Was there a worldwide flood?

No. That would be because I know that cities are typically built above water.And if you can find any evidence of cities buried beneath the lowest layers of sedimentary rocks, you'll have a point.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

From the details in the linked article, it's got to be Homo rudolfensis.

I know that because I know that "flood geology" is a steaming heap.But how do you know it?

By belonging to the same genus.Duh.

Except that the people who, unlike you, do in fact spend their entire professional lives looking at the rocks, find it, not just hard, but impossible, to believe in "flood geology".Do bear in mind that everything you think you know about geology falls into just two classes:(a) Crap creationists made up.(b) Facts discovered by geologists, who are therefore aware of these facts. In much, much more detail than you.

Unless you believe Genesis 4:17, of course. But heck, who'd be dumb enough to believe the Book of Genesis?

That is not, in fact, what Peg asserted. Indeed, part of the YEC dogma is to deny that index fossils are useful in any way whatsoever.If you can get Peg to assert that any fossils are useful as index fossils, I shall award you the Dr Adequate Prize For Talking Sense Into Creationists.

No, not really. Peg's sole point, if it can be dignified with that name, was that the existence of different pigs in different places at the same time somehow invalidates geology.So the observation that different species in the same taxon do, right now, live in different places at the same time, is indeed sufficient to refute her argument.If she had a more subtle point in mind (which she didn't) then she has relinquished her chance to make it.

Different pigs live in different places. How does this make geology "inconsistent"? What do you mean by the phrase "hypothetical structure"? Would this phrase also apply to the Periodic Table?Might I suggest that if you wish to understand geology, reading creationist crap is not the best place to start?