The Flood = many coincidences

Dr Adequate writes:Perhaps we should let geologists decide what geology is. Many of them would find it quite difficult to study rocks without knowing what rocks are made of. It's quite a basic consideration.How, for example, would you go about studying the chemical weathering of granite without knowing its chemical composition? --- if you had to do so while being neutral on the question of whether it was composed of (a) felsic minerals (b) cotton candy (c) green cheese?I must say that it speaks very poorly of creationists when you demand (as you have done repeatedly) that scientists should be obliged to ignore relevant facts. And what can be more relevant to the study of rocks than the question of what rocks are made of.

Minnemooseus writes:

quote:

---

Petrology (from Greek: πέτρα, petra, rock; and λόγος, logos, knowledge) is the branch of geology that studies rocks, and the conditions in which rocks form.

---

Robert, if it has anything to do with the formation of rock, it is part of geologic study.Igneous petrology - The study of igneous rocks and their origins. The solidification of a magma is the precipitation of crystals out of a solution (albeit a very hot solution). You may wish to call the study "geochemistry", or call it "igneous petrology", or even call it something else, but it is part of the geological sciences.Moose - the proud owner of a very rusty geology bachelors of science (BS) degree

Percy writes:Hi Robert,Even other creationists don't agree with how you're defining geology, for example, Steven Austin, professor of geology and chair of the Department of Geology of the Institute for Creation Research. You're just making things up so you can focus attention away from the many things you're wrong about, though in the course of doing this you just introduce more wrong things, like denying even the simple dictionary definition of geology.But as far as this discussion goes we can leave the definition of geology aside and treat it as just a label. The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.
   ​
2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?--Percy

Adminnemooseus writes:1) Concerning message formatting - I've "personal messaged" you, asking that you make it a practice to insert blank lines between your paragraphs. Doing such makes for nicer reading, regardless of the merit or lack of merit of your content - If nothing else, it looks much better!2) I fail to see the relevance of whether or not an aspect of scientific study can be properly be called geologic study. Please drop that issue, or at least propose a new topic specific to such. Minnemooseus would even be willing to "Great Debate" you on the matter.Now a side side note from the non-admin mode: If you had stopped right there, you would have been in pretty good shape. Although substituting "processes" for "forces" would be an improvement. Chemical breakdown of rocks is "A process acting on material with results pertaining to the earth." You contradict yourself.While I make no claims to being even in the upper half of "geologist quality", I did manage to graduate college with a geology degree. And much to all of what you are saying isn't geology, was indeed covered in my geology classes. To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.Adminnemooseus (and Minnemooseus)

Percy writes:The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:

1. Radiometric dating gives consistent answers across a variety of different methods, and is also consistent with non-radiometric methods where their range of application overlaps.
   ​
2. Calculations show that the cooling of rock underground from a molten state takes a considerable amount of time, longer than 6000 years for plutons of sufficient size (which is common), and analysis of the rock structure reveals they formed through very slow cooling.

For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence?--Percy

anglagard writes:The absolute ignorance of this statement leaves me aghast.Look up the term "geochemistry" in Wikipedia, if you can't be bothered to visit a library.Signed - one with a BS in Geological Engineering and a Master's in categorizing knowledge. However, I do not have a PhD in geochemistry, even though it is offered by dozens of universities. Is that what I need to convince you the field exists?"Pearls for Swine" - Monty Python