You are speaking generally and mixing findings from many different eras together. Focus only on findings that relate to the 22th century BC or that describe some earlier phenomena that must have been altered if it was submerged later on
The younger Dryas followed by several of the semi cycic aridity events all point to one thiung.
If there was a significant flood (you now seem to want to back off on whethjer it was a worldwide event or not), any of the older sedimentological, tree ring, C14, paleomagnetics, ALPHA track data would be obliterated by follow on flooding. Does the sense of that point become clear?
ANy event (like a flood) would, of necessity wipe out evidence from earths erosion plane. The thins Im speaking of dont have to have any citations in literature because there is no literature that specifically tries to prove that there WAS NO FLOOD. Thtd be ridiculous a task. The fact that we can trace the earths map as one unobstructed surface upon which civilizations have come and gone is kinda like stipulating that water is wet.
Im keeping y patience in the hopes that some real evidence upon which we can debate will be forthcoming from you.
There are tons of references of what the planet looked l;ike in the Pleistocene and holocene (Foster Flints books on Glacial geomorphology, Eardleys old text on Structural Geology,
Heres a fact. The Northern hemisphere is literally covered in various age morainal sediment piles left by glaciers that came and went over 3 to 5 cycles during the Pleistocene. NONE of these moraines is , anywhere obliterated by a "worldwide flood" that turbates these sediment piles/ We have eskers whichare arge snakey like sheets of sand that were deposited by sediment laden waters pouring through the glaciers mass. We have End moraines and lateral moraines which enable us to map the size and shape. All these plus drumlins etc are accompanied by large batches of SCrathces on the bedrock , indicative of the acvtual path that the glaciers took. NO evidence of anything like a sediment disturbing flood.
The only places where any water "spillage' was proposed was in the Bosporus (which of late has been doubted that there was a catastrophic rise based solely on isotope chemistry), and at the "Scablands" of the Columbia river where there is definate evidence that a large glacial lake spilled out and wiped out some large mesas and rounded the rocks from the mesas all the while water was spilling over the crest of the glacial lake.
Seismic evidence of past earthquakes records data by showing various "slippage" in the shallow soil horizons above the earthquake epicenters and hypocenters. These slippage areas 9Reelfoot Lake, the Afar triangle of Africa, Zsechuan province of CHina, All of Japan and the Phillipines, the mid East, ect etc. All these areas have clear unbroken soil faulting records with no turbation evidence that would indicate a flood was disturbing these sediments.
I think youve got an impossible task to show ANY evidence that actually has happened upon which you could conclude that a flood was a partner in molding the earths surface fromm 3000 meters down to resent sea level).
If youre going to try to extract an argumentfrom present sea level rise I would also offer gemntle admonition that we are now living on that surface of sea level rise.
Let me play a game. Assuming that a flood DID occur, what do you expect to have happened to life on the planet? What is your explanation for all these species of non-fish that dont live in 300 meters of seawater. Was there some biological event that occured , like a genetic "bottleneck" of the majority of species.
You should be asked to produce a map showing continuous marine turbated sediment all over the Holocene surface.
These civilizations that were affected by a flood, why isnt there a major evidence of a flood deposit for leagues around the civilizations. (Youve proposed one site in which youve posited that "floodwaters or rain could have dissolved the brick". youve only begun your inquiry, I dont think that you have any evidence that is convincing to me(let alone some oracticing archeologist) that the "yale" project was flood related. AND even if it was, was the oication of the city so , that it indicated a worldwide inundation or just a local river flood (Quite common in the Tigres Euphrates valleys)
If you wish your work to be considered a scholarly one, then your evidence must preceed any conclusions. Your conclusions can only be as strong as your evidence allows.