Does The Flood Add up?

Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos.

Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia.I suggest you look at a map of the earth before the break up of Pangea. Here is a link to a MAP
It is a long way from the Middle East to Australia. Among the animals that somehow got there are the Koala, which only lives in Eucalyptus trees, the marsupial mole, a small nearly blind animal that only lives in sandy soil and the echidna, an awarkward marsupial version of the porcupine. How did these animals not only make that long trip before the continents broke up, but get there ahead of all "kinds" of placenatal mammals that are much better travelers. Why did they make this long hike back to where they just happen to have a fossil record? Did they also make this long hike up to get on the ark? There are no flood deposited fossils of modern Australian marsupials or montremes anywhere in Europe or Asia.

Then how did these little animals make it all the way back to Australia before the continents split up? How long after the flood was that? Maybe during the 6th Egyptian dynasty if the flood was during the 4th.

We do know how continents move and how they have been moving for billions of years.

Sea floor is subducted in subduction zones and created at spreading centers. This necessarily produces new ocean crust and lithosphere and it is hot. Would you like to give us a geophysical model for moving the continents around that doesn't involve subduction and seafloor spreading?

Another thing, all of your arguments hinge on assumptions and belief that the Bible is accurate to the word.

You say "if we assume this, and then assume this, all these assumptions and the conclusions we can draw from them are self-supporting" (not in those words). The problem is that you have nothing but assumptions.

You can use the Bible as evidence in some places, but not here, these are the Science Forums. You need some scientific evidence. You can't just come up with one assumption after another in support of your view. Even if the math works out, that doesn't mean anything, because all of the evidence works against you.

It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.

Sorry but the "written record" of the Bible was written well after the written records of the Egyptians and the Summerians. You can't use the myth of Biblical infallability to substantiate the myth of a worldwide flood.

So first you say we don't know how they moved even a hundred years ago and then you say they moved by suduction and spreading but faster.

Fast movement might be possible but it would have left a very different geology on the ocean floors and released enough heat that either the crust and lithosphere would still be molten or the average temperature of the earth would be too high to sustain most life including us. This is quite easy to show.