I'm afraid that, after reading the link, it just isn't . . . . . "believable". "Many" is a loaded word. "Many" can make claims about the Noah flood being literal all they want, but the mainstream pier reviewed science journals would be a great place for them to present their evidence. If it can be duplicated then I see no problems with opening up such debates and preparing open minds for such evidence.
Hearsay is inadmissable in court and in the science room. If there are "many" who believe, then I would suggets that they gather up all their evidence and do as I mentioned above. Until that's done, I will have to remain on the side that, through scientific discovery, states that there is no evidence for a total world land mass emmersion under water for nearly a year. That isn't being "close minded", that is just the way it works. "Just the facts, ma`am, . . . . . .or sir, as the case may be."