Popoi: Once you're at this point, any possible problem or contradictory piece of evidence can be explained away because there are no rules anymore. Why even bother with a model?
But really it's only evolutionists that insist that the matter be completely scientific. I myself never predicated miracles on any, "model" of science as such. The creation scientists would argue that it is science, I myself prefer to call it apologetics. With apologetics, we have a mixture of scripture and therefore the miraculous, but because these things happened in our natural world, the effects might still be measurable in some way.
A flood can never be strong science but it doesn't matter because all historical science is weak in that we can't measure actual repeatable effects of those one time events.
So you might think a flood can't be falsified. Not really though, all historical models have contradictory evidence and if we assume one model is true then such evidence can't falsify the true one. With that in mind, the correct way to falsify a flood can only be the correct employment of the modus tollens where there is an absolutely watertight conditional implication.
All such implications are only sound if the consequent without fail, would follow the antecedent.
So then we can hypothesise several and falsifying them would falsify a flood;
"If a flood occurred, because the bible says all creatures perished, the fossil record would contain all phyla, all types of animals and organisms, generally speaking." (Disclaimer; that obviously wouldn't include specific species as that would be an absurd request but suffice to say if a flood done what the bible says it did, and killed all life on earth, we would expect to find evidence that all types of life died."
So then a perfect falsification of a flood, and a genuine one according to the falsification-rule, would have been if we had only found in the fossils, angiosperms, or had we only found in the fossils, marine forms. We have found every representative for each phyla.
Another one would be this;
"If a flood occurred, since the bible says all life on earth was killed by it while alive, then it follows we would expect to find in the fossils, fossils preserved in exquisite condition AND we would certainly expect them to be found in the suffocation position, eating, fighting, giving birth, digesting, we wouldn't expect them to be greatly decayed because of being preserved dead and we wouldn't expect to generally find any transitional species."
So had we found no fossils like that, and they were generally in a semi-rotten state by majority that would be a falsification. The flood wipe out things while living, there is great evidence things were living when they were preserved. I can think of two very convincing cases recently eggs found have confirmed the BEDS model; (Briefly Exposed Diluvial Sediments) This shown hurriedly fashioned egg-nests. There are also many other types of evidence of tracks which indicate attempted escapes by various organisms, such as the cocino sandstone tracks, now proven to have happened in water
The fact that there are four levels of eggs with the remains of titanosaurs on two levels (figure 1) adds support to the oscillatory Flood model. The same type of dinosaur laid the eggs on all four BEDS. In the uniformitarian model, the sequence should be an accumulation of sediment over hundreds of thousands of years. How probable is it for the same type of dinosaur to frequent the same spot hundreds of thousands of years later?
CONCLUSION; You can't falsify a flood unless you have a really strong prediction where there is a conspicuous absence of unavoidably expected evidence. However you can provide evidence against a flood. With historical hypotheses about the past, there can be no certainty. In my opinion scientificizing the past is really a waste of time, we will never have evidence such as a silver-bullet and it's also difficult to falsify because there will always be the possibility that there is some unknown explanation. Even you yourself go with the "unexplained" position on some points for your own model, such as the soft tissue which science has shown couldn't last all that long. I am fair, I won't say it is a silver-bullet, I will only say it's strong evidence against long ages because I am aware of how tentative historical science is.