Usually I refrain from these "discussions" because it is a frustrating waste of my time...however, a friend asked that I address your post, so therefore I am.
A meaningful dialogue with someone on the subject of geology can only begin when there is some agreement about basic prinicipals...obviously in your case this is an exercise in futility, but for lurkers I offer the following recap of Nicolaus Steno's Laws:
Virtually everyone has seen photographs of the Grand Canyon, or traveled on roads which were blasted out of the surrounding rock. In case after case, one can see distinct layers of rocks...not an amorphous "amalgum" that you so elegantly described. Sand, which makes up the bulk of sandstones, very readily displays a "layering" effect as successive amounts of windblown sand creates distinct strata. For an example, please see this fine website (complete with photos for the learning-disabled) about Sedimentary structures. Although I must warn you, this website uses big words such a "dolomites", "cross-bedding" and "limestones".
Thus, using Steno's Laws, we can discuss the "Relative Ages" of rocks...in other words, we can say that Layer-A was emplaced before Layer-B, and so on. However, it wasn't until the discovery of radioactivity that we had any hope of dating such layers in an "Absolute" sense...such that Layer-A was formed of eroded rocks which were formed x-number of years b.p. (before present).
Here is a short list of currently used materials for Absolute Age-Dating, along with the method:
Alas, I haven't time to address the subject more fully and I must leave you to your Creation-god. Thankfully, on the subject of Salvation, adherance to Creationism or Evolution is not a point of "Salvation"...
Now the commentary I've provided on this principle may seem at once "argumentative" - and they should. For good reason. Let's consider a flood plane. When amalgums are laid down on over topsoils over time, they do not sort themselves. In the instance of a flood, liquifaction will sort the materials by weight and boyancy. Thus layers that are laid down over time are disturbed and the result is a mixing of the layers which results in small layers of amalgum being mixed by weight/boyancy - not time. Thus the apparently youngest layer is not the youngest at all. And as a matter of physics, the amount of disturbed layers is a product of the volume of water involved in flooding and the depth to which it was able to affect surface strata. Now, given that a flood or multiple floods occur at any point in time, the geologist looking at strata is disarmed at once by the lack of specific evidence of flooding, quakes and the like - their magnitude, Water volumes etc. Therefore, in looking at strata, what could be shown as having being sorted by liquifaction will appear to be laid down in well defined and separated layers - the which they are not.
You beg the question by dancing around the central issue - that of how an amalgum becomes a well sorted layer. You do so by arguing the unobserveable in another theory that bedrock is a product of sedimentation unmeddled with by other natural processes. The danger in the assumptions above is that 4 feet of flood sorted debris will be looked upon as layers put down at different times - the lowest being considered the oldest. Accumulating 4 feet of debris through sedimentation takes quite a long time in most parts. A very long time. Therefore we can test the dating of materials by strata and other methods with a practical use of modern materials: Styrofoam, and a stone carved statuette - say 4 inches tall. We mix our Styrofoam and our statue into a 4 foot deep tub that is 1 foot square and place statue and styrofoam at different random places. We excercise our liquifaction replication event and what happens? The styrofoam rises and the statue falls through layers. This is predictable as liquifaction sorts again by weight and boyancy. A geologist unaware of a flood having taken place, therefore dates the stone statue older than the styrofoam because they are in different stratum - when in fact, they are contemporaries that may have been made the same day. Amalgums don't just sort themselves over time. Something has to affect an amalgum in such a way as to sort it. As soon as it has been sorted, any pretense as to what is dateable strata is lost.
Now, if we were talking about sedimentation as something happening in a vacuum that is not ever interfered with by other forces, then the principles you proffer would have some weight. In the real world where we can observe nature meddling with sedimentation on a daily basis, your principles are largely useless. Your example of sandstone is disingenuous at best. Sandstone is an amalgum. And appears both as an amalgum and as sorted layers depending upon the way in which it was made. Which lends itself to my underlying point, if sedimentation were predictable and static, then all sandstone should be the same upon examining internals - it is not. This is not to say that it should contain the same chemical or particulate makeup across the board lest you use that nonsensical notion to try and sidestep the issue. If sedimentation self sorts over time and particles take trips up and down in top soil to sort themselves then particles are free of dating because if a particle starts at level (a) at a specific date point and comes to rest at level (b) at variable depth away from it's starting point, any presumption of being able to date it after sorting is merely a lie begging to be labeled truth. If all sandstone does not demonstrate well defined strata, then there is no governing principle to the laying down of strata other than randomness interrupted endlessly by nature to preserve the randomness. Order can come from chaos; but, the way in which it is interpreted has to be a result of understanding the chaos from which the order derived. If the nature of the prior chaos is unknown, then the basis from which you start is supposition. The starting point is a presumed given of sedimentation but isn't necessarily a given any more than the chaos introduced to produce order or the appearance of it.
The other principles are as much a matter of supposition as the first and rely on each other. These principles are theory. They are not proven. I think we could involve ourselves in an exchange on how Rock comes into being; but, the argument is made. Weakening it further is unnecessary.
However, it wasn't until the discovery of radioactivity that we had any hope of dating such layers in an "Absolute" sense.
And you still don't. Merely saying it isn't the same as proving it - something that you still cannot do. I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by coming in and saying what you did. But it would appear it has been counter productive for you. Anyone who actually thinks through much of this stuff can find the flaws in thinking rather quickly. So the pretense of intelligence in rallying behind unproven theory rather perplexes those not suffused into the mentality that a proposed theory somehow is fact because you agree with it. That isn't the way science works. Hypothesis never makes it to fact until the hypothesis is proven true beyond a doubt. Thank God Salvation is a matter of faith while science is not.