thanks for the effort to reply so fully, but you will forgive me if I continue to think you have the wrong end of the stick.
The very geologic upheavals you mention are exactly those that would raise things like Everest.
The Marianas Trench reaches a maximum-known depth of 10,994 m (± 40 m), Everest is only 8,848m; and the trench is also some 2550km long and up to 69km wide while the Himalayas are somewhat shorter at around 2400km long though the widthe varies from around 150km to some 400km. A comparison of the profile of the Himalayas to that of the trench would be interesting - I wonder which is the greater volume?
Your depth calculations assume the earth had no major topological changes during the flood event - this is, IMHO, unsupportable. The record we are using itself seems to suggest great upheavals in the earth (going on memory here, not a specific reference).
Quote2. Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law: a forensic laboratory.
I like that: "the investigation and establishment of facts" - read between the lines with an understanding of the forensic approach. I.E. attempting to establish what series of events lead up to a certain outcome, with only the outcome to go by. If that's not a "guess" then there is no such thing as a guess... The whole of forensic science is at best a series of educated guesses, and at worst totally wrong.
It's interesting just how many conversations I get into where I make that assertion and the other party gets almost rabid in their attempts at refutation. It's almost like they're religius zealots and I mortally insulted their god.
Why can't anybody just be honest enough to say "yes, it's an educated guess"? There's nothing wrong with guesses and having the integrity to acknowledge something as a guess allows for a reasoned approach to possible alternatives instead of being locked into dogmatism.
As for the good old Olive tree, the kind of flooding we're talking about would have uprooted most of the vegetation long before it would have been sunk any distance.
Consider the fossil record - it's interesting that it is consistent enough accross the globe that geologists use it for dating rock strata... It's also interesting to note that the same geologists also use rock strata to date fossils... Doesn't that strike you as being a bit circular?
However, what people often don't seem to think about is the nature of fossilisation. Forensics
demonstrates that fossilisation requires a catastrophic burial of whatever became the fossil. If left to "normal" processes the animal is consumed and doesn't become a fossil. The fossil record requires a catastrophic event like the flood.The rest is still interpretation - we ALL look at things through the filter of our own preconceived ideas and prejudices. There is no such thing as a truly unbiased observer or researcher.
I should also apologise - I have somewhat derailed the intent of this thread and will back off to allow it to continue where it should.
. 
