TB writes:
But don't be too surprised if some creationist stuff gets published mainstream somewhere down the track.
"Creationist stuff" is supported by Biblical interpretations, while "mainstream stuff" is supported by evidence. Stuff in mainstream journals will be supported by evidence and be consistent with current understandings and so couldn't be considered "Creationist stuff," even if published by a Creationist.
As Stephen Austin is finding, as long as he sticks to the evidence he can get published in mainstream journals. Funny thing, though. By sticking to the evidence his articles have no Creationist content whatsoever. In fact, the only way his Creationist leanings are evident in his mainstream publications is in the kinds of problems that attract his attention. Same with Michael Behe.
I'll support any findings supported by evidence. I have no religious attachment to an ancient earth and will follow the tides of emerging evidence wherever they lead. Your own proposals are not only unsupported by evidence, they're contradicted by the evidence, and they require processes that range from the merely unlikely to the near impossible, bucking not only current scientific knowledge but often simple, everyday common sense, like your layers that are repeatedly deposited, dried, populated and reinundated, not to mention the layer sorting, fossil sorting and radiometric-age sorting in strict concert amidst a great flood.
But hey, it's early days yet, right?
--Percy