quote:
The way to do this is on a case-by-case basis. Attempts to label things in advance of investigation are overly ambitious.
In advance of investigations? The science of geology is not new and some areas have been investigated in detail for ~200 years. Flood geology is as old if not older. If investigation has not been carried out, I really wonder why, but the information is there.
quote:
Any attempt to utilize isochron dates is likely to fail, since these don't take the flood into account. Naturally occurring water can dissolve the ingredients, so there's no way to easily determine initial conditions even if one were inclined to do so.
Radiometric dating is not the only method used to date rocks. They were dated relatively by their relationship to one another and their fossil content years before radiometric dating was available, and radiometric dates have generally
confirmed the supposed order. I'll refer you to
this post if you want to know more.
quote:
Fossils are advantageous to the investigator, because they leave clues as to whether a rock would be most likely to have been formed before, during, or after the flood.
Tell me more. What would we expect to see fossil-wise in rocks from before, during and after the flood? We'll see if this matches up.
I'd personaly think that if biblical creation were true, we'd expect pre-flood rocks to contain all kinds of fossils (fish, bivalve, reptile, bird, mammal, flowering plant etc) mixed together from the earliest rocks, barring some creation week basement rocks. Next there'd be a sudden dissapearance of anything terrestrial, with mass graveyards as the flood begins. Next would come marine rocks devoid of of terrestrial fossils with only a few marine ones, followed by a long recovery period in which groups re-establish themselves and diversity increases as 'kinds' diversify and specialise. The thing is, we don't see this.