I've shown it. It's just hard to conceptualize. No it's not easy to explain, you have to spend some time on it thinking it through, like some puzzles. A deep column of layers of slabs of rock that span continents cannot ever have been landscapes in which creatures lived.
I can assure you that many members of this forum, and many other much more knowledgeable people, have spent a lot of time thinking this through - that's how we've come to the detailed picture of the past we possess today.
I don't know much about the geology of the mid-western US, but from your desciption it sounds pretty dull. And when I think to speculative reconstructions of earth history; it kind of makes sense. This would be the inner part of Laurentia, whole and undivided since the Proterozoic, covered at times by extensive inland seas.
I have the good fortune to live, instead, somewhere of enormous geological complexity. A little country the size of South Carolina which appears to be constructed of no fewer than four seperate pieces of Proterozoic craton, twisted and broken by multiple different mountain building events. This leaves us with really cool geological structures like this:
and also means you can find very different kinds of fossils right next door to each other, due to the way the original sedimentary layers have been repeatedly reshaped. The brown rocks on the left below are marine sediments, and date to the Cretaceous. The red sediments on the right are terrestrial, and were laid down 150 million years earlier. Fishes, sponges and brachiopods are found in the brown rocks, weird, extinct types of tetrapod are found in the red rocks.
But your geological examples are tectonically altered and that's what needs to be explained about them.
Indeed, and that's what cannot be explained in the flood model. I know you have some idea that mountains somehow magically sprang up in the last couple of thousand years, but even if we pretended this was not ludicrous, the point is that the complex geology here shows multiple mountain-building events, not one, with sedimentation in between them. That pattern can explain the distributions of rocks and fossils; a flood followed by magic mountain building does not.
But your geological examples are tectonically altered and that's what needs to be explained about them. However, the Cretaceous is not a marine layer, it's a terrestrial layer and often has dinosaurian type fossils IIRC, reptilian anyway. It's not marine however.
As others have pointed out, this is very wrong. Cretaceous deposits in this country are primarily marine; though we do have terrestrial deposits as well. Much of the country appears to have been flooded over the course of the Cretaceaus in connection with rising sea levels. We don't have a good dinosaur fossil record here, since for much of the dinosaur era what's now the Czech Republic was not a depositional environment - it was mountains, and the deposits we do have are from after the place was flooded, so they contain ammonites and sponges, not dinosaurs.
Some of those mountains still stuck out of the sea however, and were not devoid of dinosaurs, since the first dinosaur bones were found in this country very recently, and dubbed Burianosaurus after Zdeněk Burian - probably the most famous Czech who ever lived from the perspective of people who are interested in dinosaurs. Unsurprisingly, the sediment in which it was found is an area of sandstone and mudstone in which you can see the paths of old rivers. The dinosaur bones were not found in the rivers, but in the shallow marine sediment next to it, looking very much like a bone would if it have been washed into sea.
After this Cretaceous marine sediment had been laid down, on top of prexisting mountains, there was more tectonic activity connected with the northern movement of Africa, necessary to explain wonderful structures like this:
Those are made of Cretaceous sandstone.
I know you dismiss all this interpretation, but the point here is just that the complex patterns are comprehensible in terms of millions of years of sedimentation and tectonic activity - not in magic flood terms.
Your strange comment about the Cretaceous reinforces an impression that, while you have indeed spent a lot of time thinking about this, what you're thinking about bears very little resemblance to the actual evidence before us. I think this is why we're all struggling to understand your strange ideas about everything dying so the landscape can be turned to bare rock. Lithification is happening deep underground. You don't need to clear all the animals and plants and other sediment off the top for lithification to happen - quite the opposite. The sediment needs to be buried underneath for there to be sufficient pressure.
Why you think this would inconvenience things from going on as normal on the surface is beyond me.
Nevertheless all I'm saying is that the layers would originally have been laid down straight and flat by the Flood and their being so deformed is the result of the tectonic activity that occurred afterward. I like to focus on the areas where they are most straight and flat to make my arguments but they are deformed in one way or another in most places.
An explanation which requires you to ignore most evidence is probably not a good one.
Sedimentation is a weird idea, somehow it's expected to come along for no good reason, just one particular sediment, and somehow create huge flat sedimentary rocks from time to time.
Sedimentation is not a mysterious, hypothetical process. It's happening today. We know where sediment comes from. Let's take for example the Cretaceous deposits in which Burianosaurus was found. Like I said, these are near shore marine deposits, and they're not spread over a very wide area at all. This is the are in question marked on a map of the Czech Republic:
Where does the sediment at the bottom of the sea near the coast come from? From rivers, which wash down stuff eroded from highlands in the adjacent land. This is the same thing that happens today. and seems pretty obvious. And our obvious common sense is confirmed by the work of geologists analysing the chemical composition of the rocks. The below is from Caracciolo et al (2011):Sandstone petrology and mudstone geochemistry of the Peruc–Korycany Formation (Bohemian Cretaceous Basin, Czech Republic), International Geology Review, 53:9, 1003-1031.
quote:Multiple source-rock compositions have been deduced: siliciclastic metasedimentary and plutonic/high-rank metamorphic. The overall maturity of quartzarenite compositions in the Peruc–Korycany Formation is possibly related to a sedimentary recycling of the heterogeneous Teplà-Barrandian Unit, which consists of Cambrian-Devonian conglomerate, sandstone, phyllite, quartzite, black shale and limestone. The plutonic/high-rank metamorphic sandy detritus is related to the erosion of the Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex and of the Moldanubian Unit.
That's just saying, in very technical terms, that the sandstone is made up of minerals washed down from the adjacent, higher areas. These units that they're talking about are visible on the below slightly complicated map. The Cretaceous Basin where the mudstone is found is mostly white on this map. You can see the Moldanubian and Tepla-Barrandian Units marked on the map to the south of this. The 'Central Bohemian Plutonic Complex' is represented by the red bits scattered throughout this area.
Water erodes rocks and washes bits into the sea, where they settle to the bottom. What is at all mysterious about this process?
Re: Shorelines, not just temporary edges of water. it's in the details
They would have to have predated the Flood then but I'd need to spend time on it and I'm not interested right now.
In the event you ever were interested in thinking about this, your explanation would have to clarify how these antediluvian shorelines wound up on top of strata supposedly laid down by the flood; and how some survived the post-flood tectonic cataclysm unscathed, desire lying on top and next to rocks warped and twisted by this event