The line between preflood and flood rocks is hazy and may or may not be at
the uniformitarian interpretive division of Precambrain. What may appear
to be a good dividing line in one area on the globe may not be the best
interpretation at another.
It is possible that some sedimentary and most granetic type rocks are
preflood. However, metamorphic rocks are likely considered to have become
that way because of flood catastrophe tectonic forces. Other igneous
rockes are likely deposited during the flood. Thus formation before,
during or after the flood catastrophe are likely to have occured by similar
processes. The differences may be the rates at which deposition occurred
during the flood catastrophe.
> A similar question is posed by supposed by "post flood" rocks, whether
> you hold that flood sedimentation ended in the Carboniferous, Permian,
> Cretaceous, Paleogene, or Pliocene. In each case the rocks "post flood"
> are very similar to older rocks and contain evidence for similar
> formative processes operating "post flood" as those supposedly operating
> during the flood (and, for that matter "pre flood" in the Precambrian).
> Once again, why the similarity?
Similarity in deposition is a matter of interpretation not necessarily a
matter of evidence. And, it is possible that all the evidence we see in
the rocks is of catastrophic deposition and none of slow deposition. But
that the reason for the evidence being interpreted as slow is because of
the force fit of uniformitarian interpretation upon the evidence.
> Another way to ask these questions is "What unique features exist in
> Cambrian to Carboniferous?Permian?Paleogene/Pliocene rocks that shows
> they must have been formed in a global flood"?
By the same token, what unique features exist in the ....... rocks that
shows that they must have been formed over vast periods of time? The
answer is in interpretation according to one's paradigm.