The TRVE history of the Flood...

The first thing you would need to know to make such a conclusion is how much water are you talking about.What was the land elevation at the time of the Biblical Flood?
Was there any mountains, if so how high were they?
The Hebrew word translated mountains means a rise in land mass and is translated by our translators as hills, high hill, and mountains at their discretion. Based upon what they know the earth to look like in the days they were living.Since you are looking at the earth in the shape it is in today you assume it has always been like it is today.The Imago Mundi from Babylonia, 500 BCE. Is a map that shows a land mass surrounded by water and 7 islands. Showing the islands means they had water transportation and could navigate to these islands. This map has a cuneiform inscription that makes it a copy of an earlier map of the region. So it was a handed down map of an earlier earth. This particular map is over 2500 years old and in existence today.So we have no way of knowing what the earth was like before the flood. We can only make assumptions.We do know what it looks like today because we have satellite's that can take pictures of it.There is sea shells on the top of the mountain ranges which prove that at one time those mountains were covered with water before they were pushed up into mountains.Genesis 1:2 tells us the land mass of the earth was covered with water. This is required for the sea shells to be on mountain tops.Genesis 1:9 tells us all water was gathered into one place and dry land appeared. (I get the same picture from that description as the Babylonian Map of the World known as the Imago Mundi.).
This is required for Pangea to exist as science claims.So if we could ever determine the sea level of the land mass that existed at the time of the flood we could determine how much water we had to get rid of.Taking into consideration that The Bay of Fundy waters rise 55' and fall 55' every 11+ hours we have an example of how God can move water around to suite His will.It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for God to remove the amount of water needed to cause the dry land to appear as He had already done so in Genesis 1:9.

And angular unconformities are the ONLY supposed evidence for deposition following tectonic disturbance ...

... and they are usually pretty pathetic looking broken horizontal pieces perched on top of some buckled strata.

Which indicates that whatever caused the tectonic disturbance knocked off all the strata above the pathetic piece.

OK, yes, EXCEPT for the Great Unconformity. All the strata above that point were in place before the tectonic disturbance that followed.

The water came from the sky and from the fountains of the deep.

As far as the biggest geological event in the history of the earth. Why don't you take a trip to the Bay of Fundy and watch the tide come in and go out.

If you don't want to take the trip and see it in person you can visit it online. You will notice that even though the water rises and falls 55 feet in 11+ hours it does very little damage.

Are you that nave?

Any hole in the earth is a fountain whether it spews out cold water, hot water, or molten rock.

According to whom? The Bible says no such thing.
It only says the water rose and covered the earth.

You been reading AIG's fairy tale books that Faith reads. Or some of the Seventh Day Adventist teachings about the flood.

You sure have not been reading what the Bible says. No wonder you are so mixed up about the Biblical record of the flood.

What evidence do you have that the water coming out of the fountains of the deep would do any damage. The Bible does not say anything about the volcanos erupting only the water rising.

The water in the Bay of Fundy rises 55 feet and falls 55 feet every Eleven plus hours and does very little damage.

The fountains of the deep are not little small cracks in the rocks, and it would take more than limestone to hold the water pressure the water under the ground at the bottom of the sea is under. Any liquid be it water or oil is under a lot of pressure

We have a lot of fountains of the deep in Florida. Silver Springs, at Ocala, Wakula Springs at Wakula and Homosassa Springs, at Homosassa which produces all the drinking water for St Petersburg. Then we have Blue springs, White springs just to name a few. These put out thousands of gallons per hour 24/7. They do no damage. We have wells that produce water the say way except a pipe has been drilled down to where the water is. Although most of those are capped or have a shutoff valve on them now.

But if you want to discuss flood ideas with me you going to have to leave Faith's musings behind.

Faith and I agree on one thing and that a world wide flood happened not to far in the past.

You DO mean the tilted strata to the north of the fault? How could it not happen afterward if the vertical mile drop happened afterward? And again edge said a long time ago that the tilting is something that faults do, they drag the strata like that.

That's very informative, seeing it as the end of the Colorado Plateau in particular which fits it into my scenario too, whereas before I didn't have a picture of how and when the plateau had formed. Also interesting the idea that the Claron was probably deformed adjacent to the fault, although since the strata beneath it are upwarped I don't know why the edge of the Claron would be downwarped.

The mental masturbation you go through to shoehorn a myth is entertaining, but to turn it around and accuse others of doing it, is dishonest and shameful.

I had described the upper strata as mounding OVER the Supergroup. "Dipping" is not a term I'd use for it. The point of the mounding is that it demonstrates the pushing up of the upper strata from beneath, since the strata would not follow the contour of the mound if they were laid down afterward. There is really no other reasonable explanation.

So how do you explain the quartzite boulder fifteen feet in diameter that was clearly broken off the Shinumo quartzite but is found embedded in the Tapeats sandstone a quarter of a mile from the Shinumo?

I hope you don't mind if I tell you that I laughed out loud at your picture of boulders on a beach in answer to my question. The cleverness involved is quite amusing.

Let me ask: Would you expect to find the source of any of those rocks in a sedimentary layer buried under that beach?

Do blocks of strata normally underlie beaches?

How would you account for the separation of the rock from its source?

Do you expect that beach someday to be like the Tapeats layer in the GC?

So, the GC was formed by intermittent risings of water over the land depositing this or that, some six of them altogether? So I suppose the land had to sink to the necessary level for each new shallow sea to cover it without being deep enough to associate it with Noah's Flood?

So it keeps sinking for each new sea transgression until it gets all the layers laid down, and then what? Then we get the pushing up of the Colorado plateau because of course those miles of layers aren't going to stay below sea level?

How do strata form "by erosion?"

I find it hard to consider the quartzite boulder as having occurred by the same processes that produced the boulders you have illustrated.

It is embedded IN the Tapeats sandstone a small space above the Great Unconformity a quarter mile from the Shinumo layer, in such a way as to suggest it was broken off that layer and carried that distance by the forces I keep describing.

They were eroded by the movement between the strata and the tilted group. The strata were all in place, the lower strata were tilted by tectonic force, raising the whole stack above, shown by the curving of the stack over the Supergroup, showing that it was all pushed up by the tectonic force, the fault lines were cut off by the abrasion at the contact etc.

The vertical movement was abruptly halted by the horizontal movement at the GU contact, cutting off the fault and its step.

The erosion and the movement of the boulder, ...

... the cutting off of the fault and its step,

... the confinement of the magma -- granite, schist etc.

The horizontal movement would easily accomplish all that and without it you'd probably have your step and the magma would have penetrated up into the strata.

You've somehow misunderstood my point: the faults were cut off so they are NOT above the unconformity.

I don't think the boulder itself moved, I think the basement rocks moved horizontally in relation to the strata above.

Strange, you are asking for exactly what I said didn't happen for the reasons I gave. The movement confined the granite and schist beneath the GU, why are you saying "therefore" it should be found above it? That makes NO sense whatever.

Sorry, NO idea what you are talking about. What "detachment" -- you mean the sliding between the levels?

Tectonic pressure below against enormous weight above, separated at the point where the forces are most closely balanced.