Incompatibility of Geology with YEC

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.

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 ... "

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.

She may not feel that she needs to, but that does not remove the necessity of harmonizing. Harmonizing is an important goal of Christian apologetics and they consider "creation science" to be a vital tool in Christian apologetics. However, as we know but they still haven't figured out, "creation science" is counter-productive to the goal of harmonizing. Correction, we and many ex-Christians and many near-ex-Christians (ie, those who came close to losing their faith because of "creation science") know that "creation science" is counter-productive.

No, the thing about creationists (ie, YECs) working in the oil industry (ie, doing the actual geology work and working directly with the geological evidence) is that they don't remain YECs for long. Because they are no longer able to turn a blind eye to the rock-hard evidence that their YEC teachings insist cannot possibly exist if Scripture is to have any meaning.And that is not "theory", but rather real-life experience learned the hard way by those who have had to go through it. You can't get much more empirical than that.

You bet'cha! Start here: "Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm. It's on Glenn Morton's site, but this page links to several personal testimonals by former YECs.Read Glenn's own story:
"The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm
and
"Why I left Young-earth Creationism" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htmPlease note that he had hired several YEC geologists trained by the ICR and that they all suffered crises of faith. Not crises of geology, but crises of faith.I'll also point you to Merle Hertzler, whom I met several years ago on CompuServe in the Religion Forum's "Science and Religion" section. He was a rarity among YECs in that he honestly argued for YEC and would actually research questions. He didn't last one year before he had switched over to the evolution side and now he's also an atheist, mainly because of how much YEC had lied to him. The final straw for him wasn't geology, but rather transitional fossils; he was researching the question and discovered that YEC's eternal refrain of "there are no transitional fossils" was an outright lie -- he found the literature in the library to be filled with them.
"Did We Evolve?" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html. Prove it.And please don't try to palm off on us academics who don't work in the field on projects whose success rely on their working with the evidence.

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