Pete - I'm not sure why you're using Gabbott et al's paper as a supporting argument for a flood. The taphonomy of the Burgess Shale (as with many lagerstatten) are often the subject of constant revisions and I cannot see how the rapid burial of these organisms in underwater debris flows is evidence for a flood.

From creation.com:

"To preserve such features, it is obvious that the creature needs to be buried quickly. Not just that, but the enclosing sediment needs to harden fairly quickly. If it stayed soft and unconsolidated for years, the fact that oxygen, moisture and bacteria could easily access the carcass means that one would very quickly have a disintegrated, stinking mess. To try to imitate how such features as scales and fins can possibly be preserved, the best experimental analogy would be to bury a fish rapidly in wet cement!"

This is ignorant, utterly wrong and a crass generalisation. Even someone with the most basic palaeontological knowledge understands that fossilisation depends on innumerable variables, and no two formations will ever be the same. Also, to suggest the detail present in all fossils is the result of rapid burial is ludicrous - ever heard of dessication?