As well, another part of their argument points to radical curves in the formation of rock. Obviously, that can't happen to solid rock through slow erosion because the rock would snap. But if you, however, have soft, pliable mud after, say, its been immersed in large volumes of water, after the water dries, the sediment will pack and harden, and thus, might explain why there are such curves in solid rock.
First of all, erosion does not cause deformation.
Second of all, if you don't want to wade through Bill's most excellent yet technical description, the issue with deformed rock is that we KNOW it was solid when it deformed because of the evidence.
The main evidence is call "strain" and that is where the internal structure of the rock is bent in the same direction and curvature of the rock itself.
Trying to bend the internal structure of the rock (the grains, the intrusions, fossils, etc.) is akin to the task of bending a metal rod that is under water by only manipulating the water. It just cannot be done. It is physically impossible.
The poster child for this is of course fossil strain. There are rocks where fossils themselves are bent in the direction that the rock is. How could this be if the rock was "soft, pliable mud"? Anwer, it was not "soft, pliable mud".
Moreover, we can go into the lab and put rock under pressure, heat, and mechanical manipulation and see that it behaves plasticly without fracturing. It leaves behind distinct characteristics that we can compare to rock we find outside the lab. When these characteristics match, we can know with confidence that the rocks were bent under enormous pressure, heat and mechanical manipulation.
And that they were HARD when they were bent. They absolutly had to be. That IS the evidence.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
™ Version 4.2