Didn’t scientists develop the term, oh yes, primordal ooze? You suppose that it was depleted, or never used?
Serious answer? 2 writers. The second chapter of Genesis is older and more mythic, while the first chapter is maybe five hundred to a thousand years younger. You can tell that just in the way the chapters are written. I don’t have my books on me to really be able to elaborate and cite.
Silly Asterion! Didn’t you know Moses wrote the whole of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all by his little self (with input, obviously, from his buddy YHVH)?
Citing textual criticism and Biblical history scholarship is going to get you nowhere with the YEC crowd.
What are you talking about, capacitor? This post has nothing whatsoever do to with the question that you were asked.
Gen 2:4-8
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Sounds like the whole earth to me…and it’s also crystal clear that man was created first in the version.
WTF does “primordial ooze” have to do with anything? 
Then clearly we’re not on Earth. Gen. 3:23:
Primordial ooze is where we get Ben Murphy.
Right, it’s Independence, MO. 
Are you saying now that god did stuff backwards and out of order for no particular reason?
Who is Ben Murphy?
Ben Murphy was a grade Z actor from the 70’s who was a favorite target on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I’m not sure what the evolution connection is, though.
Actually Ben Murphy makes as much sense as the answers you’ll get from MacKay. He’s (MacKay, not Ben) been in my area a few times, maybe to check out Mt. St. Helens.
I can respect someone who presents their own theory or opinion, but when it’s presented as infallible fact, it takes on the entertainment equivilency of a circus. Bring on the clowns.
A geologist and a young earth creationist? Who would hire this guy? Is he actually employed as a geologist or does he just have a BA in the subject?
Not to defend the YEC morons, but the Grand Canyon actually is fairly young, in geological terms. The uplift of the Colorado Plateau that gave rise to the canyon is difficult to date, but there seems to be some agreement that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon during a period from 20 to 5 million years ago, “recent” when held up to the estimated 4-5 billion year age of the earth.
What’s ancient, on the other hand, are the layers of sediment exposed by the river as it cut through the rising plateau, the oldest of which are about 1.7 billion years old.
Thus the seeming paradox (which isn’t actually paradoxical at all): the Grand Canyon is very young, but the rocks in its walls are very, very old!
True, but 5 to 20 million years is still a big problem when you say the Earth is 6 thousand years old.
Creationism doesn’t seem to work like that Marley23; it attempts to cast doubt on the accuracy of a piece of data and having done so (or not, even), it makes the assertion that mainstream science is simply guessing and therefore any guess is equally valid.
I know. Seems like the only things that allow Creationism to exist are the ignorance of its supporters and the ignorance of some of the people listening to them. 
To be fair, it isn’t so much brute ignorance on the part of the audience, but rather a combination of wishful thinking, trust, dependence and fear. (Spoken as an ex-YEC).
John MacKay is an enthusiastic speaker and quite a nice guy. He does the circuit talking to a lot of mixed audiences. For that reason his answers tend to be a bit simplistic. His public meetings are not generally a good forum for getting detailed and systematic answers to specific questions. On the other hand, there’s not usually heavy preachy stuff. That’s not his style.
So, Diogened The Cynic and Shodan, answers to questions such as you have asked will probably be a little glib. Which is a bit of a shame because, at least in his own specialist field, he is quite knowledgable. Worthwhile talking one on one if you get a chance.
Some reasonably interesting stuff does get presented at his meetings. The theses presented are not as wild and untenable as some have suggested. You will see some photographic evidence supporting the other side of the argument. Such things as polystrate fossils – ask to see the one of the whale standing upright passing through millions(?) of years of rock layers. Another memorable one is a region in Canada (IIRC) where there is hundreds of cubic kilometres of precambrian rock sittting atop cambrian rock with a thin cretaceous layer between and no evidence of faulting.
You might not buy into his arguments nor even find detailed explanations. But it is good science to have a look at different kinds of evidence and see how robust your own views are. For that reason alone it is probably worthwhile going.
Besides, when was the last time you got to handle a section of coprolite with prehistoric seeds still visible in it?
Creationism is not a scientific field. It’s easy to be “knowledgable” in a “field” which is pulled entirely out of one’s ass.
I’m not familiar with the whale photo (but believe me, it doesn’t mean whatever he claims it means).
As to the other thing, I’m guessing without seeing the evidence but it’s not uncommon for geological layers to be lifted and “folded,” leaving part of an older layer on top of a younger layer.
If this guy is really a “scientist” he would submit his findings for peer review rather than just use deception and misleading photographs to gull credulous fundies.