Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Incompatibility of Geology with YEC
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1 of 66 (351670)
09-23-2006 8:20 PM


In the thread
EvC Forum > All Forums > Social and Religious Issues > Social Issues and Creation/Evolution > Is Evolution a Radical Idea?
Faith asserts that 99% of geology is compatible with a Young Earth. I disagree.
I would like to know if there are any subfields of the geosciences that are compatible with a young Earth.
To get things started here are some subfields:
Geophysics - sorry, home of paleomagnetism.
Geochemistry - oops, radioisotope dating.
Hydrology - sorry, water in confined aquifers often older than 6000 years due to model's equations.
Sedimentology - that geologic column is awful deep in places for that flood.
Structural - Sierra Nevada pluton took 90 million years to cool off to present temperature. Also large scale structures simply take too long to form.
Historical - those plates in tectonics just never went supersonic.
Paleontology -
Minerology - well mineral ID seems not to conflict, but that nasty contact metamorphism and those pegmatites, hmmm.
So my challenge is - name one subfield in the geosciences that does not conflict with YEC.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
Sir Francis Bacon

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 09-24-2006 10:46 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 4 by BMG, posted 09-24-2006 12:22 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 12:55 AM anglagard has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 66 (351673)
09-23-2006 8:23 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 3 of 66 (351771)
09-24-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
09-23-2006 8:20 PM


Vulcanology?
Does vulcanology count as a geoscience (I've never studied geo-anything much )?
If so then I'd hazard to suggest that the number of recorded explosions of supervolcanoes couldn't be compressed into 6000 years. Firstly I doubt we (mankind) would survive but if we did then it's a tad surprising that nobody anywhere recorded any of them in either written or oral tradition.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 09-23-2006 8:20 PM anglagard has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 4 of 66 (351788)
09-24-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
09-23-2006 8:20 PM


Oil
I would like to know if there are any subfields of the geosciences that are compatible with a young Earth.
I would like to know if there are any "oil hunters" who believe in a young Earth; and if so, whether or not they are successful, or respected amongst their peers.
AbE: Well, of course I know of a "Presidential" one, but other examples would be interesting.
Page not found | Geophysical Institute
Edited by Infixion, : No reason given.
Edited by Infixion, : Adding link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 09-23-2006 8:20 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by petrophysics1, posted 09-24-2006 2:26 PM BMG has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 66 (351814)
09-24-2006 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by BMG
09-24-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Oil
Petroleum geology and a young earth are not compatible. In over 30 years I have never met a petroleum geologist, geophysicist, or petroleum engineer who believed in a young earth. Since most remaining oil and gas plays are stratigraphic it requires an in depth understanding of depositional enviroments and the ability to reconstruct the paleogeography of an area through time. Otherwise you will not be able to predict where the oil and gas reservoirs will be. Since the great majority of rocks have not been deposited by flood waters, believing that the entire geologic column was deposited by a flood puts you at a serious disadvantage when looking for hydrocarbons. The advantage is that you can make a living getting fools to send you money to continue your "research" into proving certain selected parts of the bible to be literally true.
"Geologists" (and I use that term loosely) who believe in a young earth are generally regarded as mentally ill, retarded, or con men.
Most received their degrees fraudulently.
I would estimate that well over 95% of the professional people I know in the oil and gas industry are Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by BMG, posted 09-24-2006 12:22 PM BMG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 09-24-2006 3:22 PM petrophysics1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 6 of 66 (351820)
09-24-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by petrophysics1
09-24-2006 2:26 PM


Re: Oil
The only young-earth geologists that I've ever heard of who worked in the field were Glenn Morton (not formally trained in geology, but rather in physics, but what he had studied about geology had come from the ICR) and the ICR graduates he had hired (all trained in geology by the ICR). Their YEC beliefs didn't last long, faced as they were by hard facts and evidence that the ICR had taught them couldn't possibly exist if Scripture were to be true. It drove Morton to the verge of atheism and he reported that all the others also suffered severe crises of faith. On his site, No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm, he has several articles discussing the geological evidence that conflicts with YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by petrophysics1, posted 09-24-2006 2:26 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by petrophysics1, posted 09-24-2006 3:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 66 (351822)
09-24-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by dwise1
09-24-2006 3:22 PM


Re: Oil
Well said.
A friend and fellow petroleum geologist received his BA in theology from Oral Roberts University. He got hooked up with one of the founders of ICR and knew a nunber of those people as he worked for a BS in geology at OU and an MS later at CU Boulder. He was going to prove the flood and find the Ark.
He wrote a book "Read the bible, it will scare the hell out of you" OR "Why I'm no longer a Christian" by W. Dale Murphy.
He has passed on a number of stories about that time in his life which leads me to conclude that YE geologists are disingenuous at best and con men at worst.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by dwise1, posted 09-24-2006 3:22 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 66 (351919)
09-24-2006 10:18 PM


df

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 09-24-2006 10:27 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 66 (351924)
09-24-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TrueCreation
09-24-2006 10:18 PM


Yo, TC! Long time......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 09-24-2006 10:18 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 10 of 66 (352524)
09-27-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
09-23-2006 8:20 PM


Summary
I asserted:
So my challenge is - name one subfield in the geosciences that does not conflict with YEC.
No name, no game.
QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 09-23-2006 8:20 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2006 2:11 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-27-2006 2:32 AM anglagard has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 11 of 66 (352532)
09-27-2006 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Summary
Another tack to take is Morton's question: Can we find even one creationist "problem for geology" that is true? Neither he nor a group of ICR-trained geologists could think of a single one.
Similarly, when Thwaites and Awbrey entered into the debate-circuit fray against "creation science", it was with the hope that the creationists would find real problems with evolution, since that would point scientists to areas requiring research. After 15 years when they retired from the debates, they expressed their regret that the creationists couldn't come up with even a single real problem for evolution. The creationists simply had no case to present.
(Thwaites, W., and F. Awbrey 1993. Our last debate; our very last. Creation/Evolution 33:1-4.)
Similarly, a creationist friend and I attended a debate, Thwaites & Awbrey vs Henry Morris & Gish. As we were leaving, my friend was visibly shaken. He kept muttering, "We have all this evidence. Why didn't they present it? We have all this evidence that would have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't they use any of it? We have all this evidence ... "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 12:55 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 66 (352534)
09-27-2006 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Summary
Of course all the FIELDS of geology accept the OE time scale. Nothing new there. It may or may not be window dressing as far as the actual work of science goes, but even in finding oil the actual use that is made of the OE time factor is very little, 2%, 5% I don't know -- I read some information on the processes involved in finding oil back when it was discussed on another thread. It doesn't impress me that people are convinced of OE theory. So what else is new? It's to be expected.
My position is that the day-to-day science doesn't NEED the OE assumptions, even if they are assumed, as of course they are. You can even think you are using them when you don't really need them. That's my position. Just so you know. I'm not really interested in debating this stuff again, I just want to clarify what I meant. If you intend to address me with some kind of evidence, please keep it brief and nontechnical.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 12:55 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-27-2006 3:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2006 11:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 18 by Jazzns, posted 09-27-2006 3:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 13 of 66 (352542)
09-27-2006 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
09-27-2006 2:32 AM


Denial: not a river in Egypt
Faith:
Of course all the FIELDS of geology accept the OE time scale. Nothing new there.
And nothing invalidated there, just because Faith doesn't find it new.
It may or may not be window dressing as far as the actual work of science goes, but even in finding oil the actual use that is made of the OE time factor is very little, 2%, 5% I don't know
You have an interesting habit, Faith, of stating something in denial as if it were fact, then admitting at once that you don't know what you are talking about.
In the Oetzi thread you stated your refusal to accept carbon dating, then--right after this remarkable assertion that you know something about carbon dating all the scientists in the world do not--you admitted you didn't know enough about the subject to discuss it.
Here you say the OE time factor occupies some measurable amount of insignificance in the oil industry, then say 'I don't know.'
Why should scientists credit anything you put forward when you admit you do not know enough to support your own statements?
For that matter, why should you?
It doesn't impress me that people are convinced of OE theory. So what else is new? It's to be expected.
And why is it 'to be expected' that a field occupied by 95% Christians would be convinced of OE theory by now, Faith?
My position is that the day-to-day science doesn't NEED the OE assumptions, even if they are assumed, as of course they are. You can even think you are using them when you don't really need them. That's my position.
And why should scientists be impressed with the position of a person who admits she does not know what she is talking about?
Just so you know. I'm not really interested in debating this stuff again, I just want to clarify what I meant. If you intend to address me with some kind of evidence, please keep it brief and nontechnical.
So someone who doesn't know what she is talking about has a chance to understand what scientists are discovering?
_
Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-27-2006 2:32 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 09-27-2006 3:21 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 14 of 66 (352619)
09-27-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
09-27-2006 2:32 AM


Re: Summary
quote:
My position is that the day-to-day science doesn't NEED the OE assumptions, even if they are assumed, as of course they are.
No "assumptions". Day-to-day science needs to work with the evidence and uses conclusions to which the evidence has already led us. And while the evidence for an old earth may not have always have a direct bearing on finding oil, geological evidence does. Geological evidence which contradicts every YEC claim of "problems" for modern geology. Evidence which shows that YEC claims about a single year-long world-wide flood are just plain wrong. Evidence so strong, that the YEC beliefs firmly held by YECs going to work as geologists in the petroleum exploration field cannot withstand the evidence. Evidence so strong that all the other YECs simply ignore that it even exists.
Christians do need to harmonize their beliefs with science and with real-world evidence. Going into deep denial and pretending that that evidence does not exist is not the proper way to attempt that harmonization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-27-2006 2:32 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 09-27-2006 12:40 PM dwise1 has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 15 of 66 (352634)
09-27-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dwise1
09-27-2006 11:44 AM


Re: Summary
Christians do need to harmonize their beliefs with science and with real-world evidence.
I think Faith is a counterexample to your statement. She obviously feels no such need.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2006 11:44 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 09-27-2006 3:08 PM subbie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024