I have hinted similarly in the past. There are more ways to fry the earth in any ad-hoc flood model then there were animals on the ark. My favorite just so happens to be simple's suggestion that the fountains of the deep were actually liquid hydrogen that turned into water when it reacted with the super oxygenated pre-flood atmosphere.
This also applies to other topics though when dealing with heavily entrenched creationists. When you have a worldview based on assumptions that are by their nature undefinable and a preconcieved conclusion that is set in stone then there really is no "winning" in these arguments in the sense that the other side gives up. The only real hope is that in the argument you can show how absolutly rediculous their position is to others reading this forum searching for answers. That is how I became motivated to check deeper into the EvC debate with an objective mind.
Being able to see the metal contortions and sometimes outright lies among other tactics of creationists repelled me from that position. Creationists often do more to hurt their position just by opening their mouth then anything any of their opponents could ever say. A veteran of the debate on the "evo" side can destroy a creationists argument much easier by simply guiding them into more and more ad-hoc reasoning. Jar does this beautifully all the time. He barely has to say a word to coax a creationist to respond with something that is absoutly insane or totally out of character for a Christian attitude. The basic premise here is that you can only defend insanity by more of the same or greater amounts of insanity.
The topics that I think are fruitless are the ones where it is just "evos" rehashing why a flood model is broken/ non-bibilical / impossible / etc. Often this is because there is a tendency to wildly speculate or give the benefit of the doubt to certain situation in order to further the argument. We don't need one more reason why the flood could not have happened. So what if the volume of rain needed in the 40 days is inconcievable? This doesn't matter to a creationists. They already ignore the facts. The flood did not happen for a number of more fundamental and tangable reasons for which there is a basis in actual facts rather than X,Y,Z conditions fabricated for the purposes of discussion.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
™ Version 4.2
