The Flood = many coincidences

You're arguing that erosion leaves uneven surfaces behind, and that the top boundary of layers of Grand Canyon that scientists claim are a result of erosion, being relatively smooth and continuous in most places, are evidence that erosion could not be responsible for the missing layers.You'll have to explain to us why you think erosion should create uneven surfaces. Erosion is what wears rugged mountains down to flat plains over the course of some tens of millions of years. Erosion is analogous to sandpaper, which takes down the highest uneven parts of wood first just as erosion takes down the highest features of a landscape first. If you're even a little familiar with archaeology then you know that certain types of pottery are representative of certain eras and cultures. Sometimes a type of pottery is discovered to have also existed outside what was originally considered its era or culture, and then that pottery can no longer be considered conclusively representative anymore.The same is true of index fossils. Sometimes it is discovered that an index fossil existed for a broader expanse of time than was originally thought, and then that index fossil can no longer be considered indicative. This is pretty much what you just said, and its hard to see where you think the problem lies. I can see where it would be a problem if scientists persisted in using an index fossil after it had been invalidated for that purpose, but you're not accusing them of doing that.You're instead concluding that index fossils are speculative. Fossils in the geologic column are a record of change over time. The deeper you go the more the fossils differ from modern forms. Very few fossils are found everywhere throughout the geologic record, and some are found in only narrow regions of geologic layers and are also ubiquitous and therefore very useful in identifying the geologic time period, and we call these index fossils.But index fossils are just a shortcut way of identifying a geologic layer. Context (the layers above and below) are also very helpful and often definitive, and radiometric dating is frequently able to provide a very definitive date.If index fossils were truly an indication that the geologic timescale is unreliable then we'd expect to be able to find any kind of index fossil in any layer, but we don't. Index fossils are only useful when they are found only to exist in a restricted range of geological time, and so only fossils that fit that criteria are used as index fossils.--Percy

Well, I guess if you're going to be wrong you may as well be bold about it. Does it ever occur to you to look anything up to see if your mental meanderings have any basis in fact? Do you somehow believe that if a thought pops into your head that it must be true?If the process of cooling magma is not geology, then which field of science is it? Did you know that volcanology and plate tectonics are fields of geology, both being processes that occur before "the cooling is over?"But it doesn't really matter if you prefer to think of cooling processes as outside the field of geology, because at heart geology is just a label. Taq referenced cooling of a pluton (a subterranean intrusion of magma into an existing rock layer) in Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column, and whether or not you believe such issues are encompassed within geology, magma still intrudes into rock and then cools, and one can study the cooled rock eons later looking at things like grain size to see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock.In other words, whether you want to call cooling plutons geology or not, whether you want to call radiometric dating geology or not, cooling and radioactive decay still happen, and they can be studied to give us information about the age of rock layers.So the bottom line is, have you a response to the scientific evidence, or are you going to continue to stonewall by arguing over labels.--Percy

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?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

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

Hi Robert,Why bother quoting my message in full if you're not going to bother reading it? My message was not about what's geology and what's not. I made no argument about the definition of geology. The word "geology" does not even appear in my message.You know, one might almost get the feeling that you're not here to discuss anything, not interested in any back and forth, you just want to repeat your own misbegotten and meandering misunderstandings over and over again.This thread is about the flood. The very rocks you claim are from the flood are far more ancient than you would ever grant the flood to be, and I presented evidence supporting this great age. Our ability to infer the age of rocks from information like rate of cooling, grain size, radiometric analysis, etc., is precisely on-topic for this flood thread. So, one more time, and please don't use the word "geology" in your response: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?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarifying paragraph just before the final section that presents the arguments.

See Message 433. Robert hasn't posted to this thread since.--Percy