his comparison, on his own terms, isn't simply 1:1. Analogies should not be made to run on all fours - his point is that the human history itself contains judgement, and is no excuse to scoff. That's the point he makes.
Anyway, I think a lot of it boils down to whether you are a YEC or fit into some other group. I think it would be difficult to be a YEC and not believe in a truly global flood, and it may well be the case that belief in a global flood requires you to then adopt a YEC position.
I tend to hold to a localised position, though I'm by no means dogmatically behind any of the positions. I have trouble reconciling the idea of a simultaneous Earth-wide flood (despite the people, based on what Biblical evidence there is, living mostly in one regional location) with what we otherwise know of the world. I'm not talking complicated theories of evolution, but much more straightforward assessments of the fossil record, etc, that if we were wrong about, we would likely have to conclude either that our ability to think is so compromised that almost everything we know about the world, the Bible, etc is suspect, or that the world is deliberately arranged in such a way as for us to draw false conclusions about it.