no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.
You seem to be making two erroneous assumptions here:
Firstly, you assume ALL sediment must be deposited by either wind OR water with no compromise. Why do you think that there can be no windblown sediment at all, especially when the evidence is to the contrary? Look at the earth today: You can see vast areas accumulating windblown sediment e.g. dunefields, and vast areas accumulating river and marine sediment e.g. floodplains, deltas and shallow seas. Why not in the past?
Secondly, you assume that one event has to have deposited all of the sedimentary rocks in the world. Why?
So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood
Actually, when you study geology in any serious way it becomes incredibly easy based of the fact that
none of the evidence we see points to such a flood. Your support of a global flood seems to stem from complete and total ignorance of any geology. Why don't you try picking up a textbook and figure out what geology actually teaches. Until you do, as far as I'm concerned this discussion can get absolutely nowhere.