Evidence for and against Flood theories

No, I am saying that a violent flood could not give you an upsidedown hydraulic sorting.

The fossil record is sorted by none of these or even any combination of these. It is sorted by change in morphology and only that.

I also mentioned my favorite argument against the flood which is quantity of geologic features created by biomass. Even IF the world was this edenic paradise where everyhing grew to be huge and the vast majority of the earth was land it cannot account for the sheer mass of oil, coal, limestone, marble, fossils that we have found considering that we haven't even found it all.

Okay, so you aren't visulizing a tranquil flood. Good. And I do understand your point, but I think a world-wide flood model COULD account for "upsidedown" hydrualic sorting.

Why then are there overthrust and re-work theories for fossils not found in their expected evolutionary order?

Where were all these things found? Earth, right?

(I don't see how limestone and marble figure into this.)

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 10^15 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.
...
"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood."Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."
...
A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now
observed.Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16 x 10^13 metric tons of coal reserves, and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth, would supply only 1.9 x 10^13 metric tons. [Ricklefs, 1993, p. 149]

you don't have enough ocean to account for all the limestone

Please excuse my ignorance, what are couplets? {added by edit: anything like the varve couplets I've been reading about in RAZD's correlations thread?}

e: The second problem is: where do you get the sediments that define the regressive sequences when the entire world is innudated with water?L: What I mean here is that there are from 40 to 150 days of rising flood waters. So the simple answer is that the "regressive sequences" would have occurred prior to the time of total inundation.

e: I'm sure the poster intended to mean a sequence that shows the flood process.L: I think Roxrkool said something like what you mean in THIS MESSAGE, but I am specifically referring to IrishRockHound's response in THIS MESSAGE. I mean no disrespect to IrishRockHound; I just doubt a world-wide flood would leave only ONE sediment layer.

e: And I feel obligated to tell you that you have a lot common with other YECs; except that some (most?) are not as honest as you.L: I realize, of course, you are implying most, if not all, YECs know nothing about geology. I do try to be honest; thanks.

Why then are there overthrust and re-work theories for fossils not found in their expected evolutionary order?

How do you propose fossils form that is consistent with what you see in the geologic record?

How do you propose fossils form that is consistent with what you see in the geologic record?

Evolution. There is no competing mechanism.