^We're not saying we have a systematic quantitative model which totally reconstructs the properties of the geological column. Some work along those lines has been done, yes, with success. Even evoltuionists some times explain morphology changes up the column via biogeolgrpahy (which automatically really means hydrodynamic sorting and rapid burial).
I'm sure you've read a lot of the stuff here. I'll post some mainstream quotes soon where rapid origin of layers, beds and cyclothems (coal beds etc) are admitted. All we're saying is that mainstream researchers actaully agree that most layering was rapid (hence we still see layers, they aren't mixed by marine organisms etc, hence polystrate fossils, hence constant paleocurrents fro millions of years etc) and the yassume that the geolgoical time is between the layers. We think the latter can't be true becasue there are not enough unevenly eroded interfaces (unconformities). The Grand Canyon strata themselves were laid in only a handful of episodes (and possiblty a single episode with a few surges).
The flowering plants issue - we obviously believe it is due to biogeography and burial order. The column clearly displays marine organisms first. The details - we don't know for sure yet (although Woodmorappe may have looked at this), but it's our expectation based on the evidence of rapid formation of the column. I agree it would be an excellet test of any quantitative computer model. Don't get too excited about your challenges to us - it may backfire when/if we show a model where this feature of the geological column naturally emerges as a consequence of the global flood!
The North American paleocurrent data (flow rate/direction) already matches detailed creationist computer simulations as an example.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-15-2002]