Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

Given that the bible has been interpreted in as many different ways as there are Christian sects, contradicts itself in many places, recommends the most evil actions we can think of and is just plain wrong about many things, the sanest thing to do is treat it as what it is - a set of myths and stories originally intended to entertain and guide primitive people in primitive days.

Sounds reasonable to me, and it is one of my current personal conclusions as well.
There are, however, some good things that can be gained from religion.For a single example:
Many people are scared of death and the unknown. Religion has the ability to give some of these people comfort and the ability to think "it's all okay" so that they can continue through life.
It doesn't work for everyone, but it certainly does work for some.
It's possible (even likely?) that it's completely wrong.
It's also possible that there's no other way for some of these people to gain the same level of peace-of-mind.That innocent security is not something I would rob from anyone.
The Bible not being a perfect book, or maybe even a good book, seems irrelevent to this idea.As long as they do not use the religion to hurt other people, I would defend and protect their access to their security on a "freedom of thought (speech?)" kind of level. As well as on a compassionate-to-others kind of level too.

I wasn't going to answer your diatribe, Rox, but I think I'll say a word or two anyway.Again, what I'm defending is the young earth which I KNOW is the case from GOD'S WORD. This is why I couldn't be educated out of it with the highest degrees and most experience possible -- God's word trumps EVERYTHING that contradicts it. This is why you think I'm arrogant. I KNOW it's God's word, all the "Christian" compromises here notwithstanding -- I think it's sad that people will choose "science" over God's word, it's sad and dangerous both. From this perspective the old earth sciences are arguing with God Himself. Not a safe place to be.To my mind this doesn't challenge any of the practical work you do as a geologist, which I ASSUME you do very well. On my part I don't need to know any more than enough to try to make a case for a VERY FEW ideas about how the young earth explains some phenomena better than the old earth. My lack of knowledge that you complain about is therefore irrelevant because it doesn't relate to anything I'm actually trying to do.In any case your complaint is really merely that I reject the old earth which you think you see in your work, THAT's the lack of knowledge you have in mind, which is the same thing as disqualifying any young earth argument ever.Since I'm completely persuaded of the young earth view, the old earth view can only be some kind of illusion that is so ingrained it would not be easy to break it. Apparently you are totally identified with it to the point that nobody can suggest a young earth perspective without getting lambasted this way, and it's probably naive of me to think it could be any other way.Now, that's ALL I'm doing from MY perspective. Yes, I do like to ridicule some old earth notions, I think it ought to be possible to get someone to notice how ridiculous they are, and maybe I shouldn't do that, especially since it doesn't change anyone's mind. But considering the ridicule my side gets it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.I don't think there's anything more to say about this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, I'll ask again. What is the point? What are you actually trying to do? People are not choosing science, they are choosing evidence over no evidence, knowledge over ignorance. And you have totally failed to present a single shred of evidence that supports a young earth. Finally, it all comes down to "magic". All the evidence from more than a dozen fields of science are an "illusion".Your whole argument is that your god created an Earth, in fact a Universe, that is an illusion. All the evidence, gathered over hundreds of years, by millions of scientists, that confirms that the Earth is very old, is all an illusion created by your god, to fool us.Why have you spent so much time trying to twist that illusionary evidence to support your view?You could have just said "God used magic to create everything and for the fun of it made sure that it looked old, and no matter how hard and long we studied it, we would never find evidence that it is young." and been done with it.The sum total of your argument is magic and illusion. No wonder you're arrogant.

That's a strange question. i come here as most creationists do, to argue against evolution and for creation.Specifically with respect to what I wrote above, I'm arguing about a very few issues from a young earth perspective that I don't think require great knowledge of geology -- and the complaint that I don't know enough is REALLY just the complaint that I reject the old earth. That's what I was saying THERE. Same thing in your biased language. If you believe God you reject any "evidence" that contradicts His word, KNOWING that it's false because it's God who says so. That's what Kurt Wise wisely did. Even if it looks like evidence you know it's wrong. Well, I think I have, I think you refuse to see. But whether I have argued effectively or not, that's not the point I'm making here. The point is that this is what I'm trying to do and it's based on my belief in God's word. No, only the "evidence" that purports to support an old earth, not the TRUE evidence on which actual practical work is conducted every day. It's the OLD EARTH that's the illusion, not the true scientific stuff. It's a distinction that seems quite clear to me, but apparently it's all so mentally interwoven for you there's no way to get you to see it. A lot of which is that you really don't WANT to anyway. I do keep being amazed at the ability of people here to dismiss THE God on whose revelation western civilization was built as "my" god that doesn't even hold cultural significance for you. I'm talking about God, THE God, and you reduce it all to "magic?" It's really unbelievable to me.The evidence for the old earth is not as good as you think it is, you simply believe it because you believe it, as a sort of faith of your own. What are you talking about? I've twisted nothing that I know of. Oh, apparently you are as usual confusing the real evidence of the real world with the idiotic illusory evidence for the old earth? There IS a real world in which a REAL worldwide flood occurred that really DOES explain the REAL physical evidence we see all around us. What YOU are calling evidence, the old earth, THAT's the illusion, the fantasy. Alas. It DOESN'T "look old," THAT's an illusion you've talked yourself into. I used to believe it was billions of years old and then I came to realize, with a jolt and a laugh, that it's REALLY only a few thousand years old. The change in perspective was quite dramatic. The earth doesn't "look" either old OR young, but now I see everywhere I look the evidence for the worldwide Flood and as I look at it I know it's only a few thousand years old and it makes me laugh at the deception you've all bought into. And cry. God didn't create the deception, the fallen human mind created it. Certainty in devotion to God I guess can look like arrogance to those who just don't get it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Arguing from a young earth perspective requires no knowledge of geology, so you're OK there. Arguing cogently, however, would require more knowledge of geology than you actually have. This is because knowing the facts, which you don't, is crucial to providing an adequate explanation for them, which you can't. How would you know? In my world, "actual practical work" would include finding oil, y'know, like geologists do. On your planet, perhaps this is regarded as the idle hobby of dilettantes.

Just the usual insulting blather designed to distract from what I was saying, not worth thinking about, but I'll ask you one thing: what exactly does the Old Earth have to do with finding oil? Exactly. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is what an "old earth" has to do with finding porphyry copper deposits: This is the sort of knowledge we geologists apply on a daily basis in mineral and oil/gas exploration where we do actual work finding and exploiting natural reserouces. So tell me, how does the above fit into your theory and how many mines or oil/gas fields have Creationists found using YECism?

Where to even start....?I'll start this one tiniest of tidbits a few miles west of Rayne, Louisiana at a gas well named the Monceaux #1. I spent some several hours sitting on, and designing treatments for, this well about 25 years ago. It was a gas well that, when newly drilled, produced about 25,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas every day. When I learned of it, it was producing about 2000 barrels of salt water per day, instead, and the owners wanted some help with that....What does this have to do with oil or gas being "old?" In this case, it has to do with the Monceaux #1 being drilled to a depth (nearly 3 miles) so that the minute shells of a foraminiferan name Bolivina mexicana came up with the drilled-up rock in the target zone - abundant gas had been found in that part of the state particularly in sandstone that carried "Bol mex" shells. Many other sandstones and shales exist both above and below this Bol Mex zone, and they are identified largely by which particular foram fossils are present in them. Only a narrow band of depths preserves B. mexicana - a couple of dozen different species of Bolivina or different genera of forams are characteristic of other sands up and down this stack.These forams are all tiny little shells, each named species different in shape - how skinny, how coiled, how decorated. Geologists interpret these differences, and the segregation of the different shapes, as being due to them living through a sequence in time and (I hate to say it) being related to each other by descent with modification, AKA evolution. Geologists infer that the Mississippi River kept bringing clay, silt, and sand down to the Gulf of Mexico over a Very Long Time, and that it got deposited near the mouth of the river just about like it does today. Forams grew merrily there in the seawater and sank, when they died, along with the river sediments.In a young-earth/Fludde scenario, a hypothetical YEC Geologist would need to come up with a mechanism to deposit many different shells in sands that otherwise looked pretty much all the same. No mixing of shells, now, beyond the stratum that one is predominant in. Our YEC-G would need to account for the beautiful preservation of many of these delicate, spiny little critters if he/she is going to insist that a big Flood carried them there and sorted them by appearance.I'm a chemist that's been in the oil bidness for over 30 years now. I'm not a geologist. But don't get me started on how I know oil is "old", Faith. I can cover you up with evidence for that.

Geologists use their knowledge of geology to solve practical questions in geology.For example, since the unconformities caused by marine regressions form good oil traps, it is obviously useful to (a) know when these events happened, and (b) be able to put a date on rocks. Someone who believed that the history of the Earth incorporates one big transgression followed about a year later by one big regression, and that all sedimentary rocks are 4,000 years old, would just blunder around bleating: "Duh, I'se retarded, where all de oil?"Now, if you think that you can do better based on your interpretation of the Bible and your vast ignorance of geology, feel free. And if, as a result, you become a oil billionaire, then please remember who suggested it. But I won't hold my breath.There is, after all, a reason why oil companies hire geologists rather than a bunch of Bible-toting fundamentalists. Dollars and cents, Faith, dollars and cents. If "flood geology" was a better picture of the history of the Earth than real geology, then it would produce better results, and oil companies, who I hear are quite keen on money, would be using it. And yet somehow there are no creationist oil companies.

If certain unconformities make good oil traps I assume one would look for such unconformities no matter what caused them or when. You assert that the date matters, but haven't said why it matters. Or why it matters if there were many regressions or just one regression. Far as I can make out from your description, the thing that makes the difference is the unconformities that make good oil traps. Period.I have no idea why anybody wants to blather on about Bible-toting fundamentalists looking for oil without being geologists. Clearly you have to be a geologist.But as far as I can see from your example there is no use whatever for the old earth assumptions in the search for oil. Look for the kind of unconformity where it tends to hide out. Period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh good, this is going get very ugly very quickly.

It looks to me like all you are saying is that the location of these shells is a clue to something you want to know. I don't see why one needs to believe either in the Flood or in the Old Earth to be able to make those necessary observations for the purpose you have in mind.If you really CAN "cover me up with evidence" for how you know oil is old, that is what you need to do here. So far I don't see anything that requires any kind of notion about the age of anything; what you need to know is things like depth, location of one kind of fossil relative to another and so on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You've given a highly technical example here so I'm going to have to take some time with it just to try to understand what it's saying. Back later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

These 'laters' are stacking up Faith, I'm still waiting for your explanation of the White Cliffs of Dover. There's quite a lot of geology outside the Grand Canyon you know.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.