|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Incompatibility of Geology with YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6382 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Does vulcanology count as a geoscience (I've never studied geo-anything much )?
If so then I'd hazard to suggest that the number of recorded explosions of supervolcanoes couldn't be compressed into 6000 years. Firstly I doubt we (mankind) would survive but if we did then it's a tad surprising that nobody anywhere recorded any of them in either written or oral tradition. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BMG Member (Idle past 237 days) Posts: 357 From: Southwestern U.S. Joined: |
I would like to know if there are any subfields of the geosciences that are compatible with a young Earth. I would like to know if there are any "oil hunters" who believe in a young Earth; and if so, whether or not they are successful, or respected amongst their peers. AbE: Well, of course I know of a "Presidential" one, but other examples would be interesting. Page not found | Geophysical Institute Edited by Infixion, : No reason given. Edited by Infixion, : Adding link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Petroleum geology and a young earth are not compatible. In over 30 years I have never met a petroleum geologist, geophysicist, or petroleum engineer who believed in a young earth. Since most remaining oil and gas plays are stratigraphic it requires an in depth understanding of depositional enviroments and the ability to reconstruct the paleogeography of an area through time. Otherwise you will not be able to predict where the oil and gas reservoirs will be. Since the great majority of rocks have not been deposited by flood waters, believing that the entire geologic column was deposited by a flood puts you at a serious disadvantage when looking for hydrocarbons. The advantage is that you can make a living getting fools to send you money to continue your "research" into proving certain selected parts of the bible to be literally true.
"Geologists" (and I use that term loosely) who believe in a young earth are generally regarded as mentally ill, retarded, or con men.Most received their degrees fraudulently. I would estimate that well over 95% of the professional people I know in the oil and gas industry are Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Well said.
A friend and fellow petroleum geologist received his BA in theology from Oral Roberts University. He got hooked up with one of the founders of ICR and knew a nunber of those people as he worked for a BS in geology at OU and an MS later at CU Boulder. He was going to prove the flood and find the Ark. He wrote a book "Read the bible, it will scare the hell out of you" OR "Why I'm no longer a Christian" by W. Dale Murphy. He has passed on a number of stories about that time in his life which leads me to conclude that YE geologists are disingenuous at best and con men at worst.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
df
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yo, TC! Long time......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
I asserted:
So my challenge is - name one subfield in the geosciences that does not conflict with YEC. No name, no game. QED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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 ... "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Faith: Of course all the FIELDS of geology accept the OE time scale. Nothing new there. And nothing invalidated there, just because Faith doesn't find it new.
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 You have an interesting habit, Faith, of stating something in denial as if it were fact, then admitting at once that you don't know what you are talking about. In the Oetzi thread you stated your refusal to accept carbon dating, then--right after this remarkable assertion that you know something about carbon dating all the scientists in the world do not--you admitted you didn't know enough about the subject to discuss it. Here you say the OE time factor occupies some measurable amount of insignificance in the oil industry, then say 'I don't know.' Why should scientists credit anything you put forward when you admit you do not know enough to support your own statements? For that matter, why should you?
It doesn't impress me that people are convinced of OE theory. So what else is new? It's to be expected. And why is it 'to be expected' that a field occupied by 95% Christians would be convinced of OE theory by now, Faith?
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. And why should scientists be impressed with the position of a person who admits she does not know what she is talking about?
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. So someone who doesn't know what she is talking about has a chance to understand what scientists are discovering? _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Christians do need to harmonize their beliefs with science and with real-world evidence. I think Faith is a counterexample to your statement. She obviously feels no such need. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024