No, that's wrong. For example, polystrate fossils require slow, periodic deposition over decades. Oviraptor was found in a collapsed desert sand dune. The very human-like Australopithecine tracks at Laetoli were made in the ash of a then-recent volcano eruption. Fossil found in lake varves were buried gradually by thin layers, two per year.
Archaeoptyrx was first found in what was an anoxic marsh mud.
The many early Cambrian fossils in the Burgess shale were found in a mudslide that buried a shore community in very placid waters. As Kurt Wise points out, whale fossils are found in what creationists consider post-flood deposits, and that this is one of the toughest problems for creationism.
The most obvious and simple explanation would be that floods and other natural disasters are common phenomena on the Earth and that this is why we find those remains. The fantastic and complicated explanation would be that a worldwide flood did it all at once, and somehow made it look as though it happened in many separate incidents.
But to address your claim, you now see that it's just the opposite of what you said. More and more people are accepting the fact that living things evolve from other living things.
Sorry, denial won't change reality.
They are all in mud and or flood conditions.
Nope. See above. Even worse for your story are the insect nests found in petrified soil half way down in the Grand Canyon. Think you can explain what insects were doing, building nests in the middle of the flood?
Large amounts of mud spread around is a flood condition.
It's also a normal erosion condition. You've got Zebra's syndrome. You hear hooves, and you say "Aha! Zebra!"
Nor do you or yours know the exact conditions which created the fossils...
Actually,l paleontologists know very precisely what caused these fossils. But in your own puffed up mind as a self proclaimed prophet, you think you imagine exactly what happened eons ago.
You imagine one big flood when the geologic record and human history shows many individual floods.