Sorry DB, but this - still - rests on too many assumptions to be credible, too much circular reasoning with isn’t being addressed at the core of the contention. You’re providing “proofs” that dance around the sidelines, but which still rely upon the same unproven assumptions for their credibility.
It is hardly circular reasoning to study current rates and methods of deposition and extrapolate them back in time. It is also factored in that erosion and deposition back prior to land plants was much more rapid.