Atually i would be looking for seashell layers millions of years old thick and corals as well.
There are miles-thick marine layers all over the world. These layers form gradually by deposition of the remains of sea life and of suspended inorganic materials, commonly at a rate in the range of 1 to 5 centimeters per thousand years.
You won't find miles-thick coral layers because each species of coral has a limited range of depths at which it can flourish, plus the surface of the water represents a height limit. Coral beds are built from the sea floor upward by living creatures, much different from other layers that form as creatures living above die, as is the case with the much thicker limestone layers. Nonetheless, coral layers tracing all the back to the Cambrian have been found.
They're not RAZD's scenarios. One is the traditional creationist scenario, the other is Zothar's. But I think you're right that it sets up a false dichotomy to say that either one or the other must be wrong. They could both be wrong. Certainly they cannot both be right, which I think was RAZD's point.
There's another point that I think might fit on your list. Psychologists are in the midst of establishing how unexpectedly frequently human beings make up their minds first and seek rationales later. This is a purely human tendency to which no one is immune, though some obviously have it more than others.
One important aspect of scientific training is imbuing in students the habit of thinking first and reaching conclusions later, and one significant difference between evolutionists and creationists is that the former frequently have scientific training while the latter do not.
This explains the creationist habit of making up their minds first and seeking evidence later, but it should be kept in mind that we on the evolutionist side do the exact same thing, because we usually accept the findings of science before seeing the data. Where we have a big advantage is that when we seek the evidence behind a scientific position we know it will very likely be there because scientific positions are reached through the scientific method that requires putting evidence before the conclusion.
Interestingly, this human tendency to jump to conclusions has secondary and tertiary effects. Not only do creationists jump to conclusions like, for example, that the earth is young, they also jump to the conclusion that the evidence supporting that fact must exist, else so many books and websites wouldn't be saying so. They then jump to another conclusion that the people behind those books and websites know what they're talking about.
But true science produces a record of advancing knowledge. We know where good science is being done because it produces positive results. Creationists decry the methodological naturalism of science as hostile to Christian thought and express a desire for "a broadly theistic understanding of nature" (Wedge document), yet they have not as yet been able to demonstrate that this approach yields positive results. They not only haven't shown it to be superior to modern scientific methods, they haven't shown it to be equal, or almost as good, or even to produce any results at all. A significant handicap in making such demonstrations is that they haven't yet defined any theistic scientific methods, but they somehow know they'd produce better scientific results, or at least results they'd be happy with.
I'm afraid I've wondered far afield just to offer more support for the view that YECs with any experience in the debate would tend to shy away from offering specific dates for the flood, since they are already aware of the lack of any supporting evidence for any date. But I thought important to note that what they're doing is really just human nature.