I certainly wish I were qualified to address each challenge point by point, but apart from these being claims that there is only the one way of interpreting the geological data, it would be difficult to discuss general claims, but there is not much likelihood that I would know the answer if you did present specifics. ideally such challenges should be to a geologist rather than this lesser learned creationist.
I can make a few observations on stu/bills posting though.
you mention lyells uniformitarianism and the current adoption of neo-catastrophism. this of course must have come about when the weight of evidence for only slow and gradual became impossible to maintain, and the formerly thought best science was modified.
a diverse number of explanations are employed for different layers and geologic data, but this is true of flood geology also, which again brings me back to the role of worldview in interpreting data.
this also reminds me that I have been exaggerated to the point of misrepresentation. I have not said that scientists are careless and lazy. that is "simply unfair and inaccurate" ! I said that the research is coloured by worldview.
do I have to find those quotes by evolutionists again, that admit the same ?
I seem to remember a tv road trip programme where a creationist asked a evolutionist geologist if he would discuss with a creationist geologist, and the reply was, that he wouldn't waste his time. I would say that betrayed a fixed position, that did not want challenging. I would hope there were others who might be less arrogant.
I note that you are not able to give me an explanation for polystrates [or whatever term you prefer !] beyond assurances that wiki explains it.
by the same token, probably most of your points would be answered by a flood geologist far more than I possibly could.
I prefer to stick to the more basic and simpler ideas....like soft stuff not being able to survive the claimed myo ! .