Incompatibility of Geology with YEC

That last link is a good 'un, dwise.Try reading it, Faith.

New links have a bad habit of making my computer freeze up so I don't go to links.

Faith writes: Ever heard of a library, every academic and public one I know of has computers for public use (and I have visited more than a hundred).If you're interested, they even have books. Edited by anglagard, : remove school libraries

I used to live in libraries and bookstores until the internet came along.However, I'm not interested in this thread enough to research it anyway. It's a lost cause. I'm not going to be able to learn enough to deal with this sort of challenge and I don't need the insults.

I know that I along like every other person of faith believe things that in the end I'll find out are wrong. There is no one in the last nearly 2000 years that has everything right about their theology. It is important to get the basics right. One of the basics is not how old the earth is or for that matter how God went about creation.The YEC's that I know are really good Christians, and when I say that I'm talking about how they live their lives. The trouble is many of those really good Christians are in danger of losing their faith if they tie their faith to a literal reading of the Bible and a 6000 year old planet. It seems many do just that. In addition many people in North America that aren't Christian believe that in order to be Christian you have to believe in a that same 6000 year old earth. They reject it. It is a huge stumbling block.I really admire your commitment. I wonder though; would your faith hold up if you were to come to the conclusion that the world is more than 6000 years old whether or not you accept the ToE?I know that we are both just searching for truth and you are convinced of the truth of your position, and frankly in my opinion you are one of the few YEC's that have actually put thought into it and not just accepted it as part of the package. I understand it that you believe that you are defending the truth. At least know that there are others that disagree with you that are as committed to the service of the Lord as you are. We don’t just hold this belief because of cultural pressure.Theology and the study of the Bible can gives scriptural answers to the spiritual and moral side of our lives. Why not accept that in the same way science studies the physical and can give us answers as it regards the physical part of God's creation. The Christian faith and science are not only compatible but are complimentary. I read books on science and am absolute blown away by the creative side of God, just as I am with the revelation of God's justice, mercy and love as found in the Bible.I believe that the God of Christianity holds the past, present and future of all mankind in His hands. That is why I'm so concerned about what I believe to be a misinterpretation of the God's revelation to us by YEC, and the damage I see it doing to His church. The trouble is I know you feel the same way about my position, however my position doesn't cause people of faith to lose it because their faith isn't consistent with what we learn from observing God's creation.

Actually, no insult was intended, I was kidding. I have no doubt you are knowledgeable about the subjects that interest you.However, the geosciences do require some study, prior to acting as judge, jury, and executioner as to thier evidence and their utility if one seeks to preserve the appearance of integrity.It is not a crime to say "I don't know, therefore I reserve judgment."

But have you read his story yet? The account of his presentation at an International Conference on Creation, in which he told the story of the crises of faith that those YEC geologists went through, was the first time I realized the danger that "creation science" poses for its followers.After his presentation, the ICR's geologists challenged him. They were led by John Morris, who presented himself as a petroleum geologist. Morton had two questions for him:
1. Q -- What oil company do/did you work for?
A -- Well, uh, I taught the subject at a university one semester.
2. Q -- How old is the earth?
A -- If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning.If you have not already read his accounts, you need to. For one thing, it contains a more complete account of that ICC. Whatever the reason you can't right now, save those links and go to them when you can. Lots of very good information there. Evolutionism is a "creation science" strawman and, as such, is an invention and teaching of "creation science", not of science. The real problem is that "creation science" makes false, contrary-to-fact claims and teaches that if those contrary-to-fact claims are not true, then your religion is false. That is a false teaching, but that is what they teach; for an example, look at John Morris' statement above, that if the earth is old then Scripture has no meaning. Science doesn't teach that; "creation science" does.Read those personal testimonies. I've quoted some on my quotes page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html. There's also a recovering creationist who had contacted me, Ed. Since you're not taking links for whatever reason, here's a bit of his story. He was a self-described "creation addict" who watched a creationist debate tape (he told me later that it was Kent Hovind) and he suddenly saw through the guy's scam: The problem is not the physical evidence, but rather "creation science's" false teachings of what you must do when that evidence becomes inescapable. Science does not attack people's faith; false theologies like "creation science" and the "God of the Gaps" do.Here's a thought. Is "creation science" God's Word? No, it's Man's Word. If Man's Word (eg, "creation science" claims) is found to be wrong, then why would you want to use that as a reason to abandon God? If a "creation science" claim is wrong, then it is wrong and should either be corrected or dropped. Why cling to Man's Word (ie, "creation science") at the cost of your faith? If "creation science" lied to you about the physical evidence, then why should you believe it when it tells you you must abandon your faith?And didn't God create the universe? Then wouldn't the physical evidence be part of God's Word? A devout Christian grandfather calls nature "God's First Testament" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/geobrkt/faith/faith0/ftog.htm). Then by placing "creation science" over the Creation, aren't you placing Man's Word over God's Word? Why would you insist on doing that?Edited by dwise1, : de-munged part of the message

I do reserve judgment when I feel I don't know enough. But if I have an inkling I'll go for it, at least to make a statement, a stab at it. I read some descriptions of oil exploration methods. It appeared to me that the majority of the procedures did not involve OE principles or measurements. I figure the calculations that ARE based on OE principles are probably skewable in many ways.* Why do I figure that? Intuition in a way. I know it's useless. But EVERYTHING I think is based on what I think the Bible says.Now I may get suspended from this science thread.*Something like this: They were arrived at based on what they've already FOUND. That is, over the years of hitting oil by accident and hunches, they studied the terrain, they fooled around until they got the best combination of numbers that predicted further finds. It's still not perfect but it more or less works. Whether the numbers reflect ACTUAL pressures and temperatures and numbers of years or not is probably less important than the relationships between the values or something like that. And perhaps more of the methodology has to do with simple physical things like depth, what sort of rocks are involved, core samples, seismic soundings and what not, rather than OE calculations. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

[Edit - Must have hit the "reply button on the wrong message - this is to Faith]It seems to me that you place your faith in your churches power to dictate to God. The Bible doesn't claim to be God's literal word (although I expect your church to say otherwise - and if they do they prove me right). The Bible doesn't say that Genesis 1 was entirely dictated by God or intended by Him to be taken as literal truth. All that is human belief.Against that you have a huge amount of scientific work, which YECs cannot equal - not even in relatively small things. Flood geology is about 100 years old and still doesn't have geological criteria to identify flood rocks or a viable explanation for the order in the fossil record. By any rational standard YEC is a failed human creation.If the core of YEC is placing falsehoods in God's mouth and commanding that they be worshipped, how could any Christian follow it ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

It is true that in the past, before the science was as well developed, people could hit oil by using some form of intuition, if not the educated guess. History records the successful (and not so much the failures). Today, one has to use the science to increase the odds of not wasting money, which in economics, is known as productivity.Using scientific knowledge increases not just individual return upon investment, but also productivity in general, which means that overall wealth is increased, regardless of how such wealth is distributed.One problem with using "creation science" models instead of science as commonly practiced models in geoscience as in any other scientific endeavor, is that it does not achieve as efficient a result economically. This is true not only in regard to return on investment but also directly influences other considerations.Now one may want to argue greater poverty would be more spiritually fulfilling.However, I am not among such people. Neither are those who's very life depends upon such scientific advances to preserve their existence. Especially in the "third world."IMHO, the war against science is morally bankrupt, regardless of source.

The fault, GD, is not with the Christians' literal reading, it is with the mystifications that they encounter when they approach science, or when science approaches them as it were, their gullibility to scientific authority, their not knowing enough to see through the castle in the sky that is the ToE, their vulnerability to the pressure to believe the arguments, whether they understand them or not. The stumbling block of Christianity is and always has been the claims of the cross, as scripture says. Those who tell us fundies they hate our beliefs really hate the true gospel. When they attack us so viciously, calling us evil and hateful and so on, and tell us it is we who are doing a disservice to our cause, it is easy to waver and doubt ourselves, wonder if that's the truth, and since there's always fault to find in oneself after all, that has its impact.But when the fog clears and the sins have been tallied and confessed, it's clear it's not these extraneous things, it's the gospel itself they object to. It may seem to be simply the foolishness of believers blindly committed to untruths, but it's really the foolishness of the cross, the foolishness of faith in Christ.I know it's hard for you to see the connection between Christ and the 6000- year-old-earth and I don't know if I can connect the dots for you and don't know how far to try. Depends on how I come to that conclusion. I don't care how old the earth is. I only care about being true to the word of God. Science will never change my mind. I know my mind is fallible, I know science is fallible, I know people can be wrongly convinced of plausible rationalizations, but the word of God is true.This is not Bible worship, this is acknowledging that God has the power to uphold His word, that He wants us to know the truth and not be confused about it, and that He is trustworthy. I'd rather appear foolish for this conviction than give in to a mere plausibility.The only thing that would really change my mind is a change in my theology itself, a really convincing argument that could show me I'm reading Genesis wrong. So far all I've seen is people talking themselves into compromising Genesis because of what they think science says, forcing Genesis to accommodate to science. That's backwards. Accommodating to cultural pressure can be a very subtle deceptive thing. Science is a wonderful thing, 99% of it, as I’ve said many times. It’s the ToE that it wraps itself around that is the problem, and the OE beliefs that go with it, which are so difficult for people to think about separately from the actual work of science. Science is fine when it serves God, and we can assume that God blesses us through science (insofar as we ARE blessed by it of course), but you cannot put science side by side with the Bible as you just did. Science must be subordinated to God, but this whole argument is about God being subordinated to science. Reducing any of the revelation of God to mere human error is a BIG offense to God, not just a little thing. Only, apparently, if you bend Genesis to fit it, right? That’s not being complementary, that’s subordinating Genesis to science. True science, that observes and measures the world God made without compromising the written revelation, would amount to another way to worship God. THAT is what we should see in this world, the creative mind of God. And His goodness to us, how he sustains this creation for the benefit of his creatures and makes it liveable and pleasant despite its fallenness. AND beyond it into what the original world must have been. My experience is different. I used to like to read about evolution, Darwin, Gould, Kuhn, Popper and those guys, but I can’t say I really appreciated the natural world until I believed in the God of the Bible. NOW I see the creativity in nature. I don’t see it in evolution, I see it in the world though as a product of God’s mind (also damaged by the Fall). Yeah I know you think evolution IS in God’s mind. I don’t see it in the Bible so I don’t. I don’t see the Bible as just this book of precepts at all, limited to the narrowest possible principles of salvation; I see it as the revelation of the nature of God Himself and the nature of the human he made in his image, what we should have been, and of the reign of God over all things. The Bible is this masterpiece of revelation that all works together in the most marvelous ways - but only if you don’t compromise any of it. I will agree with you to this extent, that arguments about evolution are not the gospel and do not speak to the unsaved at the right level for the most part. I do think about this a lot. But this is not what you are saying; you are saying that it is false. Perhaps if you said that people have a strong prejudice in favor of evolution that isn’t going to yield to a merely intellectual defense of creationist ideas, especially the inadequate defense most of us are capable of, I could consider that a very valid point, but that is not what you are saying. You are simply saying that creationism is false.I have given this thought, and I came to the conclusion that evolution has done such damage to the cause of Christ that it is perfectly valid and right to put time into thinking about how to counter its claims. Some manage to hold both evolutionary ideas and the gospel of Christ together but it has to be an uneasy truce because they are mutually exclusive. Darwinism was one of the biggest influences that brought about the compromises of Christian “liberalism” that denied various aspects of the scripture as a result, especially all the miracles and supernatural events, or falsely spiritualized them into unreality. Many brought up in the gospel go off to college, actually just a big city high school in my case, encounter the claims of science against religion, and lose their faith, or compromise it so seriously that they stop growing spiritually. This is why it’s important to try to counter it - at whatever level we grasp the problem. So I consider this debate a worthy service of God. I just wish I were better at it. I hope He sends many who are better equipped into the fray. No, your position causes people to lose it by accepting a compromised or truncated faith. Unfortunately, a compromised faith, made to give place to the false claims of the ToE, is built on sand anyway - because you’ve cut God down to human size in too many areas, and He isn’t a refuge in dire need for us unless He’s omnipotent and master of His revelation to us.{Edit: The danger of compromising any of it is that you risk teaching a false gospel which can't save anybody. Sure people can accept stuff that is easy to swallow, that doesn't challenge their prejudices, that fits their worldly views, that doesn't cost them anything, that doesn't expose them to criticism, the hatred of the world, the charge of foolishness and hatefulness and all the rest. That's a cheap and easy and false gospel and too many already believe that one.}I believe you are a Christian. I don’t think one has to believe everything in the Bible perfectly to be saved. I believe there are many who live a life of true faith even based on bits and pieces of God’s revelation, but I believe you have compromised in some areas and put God beneath science. So I consider you a sort of victim of the ToE as so many are. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't argued in favor of creation science for finding oil have I? Really, there IS no creation science in that area. What I'm doing is questioning OE principles. There's plenty of science that goes into finding oil that doesn't really make use of OE ideas directly. That's all I addressed in my post.

ALL rocks are flood rocks -- except maybe bedrock and volcanic intrusions from beneath -- but those are best explained in relation to the flood too.The rest of your post is just the usual accusations based on who knows what so this is all I want to say.

That's enough off topic stuff. I don't want to post more on a science thread. Good night all.

Could not science be, in a sense, the word of God?After all, science is bascially the study of God's supposed creation - the world around us....