Incompatibility of Geology with YEC

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.

I was referring to having read some desriptions of oil exploration and giving my estimation of how much of it involved OE assumptions, though I can't give an exact percentage.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If it's technically over my head I can't judge it, can I? That's why I never posted to the earlier thread. It ends up being the usual snow job if I can't follow the argument.The idea has to do with calculations of temperature, pressure and time which are used in the finding of oil, but unless I can do the calculations, and understand what they are based on, I can't make a judgment about the necessity or usefulness of them, can I? The calculations must be based on all kinds of unknowns, long time periods and pressures and temperatures that can't possibly ever have been observed or measured. How it all works I can't judge. Creationists in general do tend to find that most geological and biological processes don't take anywhere near the time evolutionists calculate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As usual I judge the OE factor from my KNOWLEDGE that God's word is true. I'd LIKE to be able to follow the example but some I just can't follow. Some other creationists with the requisite knowledge will have to deal with it.I'm not interested enough in the topic at this point to ask questions.As for creationists working in the oil industry, I'm sure they follow the script like anyone else and the formulas somehow or other work well enough for the purpose though probably not the way they are thought to work. What you and I are discussing is theory, so you can leave creationists working in the field out of it -- if you care to be fair that is.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Prove it. You've asserted that YECs don't stay YECs long, prove it. So far there is an example of ONE. I know of YEC geologists who work AS geologists along with other geologists and are still YECs.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't give it as an argument, I stated it as my position. Take it or leave it. I already said all I have to say on the subject in this thread.

I'm talking about two geologists I personally know slightly who work in the field on real projects having to do with mining and aquifers and that sort of thing. They just do their job and keep their views to themselves. But I can't summon them to this forum.I know about Glenn Morton already.I can't go to any links. I'll just take your word for it. Sad. Yes, that's the problem with evolutionism. It attacks people's faith. The arguments are plausible but faith should resist them.

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

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 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.

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.

No I'm not up to unconformities at the moment. I don't see what the problem is, however. After the layers were laid down, tectonic forces upended some and slid things around, over and under each other.