So? Your point? Saying something and proving something, by now, ought to occur to you to be vastly different things. Like how your article you just linked denies liquifaction sorting of layers by a flood by saying that "bigger things would go to the bottom and smaller things to the top". This is so scientifically dishonest it amazes me that it could be stated so boldly. Liquifaction doesn't sort by size - it sorts by bouyancy. But mistating the argument - likely on purpose - then gives one the apparent ground to dismiss the argument out of hand without actually dealing with it's substance or any facts. Sidestepping it as it were.. This is not science nor does it pass for research. And such a blatent attempt to avoid an argument belies the idea that this is a search for facts.
You're simply changing the subject by spewing false statements about something else. You said there was no evidence for species transitions. Many are known, especially from deep sea cores from sediments accumulating for millions of years without erosion. Acknowledging what anyone can see would be honest. So far, you have failed to make such a demonstration.
Regarding what you DID say, there is nothing wrong with the statements on the page regarding hydraulic sorting. Hydraulic sorting would indeed put the trilobites (which averaged about the size of modern pillbugs) at the top of the geologic column and T. rex at the bottom. Neither is located where flood sorting would put it. The actual observed faunal succession in the geologic column is not the result of any possible flood sorting action at all.
You're right. I did say that. You presented evidence for something - what I don't know. But passing it off as transitions ain't gonna work. Sorry. I ain't drinking the koolaid.