Incompatibility of Geology with YEC

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

I asserted: No name, no game.QED

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

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."

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.