Really? Care to make some predictions of what we should find if the Flood happened and then compare it to what we do find? Don't base your predictions on what has been found and then make them fit the data, create a fresh set of predictions based on the known laws of physics and what can be reasonably expected by that mass of water.
As the water comes down, what erosion patterns should we find?
As it flows up from the deeps, what energy requirements are necessary and how much heat is produced? How much will that heat raise the temperature of the oceans? Should we find evdience of that heat in current geological features?
How fast will the glaciers melt and how much will the water rise?
How will the skeletons of the masses of dead animals accumulate? How will the speed of water level increase affect that accumulation?
How will the sediment settle out of the water as it evaporates?
What would the average salt content of the ocean be? How much salt should be found in dried up basins?
What would be the average flow rate of streams and rivers at the beginning of the flood, the mid point of the flood and at the point where the water level drops below continental features?
How fast could the water evaporate?
What sediment types should be found on the continental shelves? What types on the continents themselves? How much soil should be left?
All of this can be done before considering the actual data and be based on known processes. That is just a taste of the question which need to be asked before you can make logical predictions. Once you've done that then compare the reality to the expectations.
None of the apologists have done this. What they have done is examined the data and post hoc formed 'predictions' that can be matched up to the data. To make those predictions fit they ignore and/or twist the natural laws. This is why I brought up the idea that the Flood contained enough energy to fling a substantial chunk of Earth's mass into orbit beyond Mars.
That type of 'science' produces evidence with nowhere near the weight of evidence gained through methodological naturalism (the scientific method).
It is the evolutionists who are short on predictions.
When will be the next 'jump' be in the species to create a newer and greater species?
Now, why should Creationists predict future events for something that happened thousands of years ago?
Creationists and Evolutionists work with the same scientific data and come to the same conclusion on how things works now (operational science).
The disagreement is over the beginnings, not the present.
We are not looking for any more global floods (Gen.9).
If that happens, then the Creationists were wrong.
Either, 'In the Beginning God'
Or
In the Beginning Nothing'
Take your pick on what sounds more ratonal.