Hydrologic sorting describes the water flow sorting the fossils into the layers we see today. That involves objects of a small enough size scale that you should be able to reproduce it in a lab environment.
Can you think of any reason that should not be reproducible?
So reading between the lines you claim that on a small scale experiment hydrologic sorting is not supported - totally debunked in fact - correct?
Even though you may need all the conditions of the flood [which I agree can never be reporoduced by mankind and God promises not to do allow another global flood again either] to prove that hydrologic sorting works as we see with the fossil layers.
Are you also unaware of the experiments Walt conducted that supported the hydroplate theory? How did these other small scale experiments differ. What assumptions were made? Blah blah blah etc and so on = it’s debunked b/c we claim so. Funny how often key data is not shared or even lost by the secular mainstream [eerily familiar example of AGW].
Furthermore, from the hydroplate theory Walt points out how the sea levels changed in the centuries following the global flood as there would have been many local floods that would also affect the layering of the fossil record depending of course upon where those local floods occurred and how it affected sedimentary layers that may or may not have been fully cemented in place. After the global flood, the hydroplate theory conjectures that all of the land masses would still be connected by land bridges and island chains - therefore specialized flora and fauna on each continent is also supported.
So since you can not re-create all of the conditions in the lab or some other small scale type of experiment you think that the theory is completely debunked - correct?
Have you even read the entire free online book at creationscience.com? Because your arguments fit neatly in the scenario I described in my prior post.