And in all the time it took you to type that . . . you could have typed a few sentences stating a claim about the global flood, which rather proves my point.

Those sites you linked to are full of nonsense that has been refuted elsewhere. I'm not going to spend all day doing it myself with whole web pages -- maybe that's your strategy? Kill 'em with links, they'll never keep up.

I could do the same: avoid talking about the topic myself and simply post links for people to look at. Talk Origins is but one of many. And the evolutionists here would do that (though they will already have been there, or be familiar with much of what it says). Would you go there, or to any other scientific site I posted a link to, and have a serious look? No -- you would simply say it's all lies. So I need to go back to stating a specific point and backing it up with evidence to show that it isn't a lie. That is the step you seem not to want to take.

So I'm making a formal challenge. Either choose one of the points I made in my first two posts here, or state a specific reason why you think there must have been a global flood. If you don't, I will formally consider you avoidant of information which is inconvenient for your view of reality. To be fair, everyone has a tendency to do this, it's called cognitive dissonance. Some people do eventually manage to reconcile the facts with their beliefs and achieve a synthesis but it can be difficult and frightening; some people never get there.