If the Biblical flood actually happened the way it is described in scripture, then in the words of Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, we would expect to find "billions of dead things buried in rock laid down by water all over the earth". And, this is exactly what we find. Even Mt. Everest, debatably the tallest mountain in the world, has marine fossils at its peak.
Is it possible to explain individual fossils apart from the flood of Noah? Certainly it is. Volcanic eruptions can cause fossilization, as can localized floods and various other scenarios.
Is it possible to explain why the God of all creation, one who cannot lie, told us that there was a global flood (Genesis 7:19-23; 2 Peter 2:5), if there was not one? No -- such a scenario would be logically incoherent.
In other words, one's interpretation of natural evidence is always open to debate and conjecture. For the Christian, however, God's word is not.
So, when there appears to be a discrepancy between the two, and the scripture is clear, then the natural evidence is to be reconsidered.
Neither Leonard Woolley, the British Museum, nor Penn State University have provided proof that the flood mentioned in the Bible was only a localized flood. Rather, they may perhaps have found apparent evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia that, from their perspective, appeared to be localized. These are two entirely different things.
Evidence of the occurence of a local flood is certainly not proof of the nonexistece of a global flood.
I would love to know when and where else you think that the Bible has been proven false archeologically.
Thanks for your question, and God bless.