Rather an inadequate response to the flood predictions link. Yes, there are lots of marine fossils in the Himalayas. Whales, for instance. Those sediments were once in what's called the Tethys Sea. In other words, plate tectonics make a better explanation for sea fossils in the mountains than does your global flood.
And why is that? Because of all the points in that link that you didn't answer, of which the one you quoted is oddly enough one. Here's another.
2. We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.What you have done shows "Morton's Demon" in action. You blot out all the stuff in that link you don't have an answer for (essentially all of it) and trot out the sea fossils in the mountains, which plate tectonics explains rather better than creationism.
Why better? Just for instance, in my Appalachian Mountains there are none of those whale fossils the Himalayas have. There are no dinosaurs, no mammals. Why? Flood geology has a shrug. "Because there aren't, that's all."
Against that, real geology says that some mountains are a lot lot lot lot older than others. The Appalachians are some really old mountains. Mountains don't build up fossils while they're wearing down.
So which one makes sense?
That was an excellent link - I'll have to keep the term handy now.