Pete...
"..making the evidence fit"can be laid at evolutionists doors also"

No, it cannot...honest, competent scientists do not do this. All scientists like to be the ones to discover a nice 'new' bit of data and construct a theory which brings them recognition and status....but MOST of them are willing to change when MORE 'new' data is uncovered. A little reading will show you which ones do and which do not, and allow you to follow the advance of honest science.
   This is in stark contrast to the model you and other devoted 'believers' present, where 'new scientific data' is merely dismissed or re-interpreted to 'fit' the model you already believe ...based on one of many translations of arbitrarily selected ancient manuscripts.
The idea that "·.most of the fossils come from the flood,formed by rapid burial,..." is one perfect example of that. If you understand anything about science, you will realize it-just-doesn't-work-that-way. Read about The Burgess Shale, a deposit of fossils high in the Canadian Rockies which are older and stranger than anything else on Earth...THEN tell me again how they were just deposited "by the flood".

You say "...not sure why you are sure there were higher mountains previously but i think that is not entirely relevant.genesis does say every mountain was covered but the waters were in recession ..."

It is relevant because IF every mountain was covered, it indicates there was enough water to be 30,000 ft. deep all over the Earth. IF every mountain was NOT covered, then many people and animals would have had places of refuge. Ararat is 12,872 ft....Mt. Everest is 29,000 ft....more than double. Calculate how much extra water would be involved.
".. the "fountains of the great deep" breaking forth. is nothing but a flowery phrase...neither you nor anyone else can explain what that might mean...except by shrugging and saying "God can do anything he pleases.."

It's all very well to look at the vast, amazing universe and say, "There must be a Supreme Being who started all this" and decided how it would all work. No one can disprove it...but it's quite another thing to dispute known, obvious facts discovered by science because some writer of some old manuscript made some vague remark about "the "fountains of the great deep" breaking forth."
   Think about who SAYS that these old documents were 'inspired by God'!! If **I** wanted to start a religion and/or direct one, wouldn't *I* claim that my visions came directly from "on high"?

Pete... it is not my purpose to disprove your belief in God, or to suggest that there are not many important and valuable lessons to be found in the Bible. All *I* wish to do is suggest that 'faith' does NOT have to be so rigid as to deny obvious facts about how the world works...which may well be how God intended for it to work. If you are correct about God's gifts to us, one of them was 'free will' and the intelligence to use it to explore and learn and change as we learn more. I do not think a 'God' would expect his creations to blindly accept ONE version of religion written by our fallible ancestors thousands of years ago and carelessly translated by other fallible scribes who had political & cultural motives.

   There ARE many honest, believing Christians who can reconcile their faith with the amazing things science is finding everyday....