Due to time constraints, I wish to only address Faith's contention regarding deformation confined to lower strata in an active tectonic environment.
With all due respect to one's belief system, actual research and reasoning should trump wishful rationalization.
The normal interpretation of deformed strata below undeformed strata is that the younger rocks were deposited after deformation and erosion of the lower strata. In fact, any other intepretation is hard to comprehend. the only exception is where there is some kind of detachment of the upper strata along which there is lateral motion. This would include overthrusts (which most YECs vehemently deny), obduction (which rasies the issue of convergent tectonic boundaries and subdution, another bogeyman for YECs), or some form of soft sediment deformation which is pretty well understood by mainstream geologists.
Any of these include major forms of evidence which refute Faith's premise. In all cases, deformation decreases with depth below the boundary. In virtually all cases, there is evidence of dislocation along the boundary such as breccias, mylonite, repeated stratigraphy, etc. Regardless of what professional YECs say, it is possible to find such features in every case of overthrusting or obduction. Maybe not at an individual site, but somewhere along the boundary there will be evidence. And we haven't even discussed what happens above the dislocation boundary.
In summary, the notion is rather silly in light of what is actually known about the rocks.
™ Version 4.2
