That's really all creationists are doing. For instance we know there was a worldwide Flood some 4500 years ago so we think about the particulars of how it could have come about.
You can postulate a flood hypothesis and you can gather evidence for it. That's all fine. It's what the scientists did in the 19th century.
What you can't do if you're going to be a scientist rather than a creationist is reject mountains of evidence that disproves the hypothesis and overemphasise the weak to non-existant evidence in its favour. That's simply bias.
The flood hypothesis was rejected over 100 years ago and the case for it has worsened ever since. There is no scientific support for it whatsoever.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.