One issue with the flood is that we can't repeat it's effects, which means opportunists can capitalise on this by basically finding strange features of geology and then appealing to our lack of knowledge by saying, "how could a flood have caused this."
If people are honest with themselves, uniformity is the "present is the key to the past" type thinking, but if strange features were created by a flood and we never see how a flood could cause them, then we are basically being asked to explain things for which it may be either impossible to know or very difficult to know. When we also consider the mess of a flood with it's many convolutions, fully knowing what did happen and how each and every specific feature was caused, is like trying to unscramble an egg.
So a key difference is that with uniformity we can see present day processes and imagine how they might have caused X feature, but if a flood did cause that feature, it may well be almost impossible to know the unique circumstances that caused it, because we don't have any key to the past in the present, with a flood, it was a unique and unprecedented, and unrepeatable event.
Conclusion; I think rhetoricist, seasoned trolls and the laymen spin doctors of evolution, take advantage of this by appealing to the *blank* we all have in our imagination, when confronted with a peculiar geologic feature, for often the convolutions of the flood don't leave us with any easy way to imagine how it could have happened but that very reason is why it may well be a good reason to believe a flood did do it, because such a world-scale catastrophe would almost be 100% bound to throw up some very strange, unprecedented and convoluted geological activities never witnessed in the present.
This was somewhat displayed in the Mt St Helens canyon, 1/40th size of Grand canyon when we see that strange movements of flows created unconformity in a section of rock only separated by perhaps hours of time.
Here we can see the strata and the canyon cut out in days, looking very similar to grand canyon in some ways, but note it took days to form;
Many scientists would never have predicted such effects. (And that's my point) You can read all about it here;
One of the many surprising results was an 8 m (25 ft) thick sedimentary deposit exposed in a cliff alongside the North Fork Toutle River (figure 4). It is composed of finely-layered sediment (figure 5). From eyewitness reports, photographs, and monitoring equipment, it is known that this whole deposit formed in just three hours, from 9 pm to midnight on 12 June 1980.1 It was deposited from black clouds of fine, hot ash mixed with gas, blasting at high speed from the volcano—a pyroclastic flow. Ash-laden and heavier than air, the flow surged down the side of the volcano and along the river valley at more than 160 km/hr (100 mph), hugging the ground and depositing ash.
The big surprise was that the sediment deposited in fine layers called laminae. You would expect a catastrophic, high speed ash flow to churn the fine particles and form a uniform, well-mixed deposit. Thus, it had been conventionally thought that fine layers had to accumulate very slowly one upon the other over hundreds of years. But Mount St Helens showed that the coarse and fine material automatically separated into thin, distinct bands, demonstrating that such deposits can form very quickly from fast flowing fluids (liquids and gases). Since then, laboratory experiments have shown that fine laminae also form quickly from flowing water.2 This shows how finely-layered sandstone deposits in other situations, such as some of the lower layers in the Grand Canyon,1 likely formed rapidly,
CONCLUSION: If there are such examples of laminae which were previously thought to only be able to occur over long periods where they happen in hours, this is an example of how it is not correct logic to make false predictions of what a flood would or would not create without actually scientifically knowing.
So I think the most germane point is this; I could have argued before Mt St Helens, like this; "such fine laminations are impossible for a quick catastrophe such as a flood, they can only happen over long ages." How many other events in a flood will never happen, and so will never show us that in fact those types of evidences, can be caused by such a flood? mt St Helens shows us some small versions/effects of catastrophic flows but it certainly doesn't show us all the effects a world flood would cause. However had Mt St Helens blown thousands of years ago I would bet my pet echinoderm and my house that they would have said the 1/40th scale mini canyon formed over thousands of years.