Nice answer. I guess I'll revert to the same tactic when I'm afraid to present the facts and figures.
I met this head on in post 1522.
No. You told a zero story about cake. You have yet to present a mathematical figure representing the percentage of the geologic record that has been exposed for scientific observation and analysis.
What you said about little rocks sinking faster than big rocks is wrong.
It was either you or your biddies who put those words in my mouth. What I said was smaller grains tend to sift down between larger ones. Try it in an experiment once. You'll see. Meanwhile, are we supposed to pretend Stoke's Law was the only operative factor in the formation of the earth as we know it?
Why do you need a new flu shot every year?
I don't. And even if I did it would no more be evidence of evolutionary advancement than the fact AIDs has developed to supplement other maladies effecting various populations. So?
Molecular biology experiments. It's a thriving discipline.
I'm sure it is, and I am sure it will progress very well on its own without the assistance of a million year "just-so story."
And how are intelligence and design supposed to exist before there is any lawfulness to nature . . .
Laws cannot function without either of those attributes, but on the part of the one who sets them in motion and the one who observes them.
Next!
There is a point, even beyond your getting it wrong and lying about it. We do see flood sediments in that geologic column that somehow doesn't exist. One flood = one micro layer. The layers show Stokes's Law sorting--within the layer.
But the column in any one place tends to have lots and lots of these layers, including lots of flood layers interspersed with layers clearly deposited by other means. Such layering often will include heavy, dense flood-washed gravel over fine sandstone, etc. If it had all been formed in one flood, not only would there not be so many layers, but that sand had to have already hardened to sandstone before it could hold up that gravel. The sand AND the gravel cannot have arrived in the same flood or the gravel would be underneath. That and some of the sediments are wind-deposited on dry land, etc.
That's what Sedgwick, an honest creationist, had to admit already in 1831. It can't be all from one flood, period.
A nice Ichneumon post on the subject, using the Grand Canyon as an example. It's long, though, so you can't read it and still reply in 30 seconds. Guess you won't read it.
I've already mentioned that the conditions you appear to impose require an answer of zero. If you are allowing any induction at all from exposed surfaces to unexposed volume, please state what these allowances are. I believe that as most of us understand the process, there is very little of the world that has not been geologically surveyed to some non-trivial level of detail or other. There has been no Terra Incognita on the map for some time.