I'm not sure I can answer exactly your questions, but perhaps
your assumption about the tops of the mountains being
frozen is not necessary. There could have been uplifting or
valleys formed after the flood. There is no specific height
given regarding the height of where the ark ended up.
Also, animals don't have to migrate at once to a far
away land. They may migrate over a few generations. Or there
could have been land mass movement, or tectonic plate
shifting. After all, don't many geologists believe in
Pangondwondea (spelling?) where most of the earths land
mass was once joined together. Suppose the ark was somewhere
in that area, some animals migrated to specific area more
suitable for themselves, and then the land split off?
I am not sure, but is that a possiblej scenario?
That's nice did that happen over 5000 years?
BTW, what did the animals eat after they ark landed? Carnivores needed meat and there was none, herbivores needed plants and there was none. No matter where the ark landed in any scenario you make up, the floods destroyed all the plant life and the surviving animals had nothing to eat.
And since it was a world wide flood, why wasn't there banana plants all over the world until man planted them? Same goes for corn, rice, and any number of crops. Where is the fossil data of marsupials on any other continent other than Australia? Did the kangaroo just learn how to swim back to Australia?
Admit it, its a fable. And every time you attempt to bend logic just makes your story more laughable.
That was many millions of years ago. The commonly accepted date for the flood was about 2300 BC (with some estimates a little earlier; see below). Does not compute!
The date of the global flood:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)