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 Zdenk 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.