Could be done on Zoom, in Gallery mode.
3 Likes
In that case youâre not looking at rocks but at pictures of rocks. There is a place for that, but you canât become a geologist without looking directly at actual rocks (and licking them, too!).
4 Likes
That makes no sense - You know this is BIG OIL, right?
By comparison, NIH funding for years 2021 and 2022 is roughly equal. There is plenty of money for research, and if Flood Geology had any application then Big Oil would be very happy to research it. That never happens.
Go read that chapter and youâll see why.
Again, why should anyone take that seriously when we already know it defies the laws of physics? Creation Science has no answer to the laws of physics âŠ
⊠Hold it ⊠I know what your response will be, and itâs apologetics, not science.
3 Likes
What I learnt today:
Someone can potentially have one foot each on North America and South America if standing in Panama, or one foot each on Africa and Eurasia if standing in Suez (the canals donât exactly follow the continental divides).
You can also study the rock of Gibraltar (Eurasia) from Morocco (Africa) via binoculars.
Thatâs my impression.
If there was any promise to this, funding would not be an issue. Hydrocarbon exploration is one of the most known knownâs in geology. Pressure vs temperature cooking times, microfossil dating, rock porosity, phase stratification, doming - all researched to the enth degree. Engineering offices have geology formation maps the size of their display wall. There is no point in looking for missing applications until you up to date on the present state of the art, and then have field experience to ground your understanding. No way no how does somebody punch a hole hundreds of meters down on the basis of luck. If the assumptions were not correct, every well would be dry.
USING MICROFOSSILS IN PETROLEUM EXPLORATION
The history of life on Earth has been one of creatures appearing, evolving, and becoming extinct. Putting these two concepts together, we observe that different layers of sedimentary rocks contain different fossils. When drilling a well into the Earthâs crust in search of hydrocarbons, we encounter different fossils in a predictable sequence below the point in time where the organism became extinct.
3 Likes
Once again I get far too many responses to reply to. Iâll pick one, which covers a few.
Nor will it.
To summarize all these discussions (with you and others), I see the argument concisely worded as follows: Existing old-earth models for the oil industry 1) work well and 2) are the accepted consensus. If the Flood model included workable applications to the oil industry, those would be used. They arenât, so the Flood is doubtful. (Or something very similar).
YECs would not consider this a strong challenge to our worldview for the following reasons:
-
Both models would end up making very similar predictions. Regardless of the assumptions being made, both will test and refine the models based on observations of the current rock layers. I liken this to Geocentric models which at one time 1) worked and 2) were the popular consensus. Even though the assumptions were wrong, the models were built based on observations. Geocentricism persisted because it could make predictions. And even when a model came along that made better predictions, it was still rejected for quite a while. Regarding oil reservoirs, itâs not surprising that geologists have very good models for helping locate them.
-
We know full well that Flood models (no matter how good they are) will be rejected because they require belief in 1) the Supernatural and 2) the historicity of Gen 1-10. Itâs a non-starter for them. Abiogenesis to me is a good example of resistance from allowing that âDivine foot in the door.â So no, I donât agree with âBig Oil would be very happy to research it.â
-
We believe we have better answers the existence (and sustainment) of oil and coal seams; and more than that, we have a better explanation for everything from the fine-tuning of the universe to the uniqueness of mankind. We donât need Big Oil to validate us.
Iâm sure for you youâll still continue to consider this a valid reason to reject a young earth created by God. I donât see it as a valid one. Itâs missing the forest for the trees.
I know this forum well enough to know that these debates will never end. Backing out of the weeds, hereâs what Iâve learned from the past 30 years: Decades ago, YEC was challenging to believe in. I didnât accept it at first. Those who did had to place a LOT of faith in Godâs Word, meeting all challenges with âI donât knowâ. Whatâs been great to see is that the âI donât knowâ list is getting smaller, and the list of things that make more sense from a Global Flood is growing. Today Iâm very satisfied with my belief in a young earth.
Iâve also learned that the Age (and origin) of the Earth is a lot bigger than discussions about oil reservoirs. It starts with considerations about:
- Biblical authority
- Assessing Godâs character (which I eluded to before)
Iâve realized one cannot properly assess the age of Godâs earth without considering these points.
1 Like
As a fellow Christian, I have also learned that these things are completely useless in helping to determine the age of the earth. Rather, principles and methods derived from the relevant physical sciences are indispensable for figuring out how old Zeusâs earth is.
Thatâs exactly how science is supposed to work!
When rigorously derived evidence appears and doesnât support current models, those models are either discarded or revised. In contrast, the Flood model will never go away, no matter how much it is assaulted by the data because it is fundamentally a religious one.
No. The Flood models donât fit the data better than non-Flood models and that is primarily why they are rejected. You have a really poor understanding of how science works.
4 Likes
They do not. Why would they? Giant Noah flood tsunamis are as far removed from gradual sea level rise and fall as one could get, and they predict very different outcomes. The broader outline of geological history has been understood for generations, but a great deal of detail has been resolved since, so that ancient river courses and estuaries can be mapped, volcanic correlations be established, and much more. What we find in sequence stratigraphy is shoreline movement reflecting gradual global sea level change.
If you are interested, here is a basic YouTube
and the Society for Sedimentary Geology has a decent sequence stratigraphy introduction
Precisely the opposite. The forest and trees all line up as evidence for an ancient earth. That is what is called consilience, and is a feature of science. The YEC strategy is to isolate and attempt to excuse away evidence, and just ignore how all the independent observations both stand alone and converge together. Did you follow the thread on the consilience of carbon dating? Forests and trees, literally, as including tree rings.
That seems to be reciprocated. The difference is that oil exploration requires being correct in order to be successful, while just believing something makes no demands at all.
These survived the demise of geocentric model backed by the church on Biblical grounds; an ancient earth should pose no greater difficulty.
7 Likes
To add to what others have said.
-
Flood geology is primarily about trying to explain the evidence given the assumption that Noahâs Flood produced a large part of the Earthâs geology. It does not really make predictions because it doesnât have a good model. Your comparison with geocentrism is not entirely inapt - although by my understanding earlier heliocentric models were worse than existing geocentric models. Flood geology never really had a working model that accounted for the evidence,
-
It does not seem at all certain that oil companies would reject methods that produced practical results, regardless of the underlying theory. Let us also note that belief in God and Noahâs Flood were much stronger in the early days of geology. Itâs not that YEC never had a chance - it had a chance and badly failed.
I would also add that it seems to me that it is less about the authority of the Bible than it is about authority to interpret the Bible. OECs are the obvious comparison here and I donât think that they have any significant disagreement on the authority of the Bible - but many accept modern geology.
6 Likes
Youâre completely missing the point. These groups are not magically separated at birth. If there was any validity at all to flood geology, Big Oil would be full of YECs.
5 Likes
I Canât help noticing a tension here â âFlood has a better explanationâ, but âboth models would end up making very similar predictions.â
If âFloodâ isnât making predictions that âsecular geologyâ isnât, then by what criteria is it a âbetter explanationâ?
So there are no YECs who are prepared to 'put their money where their mouth is, and invest in a Flood-based exploration startup? This doesnât say much for the strength of their beliefs.
What evidence do you have for the claim that you âhave better answersâ (and again, based on what criteria)? Without such specifics, this claim is simply vacuous (i.e. ânot properly filled out or developedâ).
The problem with this is that, if this is unrelated to oil exploration, then it is hard to see how Clarey (who spent 8 years working in that field) has any expertise beyond that of the overwhelming majority of geologists who disagree with him.
Yet the vast majority of geologists seem to have no problem making such âassessmentsâ, without âconsider[ation of] these pointsâ, and you have offered no evidence to support any claim that their assessments werenât made âproperlyâ.
4 Likes
A very nice answer, thank you. I have some disagreement, of course, but you knew that 
Iâm trying to remember how the ski today, but I might have some additional comments later.
The thing is, it likely is. Particularly in Texas.
They just use standard âold earthâ geology when making decisions that will affect their financial well-being, and care not a whit about the contradiction.
4 Likes
Recall the late @grmorton, a YEC and oilfield geologist, who found he could not support the claims of Flood Geology. Glenn didnât stop believing, but he did seek alternative possibilities.
3 Likes
Seriously? Do you really believe that investors and venture capitalists would be so intent on preserving some kind of secularist status quo that they would pass up on potentially lucrative business opportunities in order to do so?
Big Oil isnât your local chapter of Atheists Anonymous nor is it some kind of academic ivory tower. These people arenât interested in banning prayer in schools, theyâre only interested in making money. They donât care a jot whether or not your model requires belief in the supernatural and the historicity of Genesis 1-10, as long as it can make a profit. And thereâs no shortage of people with very deep pockets who would be more than willing to fund your flood geology startup if it had a chance of succeeding. Televangelists and prosperity preachers with private jets for starters. Or Answers in Genesis themselves, who could easily have funded the entire Ark Encounter with oil profits if their flood geology models actually worked.
Seriously, this is Economics 101. Itâs simply how the world we live in works.
6 Likes
From one of Mortonâs posts at Biologos, speaking of YEC graduates who were hired into the oil industry:
One guy shell hired from Christian Heritage that year was so disturbed by what he saw he quit the industry and went into a real tailspin. Another CHC guy shell hired eventually left the faith. I hired one good guy from CHC who has become a life long friend. When he decided the earth was old, I asked him if there was anything geological that he was taught by the ICR gang that he still believed to be true. He said no. So I called all the CHC grads in the oil industry at the time and asked them all. the answers were all ânoâ.
6 Likes
I think your brush is too broad. When I was in Dallas, none of the ExxonMobil geologists working in Dallas whom I knew were even Texans. Besides, there are plenty of nonevangelicals in Texas.
2 Likes
This is EXACTLY what Snelling (of AIG fame) did back in the day when he was consulting on Uranium exploration in Australia. Whatâs more he had no qualms in admitting as much.
6 Likes
Youâve mentioned @grmorton multiple times now. You seem to find confidence in his testimony. Ironically, so do I!
Iâve read through his testimony here:
Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism (peacefulscience.org)
What stood out to me was that his doubts about YEC grew stronger âby 1986â. Iâm sure they did. YEC evidence was limited back then. Iâve mentioned that before. And his testimony is excellent confirmation of it!
As he mentioned in that article, he abandoned YEC by 1994. And as we know of human nature, once someone makes that big a shift, they generally stay that way regardless of future revelation.
Back to my point: Today things are different. It was around the early 90s I started having interest in creation. At the time I did not adhere to a belief in YEC. But today I do. Part of my encouragement is the momentum over the last three decades. Itâs been great to watch, and I know thereâs more coming! As people mention, science changes, the Word doesnât.
One last point about Glenn Morton. The absolute best part of his testimony is that he kept his faith in Christ. That is WAY more important than whether a person is a YEC or OEC!
1 Like