Well i guess it is my turn then, to begin i will also start with an overused but valid question, where did the water all go? Where would enough water to cover the earth even come from?
So if I am to argue for the creationist side I would reply: The water to flood the earth came from when the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were opened. The water left the surface of the earth by returning to its place in the deep and by evaporation when a wind blew over the surface of the waters. Do I need an actual mechanism; do I need actual evidence of these things? Because I don't know of any that have any merit what-so-ever.
This is why backwards debates just don't work. I am not convinced there are any meritorious arguments for where the water went and where it came from. None. It is really hard to argue using arguments that I think are faulty, so it comes down to generalizations such as "The water to flood the earth came from when the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were opened."
You are doing the same thing. "Where did all the water go?" Why did you not demonstrate that it would be impossible for the amount of water that would be required to flood the entire earth to come from subterranean sources or to come from natural rainfall? Because you don't believe it to be impossible.
I respect your intention of better understanding the other's position, but you seem to be operating on the assumption that "evolutionists" haven't considered the creationist position when in fact we have. Several of us here started out as creationists (I did) or were raised in creationists homes (I was). It was after examining the arguments on both sides that we came to the conclusions that we did.
The better method of gaining understanding is to actually LISTEN to the other side. I could provide reasons why there is no possible natural source for the water of a global flood. You could prove a feasible mechanism as to where it could have come from and where it could have gone. Then we could both carefully consider the others argument and offer rebuttals. After repeating this cycle several times, we could each draw our own conclusions as to which argument is more convincing.
What you are likely to find is that we have already heard the arguments you would present and it would appear to you that we are not listening to your position. This is indeed unfortunate. But just as unfortunate is that you are also likely to be so convinced that your version of the Biblical flood is correct, that no amount of evidence or argument will convince you otherwise.
This is just the nature of the evolution vs. creation debate.
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.