Floating forest? What on earth is this about ? Cmon, we've had plenty of tsunamis in modern times, and i've not seen one floating forest? Show me a precedent, and i'll consider it, until then it's a crackpot hypothesis.
Um... have you seen a Big Bang? An Oort cloud? The origin of the Earth's moon? Abiogenesis? The evolution of a body plan or major anatomy? The ability of culled genetic accidents to produce scales or hair or feathers? Mass extinctions due to an asteroid? An "ecological niche" giving rise to vertebrae or jaws or limbs? Monkeys rafting across the Atlantic ocean? I guess there are a lot of crackpot hypotheses out there, huh...
"angiosperms are assumed to have been distributed at higher or more inland environments pre-flood".
So, assuming the earth is several billion years older than the flood based on a wealth of empirical data is wrong, and lots of other assumptions that geologists etc need to make (constant rate of radioactive decay in a given set of conditions etc) but making an assumption like this is fine?
They are different models with different assumptions. People who believe in an old earth are free to make their own assumptions.
Postulating a different distribution of angiosperms in the past seems like a rather conservative hypothesis compared to say... rocks turning into living creatures, for instance.
Again, why would that be true, what supports that?
Their order of appearance in the rock record in the context of the flood model. Similar to how an evolutionist would find the lowest fossils of a bat or pterosaur body plan and conclude "Well I guess that's roughly when and where they evolved." What supports this conclusion other than their appearance in the fossil record?
Personally i see modern (extant) angiosperms living in all manner of diverse current habitats, all manner of terrestrial from mountaintops to costal sandunes, river edges high up to tidal esturaries, and even plenty in the sea, like seagrasses.
Are you suggesting angiosperms were distributed all over the Earth at the moment of their inception? That is quite a metaphysical departure from conventional thought.
I'm sure you realize that even evolutionists believe the initial "evolution" of a species means its distribution is small and concentrated by definition. And past species distributions could have been radically different than modern ones. And rapid migration doesn't necessarily have to leave fossil traces.
What i don't see is any evidence for them in any rocks/ beds/geological regions deemed to be older than the early Cretaceous period ...
Hence the reason for assuming prior distribution patterns...
least advanced animals drowning first, cmon ... seriously ... just look at the dispersion of fossils throughout any stata of the world in any paleontology text book you like people, no rabbits (or such modern like vertebrates) in the Cambrian, no Tiktaalik (or more-modern like forms) in the Silurian or Ordivician or before ...
Are you under the impression that underwater or benthic ecosystems are non-hostile to rabbits? Because that is what we see characterized in the Cambrian/Ordovician/Silurian rock layers.
By the way, tetrapod trackways, far more advanced than Tiktaalik, are found in the early Devonian, suggesting that tetrapods could easily have lived during the Silurian even by evolution standards. So you see how easily Evolutionism can modify itself to absorb failed predictions.