Faith writes:
But this is all from the Old Earth/evolutionist point of view. From the Flood point of view all that was already there and the Flood just picked it up and buried it in this or that layer of sediment.
You are talking about a solid piece of rock hundreds of thousands of miles in area and hundreds of feet thick. Sorry, doesn't work that way. A whole, unbroken rock the size of a giant sea doesn't get moved by a flood.
If all the supposed ordering of the fossils in the geological record are in fact merely accidental effects of a Flood that simply moved around whatever was already there, then this idea that they are clues to an ancient past is an illusion, sort of like reading tea leaves. (except of course the antediluvian ancient past -- THAT you can learn about from the fossils).
Such a process wouldn't sort fossils so that they correlate to specific isotope ratios found in igneous rocks below and above them. This is what disproves your flood story. We should see a random association between isotope ratios and fossils if your scenario is true, but we don't. Instead, we see the correlation predicted by the Old Earth and No Flood scenario.
But my point of course is that it can be accounted for by the Flood followed by mountain building so that the objection that fossils within the rocks can't be explained by the Flood is in fact explained.
What evidence accounts for this?