We believe that the thirty-eight years of creationist stratigraphy that have followed the publication of The Genesis Flood have demonstrated a fundamental incompatibility between the global uniformitarian stratigraphic column and biblical history (i.e., Flood-based stratigraphy). Whitcomb and Morris advocated a refashioning of stratigraphy starting with actual data. Unfortunately, their advice was not heeded and instead creationists have attempted to leverage limited resources and accommodate the global uniformitarian column in a biblical framework. None of these efforts have succeeded in unifying creationists. We evaluate several of these strategies by comparison to the Northern Gulf of Mexico Basin in an effort to consider an alternate conclusion: The absence of profit in continuing to follow the route of uniformitarian-based stratigraphy. We believe that future profitable efforts in creationist stratigraphy will require a different conceptual framework. Unfortunately, this conclusion forces creationists to pursue stratigraphy at a fundamental level; the reintegration of field data absent the "plug-and play" uniformitarian column. There is no denying that this redirection will require significant effort, and will not generate a global synthesis in a short time. But it is just as obvious to us that additional time and resources spent on any attempted synthesis with the uniformitarian column will be wasted.