Again with the straw man, this part of the paper does not support the Noah’s flood idea…
In the context of our flume
experiments, erosion seems to have been followed
by transport of flocculated mud in bedload. In
view of an overall storm-dominated Eau Claire
shelf, these mud beds (Fig. 7) are probably best
interpreted as deposited from offshore flowing
gradient currents (Aigner and Reineck, 1982).
These bottom currents were most likely turbid and
transported flocculated mud as bedload. Given the
presence of HCS beds within this succession, the
cross-laminated mudstones may represent storms
of lesser magnitude that were not capable of
transporting large quantities of sand, or
alternatively may be the distal tails of storminduced
currents that originated at a greater
distance.
Unless of course you consider a worldwide flood a storm of lesser magnitude.
So what comes next, the avoidance, misdirection or the ridicule?
My bet is on the ridicule…………….
Even though any other flood deposits sediments in a predictable and intelligibly sorted pattern, THE global flood was different. It had phases and, er, phases and such (since you can't see me, you should know at this point that I'm waving my arms about) so that finely grained sediments could be deposited above or below (and above and below) coarsely grained sediments, not to mention thousands of phases where drowned animals got up again and walked around leaving footprints and digging burrows and such, multiple layers of soils reformed and plants regrew leaving intact fossil roots systems, and etc, right in the middle of the flood.
Now, granted the formation of large deserts in the middle of a global flood is a bit harder to explain (just gotta wave your arms harder) but apparently there were phases for them too.