The Impossibility Of The Flood

In simple terms, basically what you are argueing is:Creationists want to see the flood as a miracle that was done by god but because they have scientific standards to hold to they want to explain it scientifically.
Yet they dont realize that if the flood happened and it is scientifically explained... Then there is no god factor involved anymore, because the explenation will be a natural one.So even if they turn out to be right, it will leave no way for them to point to god and say "he did it".

I think this is partially a reverse argument from assumed authority.Basically it is not accepted in science to let someones opinion, (no matter how high or low in popularity ranking that person is) be the evidence used for some kind of theory.Thats an argument of authority as you well know of course But it works the other way around as well, and thats saying that creationists attempts (though falsified through science) are already falsified because their personal belief links their results to a god.
This despite the articles not linking to god at all but only to the topic of a flood in correlation with the bible.So I'm thinking that might be called a reverse argument from assumed authority, where god is assumed to be the authority behind the research and thus the research is wrong because its unscientific