Hi Jeff.
 
A while back I saw the best Noah's Ark documentary I've seen... unfortunately, I can't remember exactly what it was called.  I'm about 75% sure this is it: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00022AICQ/qid=1114012017/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/002-6949115-0442458?v=glance&s=video
 
The show I'm trying to recall was the only one I've seen that incorporates the Mid-Atlantic Ridge into the theory.
 
In short, as all evolutionists tell us, all the continents at one time were connected.  At this time, much if not most of the earth's water was trapped in and under the crust.  When the crust split (north to south around the entire globe... similar to a plastic Easter egg), a massive, massive, massive curtain of hot water, steam, ash and sediment came out.  When this happened, a void was left in and under the crust where this water used to be.  As a result, the crust caved in.  Now the water was on top of the crust.  As the water drained back down into low-lying areas and pockets of space under the crust, what was left is the landmasses we have today.  You'd also get the "young" mountain ranges and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  Surprisingly, the timing of this split-crust seems to fit too.
 
What really caught me was that this ties up a bunch of loose ends in the Flood story.  Number one, we know that it never rained before Noah.  With the split-crust theory, this massive influx of water into the atmosphere would cause rain... for the first time.  It also would cause the entire surface of the planet to be covered with water for a short time.  And it would cause the recent sediment layer that is yet unexplained by scientists.
 
I am a documentary nut and I watch the History, Science, Learning, Discovery and all those other channels quite often.  I've noticed that especially in the past two or three years, that has been a huge shift in the documentaries presented on these channels.  Everything from theories on the creation of the universe to histories of the Presidents seem to contain inaccuracies that I can dispute from my living room.  Why on earth are these inaccuracies making their way into documentaries without dispute?
 
Every so often I see a documentary on one of these channels that I really like, but it's becoming rarer by the month.  I've also found that the writers of these documentaries are becoming expert at mixing verified truths with unverified theories... yet presenting them as one in the same.  I've also seen that many of these documentaries spend ample time disputing "traditionalist" theories and little to no time disputing "new age" theories.  (My terms.)  They seem to enjoy throwing in comments here and there that have and always will be unproven, yet using these comments as some sort of factual foundation upon which they build their claim.  It seems to me that many, if not, most of the documentaries on these channels are not attempting to present all the evidence relevant to a given issue.  Instead, they seem to have an agenda from the opening credits and, like a lawyer in court, only present the evidence that supports their agenda while covering up, or completely ignoring, the evidence that counter's their claims.
 
I guess in summary I can say that any of these documentaries on the above mentioned channels should be taken with a grain of salt.  The truth is out there.  But we're not going to get all of it from one source... and certainly not from the Re-Writing History Channel.