What a vague mumble your 495 is when compared to the
straightforward interpretation that the various quite distinct sedimentary layers exposed in the Grand Canyon were formed in the manner suggested by the fossils they contain and in the order you would expect (bottom layers first, etc.)
In fact, presuming 20,000 feet of floodwater for which we have no direct evidence doesn't help a bit in explaining the fossilized animal burrows, spider tracks, raindrop imprints, etc. You present no scenario by which it would. Rather, you declare that if we modeled a 20,000-foot high flood with the best brains and supercomputers available the flood scenario would suddenly work. This is a bit like saying that a cold-air balloon would work better than a hot-air balloon if we modeled it with a Cray, if only cold-air balloon technology weren't being conspiratorially denied its fair place.
The evidence presented to you may or may not be completely truthful.
You may or may not be correct in your interpretation of the evidence.
Many inconsistancies with your theory do not make it for public consumption, therefore you are unaware of them.
Because the last statement is true, there should be an outcry by the public for the lack of explaination for the information on my profile page among other "covered up" scientific problems.
We are seeing that public outcry now in a nationwide curtain pulling, to reveal the wizard's of the fantasy.