# Young Earth Geologist? How the hell....
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [April 30, 2006, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820 "2006-04-30T06:58:23Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/1 "2006-04-30T06:58:23Z")
…can you claim to be a professional \* geologist\* while supporting a Biblical Creationist notion of the world’s physical development? Surely the two are mutually exclusive?
Linkus[Strange intellectual bedfellows wot.](http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/creationist-on-a-dinkum-crusade/2006/04/29/1146198391637.html)
See, I can imagine many science-type boffins being able to reconcile their particular speciality with a belief in Creation Science. Y’know, like opticians, and maybe obstetricians. I could even imagine a mathematician revelling in the rational beauty of what Og created for our intellectual amusement 6000 years ago.
But a \ ***GEOLOGIST**? \*
How can someone like that hold credentials like that and not see the utter incongruence of their stance?
I can understand at least why he is on the lecture circuit. No one would bother employing him as a geologist, that’s for sure. 😃
---
### Author:  [@KlondikeGeoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KlondikeGeoff)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/2 "2006-04-30T14:54:58Z")
It seems some people just wear blinders. I had a serious young lady work for me once who was a fundie. She was very nice, never tried to push her beliefs. We got in a discussion once where she insisted the earth was something like 5700 years old (forget the exact figure she used). We kicked this around for a while.
Finally, I asked her how she accounted for the dinosaurs. She insisted there were no such things. I gave up.
---
### Author:  [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/3 "2006-04-30T17:48:31Z")
> [@KlondikeGeoff](#):
>
> It seems some people just wear blinders. I had a serious young lady work for me once who was a fundie. She was very nice, never tried to push her beliefs. We got in a discussion once where she insisted the earth was something like 5700 years old (forget the exact figure she used). We kicked this around for a while.
>
> Finally, I asked her how she accounted for the dinosaurs. She insisted there were no such things. I gave up.
So…all those things in the museum? Dude, that’s a bit more than blinders. More like poking your eyes out with a sharp stick.
And a Young Earth Geologist…wonder what my Earth Science teacher would think of that.
---
### Author:  [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/4 "2006-04-30T18:07:19Z")
> [@KlondikeGeoff](#):
>
> Finally, I asked her how she accounted for the dinosaurs. She insisted there were no such things. I gave up.
In the Christian school I attended, they taught that humans and dinosaurs had co-existed until Noah’s flood. They had a drawing of people farming with brontosauri grazing on trees in the background. (Always wondered what happened if a T-rex came along. THAT would have been an interesting sketch.)
All of the bones that we find are the dinos who died in the flood, but Noah did have a few on the Ark. (Another drawing of a stegosaurus in a stall next to a zebra was included.)
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/5 "2006-04-30T18:09:22Z")
[Who is John Mackay?](http://www.amen.org.uk/cr/who/index.htm)
One of his “works”
[Real Roots The Origin of the Races - Evidence from the Bible and science](http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/roots-vs.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Most people we meet have never heard a clear biblical and scientific explanation of the true origin of races. As a result, many believe half-truths or even lies. This has been a major factor in racial prejudice throughout the world, even in the Church. Evolutionists have even gone so far as to teach that blacks are less evolved and closer to the apes. This compelling video reveals the truth. Discover evidence from science and the Bible that proves that all humans were created, and that all people are related through Noah’s family, and Adam, before him.
>
> What color was Adam? How could so many different skin colors come from Noah and his sons? Why do some races have slanted eyes and some round if they are all descendants of Noah? This video answers this and many more questions. It also disproves the common misconception that dark skin evolved in hotter climates, and lighter skin in the north. Experience a deeper understanding of the Creator as you see His handiwork in Creation. Your faith will grow as you confirm the accuracy of the Bible’s account of Creation. The Creator Christ came as Savior to all mankind, because all races are descended from the first created man.
>
> This fast-paced documentary was filmed on various locations around the world. It features Australian researcher John Mackay
[More analysis by a similar author referencing Mackay](http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2007)
> [@](#):
>
> Gary Parker, in his book, Creation: The Facts of Life (1980, pp. 77-81), has observed that if Adam and Eve were both AABB, they could have produced only children with the darkest coloration possible, and they themselves likewise would have been dark. That, barring genetic mutations (to be discussed later), would have produced a world composed only of dark-skinned people. But, as has been noted already, the Negroid race composes less than 10% of the world’s population, so by a process of elimination, this choice can be ruled out.
>
> If Adam and Eve both had been aabb, they could have had only children that were aabb, that being the lightest coloration possible. Then, the world would contain no other groupings. But it does. So, this option also is ruled out by a process of elimination.
>
> The real question is this: Is there a mechanism by which the racial characteristics which we see today could have originated with one human couple—in the short, few thousand year or so history of the Earth?
>
> The answer is a resounding yes! If Adam and Eve had been “heterozygous” (AaBb; two dominant, two recessive genes), they would have been middle-brown in color. And, from them—in one generation—racial differences could have occurred quite easily. Figure 1 expresses the genetic possibilities that could result if Adam and Eve had been heterozygous. Note that in a single generation, one could expect (theoretically) these colorations to be produced: 1 darkest; 4 dark; 6 medium; 4 light; and 1 lightest
---
### Author:  [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/6 "2006-04-30T18:09:37Z")
> [@Lissa](#):
>
> In the Christian school I attended, they taught that humans and dinosaurs had co-existed until Noah’s flood. They had a drawing of people farming with brontosauri grazing on trees in the background. (Always wondered what happened if a T-rex came along. THAT would have been an interesting sketch.)
_squish_
(T-rex stepping on human-type things)
---
### Author:  [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/7 "2006-04-30T18:13:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Note that in a single generation, one could expect (theoretically) these colorations to be produced: 1 darkest; 4 dark; 6 medium; 4 light; and 1 lightest
That’s a step up from what I was taught in Sunday school, that people were like cookies and God left the Negroes in the oven too long and they got “burnt”.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/8 "2006-04-30T18:46:45Z")
> [@DanBlather](#):
>
> That’s a step up from what I was taught in Sunday school, that people were like cookies and God left the Negroes in the oven too long and they got “burnt”.
oh my.
just…
oh my.
---
### Author:  [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/9 "2006-04-30T19:10:28Z")
> [@DanBlather](#):
>
> That’s a step up from what I was taught in Sunday school, that people were like cookies and God left the Negroes in the oven too long and they got “burnt”.
:: brain explodes ::
Oh shit, all over the carpet. I just had it cleaned, too.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/10 "2006-04-30T19:10:39Z")
From the link in the OP:
> [@](#):
>
> Charles Darwin actually graduated in theology, which is a little-known, well-kept secret," he tells his audience. “He knew exactly what he was trying to disprove.”
>
> Mackay’s version of events is this: God created the world in the course of six days, about 6000 years ago.
I wonder why this dunderhead never realized it is such a “secret” because for the extremist religious minded people in England it is a bigger embarrassment that Darwin had graduated in theology, it is less embarrassing to more scientific minded people since for them it showed that a fellow that originally “knew” the truth found evidence contrary to that and instead of hiding the evidence he published the findings.
However, it seems there was a more mundane reason, Darwin was already learned in taxidermy and wanted to be a Naturist but in those days (like Mendel) being in the church was most likely to provide time and a comfortable income. And most naturalists in England were clergymen who saw it as their duty to explore “the wonders of the creation”.
> [@](#):
>
> Dinosaurs were part of the picture as well as humans (“You know your stories about St George slaying the dragon? Well, there is a possibility that some myths are based on truths!” he tells his Birkenhead crowd), but all were caught by the Great Flood inflicted by God about 2000 years later.
>
> Noah, Mackay says, did take dinosaurs on the Ark (“probably baby ones”), but they did not survive long afterwards or at least never recovered their giant dimensions.
>
> “After the flood, there was a long winter,” he tells his audience. “In that competition, the sad thing is that we won and they lost.”
>
> Mackay’s central point is that the gaps in evolution theory are routinely treated as understandable absences, rather than as opportunities for an alternative.
Obviously this dunderhead ignores that Punctuated Equilibria already saw that opportunity and what is worse, it is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism.
> [@](#):
>
> While evolutionary theory is dominant in British schools now, a poll of Britons taken in January this year on behalf of the BBC yielded almost near-American levels of support for the alternative — 44 per cent of respondents felt that the biblical version of events should be a part of the school curriculum.
>
> And Prime Minister Tony Blair’s new “city academies” scheme, where private benefactors are encouraged to sponsor new private schools and in return may influence the schools’ structure and curriculum, has spawned a string of new creationist colleges backed by **Sir Peter Vardy, a wealthy evangelist and car salesman**.
Birds of a feather, and I’m not talking finches here.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/11 "2006-04-30T21:59:37Z")
I’ve met some YEC geologists. Big on cataclysmic flood sedimentation. They were nice people, & pretty good at thinking outside the conventional wisdom box.
I wonder how many people responding in horror to this thread are trained in geology. Also, how many of us are “refuting” these people with arguments from authority? (“Well, Steven Jay Gould said…”) Don’t think you’ve disproven an argument just because you’ve repeated “what everybody knows.” Maybe what everybody “knows” is an assumption.
The sharper Young-Earthers make a goofy kind of sense: Many people accept the current scientific theory of any given thing simply on authority, 'cos it’s out of their area of expertise. But many theories are built on inference & assumption. There are some frankly bizarre conclusions that have been put forth as scientific truth. For examples, I was taught that there is no neurogenesis in adult primates, which is totally wrong; geologists used to pooh-pooh any regional cataclysms as creeping creationism. If you’re going to accept something on authority, the “Inspired Scriptures” can look like as good a choice as any.
Of course, any argument from authority is invalid. Besides, I think there are good philological reasons to take Genesis with a grain of salt or twelve. But these people aren’t historians, or theologians, or philologists. They’re observant Christians trying to reconcile their religion with their scientific understanding. And sometimes they come up with some interesting ideas.
I’m glad people like this exist, because they remind us of the cocksureness of conventional wisdom, & they challenge our ideas about how X came to be. It’s good to seriously consider whether they could be right, & to work on explaining why they’re wrong, instead of simply repeating what we think is right, lest we become as hidebound as the worst religious conservatives ourselves.
---
### Author:  [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/12 "2006-04-30T22:30:00Z")
> [@DanBlather](#):
>
> That’s a step up from what I was taught in Sunday school, that people were like cookies and God left the Negroes in the oven too long and they got “burnt”.
That’s horrible. Thankfully, most churches don’t teach such a thing.
Mind you, I’m sure that this story was only told for illustrative purposes, and was not meant literally. I also suspect that there was no illwill intended. Still, people often don’t realize the implications of such tales.
FTR, I doubt that it was intended as a white superiority tale, either. In the version that I’m familiar with, the white people were undercooked and the dark people were overdone. The brown-skinned folks are the ones that came out “just right.”
---
### Author:  [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)
#### Post date: [April 30, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/13 "2006-04-30T22:32:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Obviously this dunderhead ignores that Punctuated Equilibria already saw that opportunity and what is worse, it is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism.
In the interest of combatting ignorance, I think it’s worth pointing out that “punctuated equilibrium” is a _description_, not an explanation. You cant’ really explain anything by pointing to punctuated equilibrium, since that merely describes what supposedly occurred. It doesn’t offer an explanation for how this might have happened.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/14 "2006-05-01T00:18:42Z")
> [@kambuckta](#):
>
> …can you claim to be a professional \* geologist\* while supporting a Biblical Creationist notion of the world’s physical development?
They’re probably just lazy. They want to study 6,000 years of Earth’s geology instead of 4.5 billion. That’s a lot less work.
---
### Author:  [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/15 "2006-05-01T00:40:44Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Of course, any argument from authority is invalid. Besides, I think there are good philological reasons to take Genesis with a grain of salt or twelve. But these people aren’t historians, or theologians, or philologists. They’re observant Christians trying to reconcile their religion with their scientific understanding. And sometimes they come up with some interesting ideas.
>
> I’m glad people like this exist, because they remind us of the cocksureness of conventional wisdom, & they challenge our ideas about how X came to be. It’s good to seriously consider whether they could be right, & to work on explaining why they’re wrong, instead of simply repeating what we think is right, lest we become as hidebound as the worst religious conservatives ourselves.
I’m a bit less charitable than you as (IMO) there is fine, but fairly bright line between challenging authority with a viable competing paradigm and trying to argue for something that is manifestly ludicrous on multiple levels like YEC. The first is “outside the box” science, the second is a knowing con game.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/16 "2006-05-01T02:39:22Z")
> [@JThunder](#):
>
> In the interest of combatting ignorance, I think it’s worth pointing out that “punctuated equilibrium” is a _description_, not an explanation. You cant’ really explain anything by pointing to punctuated equilibrium, since that merely describes what supposedly occurred. It doesn’t offer an explanation for how this might have happened.
😕
[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html)
> [@](#):
>
> PE explains the abrupt appearance of new species in the fossil record. The splitting of lineages (1 above) in the mode of allopatric speciation (2 above) followed by ecological dispersal and succession (5 above) would result in geologically abrupt appearance of the daughter species everywhere except the limited geographic area where the speciation took place. Most speciation takes place as peripatric speciation, which is confined to a limited geographic region, and after which ecological principles argue for relatively rapid reintroduction and spread into new habitats for the daughter species. Since the critical change occurs in such a small region and in such a limited population, the probability of finding specimens which document the transition from ancestral to daughter species is very low. A population which can exploit resources untapped by current populations will grow and spread at somewhere near its theoretical intrinsic rate of increase. The cases of introduced species in modern times (the starling in North America, for example) demonstrate the extreme rapidity in which a species may spread across large geographic extents.
> PE explains the relative stasis of most species. A species may produce a few daughter species during its duration (3 above). Large interbreeding populations are unlikely to change much due to genetic homeostasis and gene flow from far-flung parts of the range (6 above) [Eldredge & Gould emphasize homeostatic mechanisms over gene flow.].
> PE asserts “species selection” as the way in which major adaptive trends proceed. Closely related species are often likely to overlap in niche space (5 above). Ecological processes may cause the displacement and possible extinction of certain species due to competition with other species. If adaptive change in large populations is largely inhibited (6 above), then each species represents a “hypothesis” that is “tested” in competition. This is one of the more controversial points in PE.
> PE also makes a statement concerning the pattern of fossils found. This pattern has both geographic and stratigraphic components. If peripatric speciation is the mode of speciation, then the place where transitional fossils between a parent and daughter species will be found will be limited in geographic region (2 above). Because the time needed for transition from parent to daughter species is short compared to the total residence time of either, the stratigraphic extent of transitional fossil sequences will be very brief (4 above).
---
### Author:  [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/17 "2006-05-01T02:46:04Z")
> [@](#):
>
> So…all those things in the museum?
Nephilim. Giants walking the earth, etc. It’s very simple.
Loony, but simple.
---
### Author:  [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/18 "2006-05-01T03:04:18Z")
How do these YECs explain carbon dating?
Trying to prove what’s in the bible is different from using the bible as a set of hypotheses that can be disproven. Taking the bible as fact and ignoring any evidence that might disprove it flies in the face of scientific method. How do these people feel about scientific method? Do I even want to know?
The Google ad is for home drug test kits! Ha!
---
### Author:  [@ZebraShaSha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZebraShaSha)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/19 "2006-05-01T03:25:00Z")
> [@dnooman](#):
>
> How do these YECs explain carbon dating?
>
> Trying to prove what’s in the bible is different from using the bible as a set of hypotheses that can be disproven. Taking the bible as fact and ignoring any evidence that might disprove it flies in the face of scientific method. How do these people feel about scientific method? Do I even want to know?
>
> The Google ad is for home drug test kits! Ha!
It’s wrong. Next question?
---
### Author:  [@vivalostwages](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vivalostwages)
#### Post date: [May 1, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820/20 "2006-05-01T03:39:42Z")
> [@ZebraShaSha](#):
>
> It’s wrong. Next question?
Yup. My niece is being taught in her Christian high school that carbon dating is just wildly inaccurate to the point of being completely unreliable.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/young-earth-geologist-how-the-hell/354820.md?page=2)