From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Creation "science" and depth of the oceans
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:02:11 GMT

Thomas Slager asks:
# I was in this little argument with a kid at school who thinks the world is 
# only about 13,000 years old.  He cited an argument given by creation 
# scientists that the oceans would be much shallower if the earth were as
# old as we believe.

These creation "science" arguments generally rest on: assuming uniformity
of rate of a process which is almost certainly not uniform over time (e.g.,
rate of erosion), and ignoring processes known to operate in the opposite
direction (e.g., tectonic uplift, ocean floor subduction).

A more exact calculation of the processes involved, which includes the
variability in the process rate and accounts for the opposing processes,
will not yield a limit to the age of the earth at all (a balance between
the process and those opposing it will be well within the bounds of
possibility).  If you can get a more exact reference, I'll get you a
referenced demolition of the specific argument.

Kelly D. Crawford writes:
> There are several different creation theories ranging from a very young
> earth, to a very old earth.  The best creation theories today (IMHO) are
> compatible with a very old earth, evolution, etc.  

I would hesitate to call these "theories" in a "sci." group, because
I don't think that they in general satisfy the criteria for science.
(That doesn't mean they are wrong; I just don't want to confuse people
by using labels that are incorrect from their perspective.)

It is true that there are many Christians who refuse to accept creation
"science" (i.e., young-earth creationism supposedly supported by
scientific inquiry).

Christians who are interested in this topic are encouraged to join either
the ACG (Association of Christian Geologists) or the ASA (American Scientific
Affiliation).  Both seem to be comprised mainly of old-earth creationists
(people who only accept a limited form of evolution).  I can supply the
address of the ASA or ACG upon (Email) request.

> Dr. Hugh Ross has a book (I think it is called "Reasons to Believe") that
> puts forth a "creation-evolution" theory that is quite acceptable to
> both science and Christianity.

I think Hugh Ross's ministry and/or publishing house is called "Reasons
to Believe."  The title of his best-known science book is "The Fingerprint
of God."  Ross is an astrophysicist, and in my opinion he does quite well
within his field of expertise -- arguing that the universe appears quite
old.  (Ross quite correctly spends most of the book on that topic.)

Since this is a geology group, I'd recommend also:

Davis Young, _Christianity and the Age of the Earth_.
	1982, California, Artisan Press.  188 pp.  ISBN 0-934666-27-X

	Young is (I think) an Evangelical Christian and a professor of
	geology at Calvin College.  He argues that young-earth creationism
	is not in accord with the facts and perhaps harmful to Christianity
	because it is false.

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1987.  _Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary
        Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings_,
        Pennsylvania, IBRI.  130 pp.  ISBN 0-944788-00-9

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1981.  _Coral Reefs and Related Carbonate
        Structures as Indicators of Great Age_, Pennsylvania, IBRI.
        19 pp.

Wonderly, Daniel E., 1977.  _God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments_,
        Michigan, Crystal Press.  258 pp.  ISBN 0-930402-01-4

	Wonderly is an old-earth creationist.  He describes problems with
	"flood geology" and other young-earth views, from the perspective
	of geology.  He avoids radiometric dating, however, which is one
	of the key fields which provides evidence of the earth's age.

For those who are interested in books which counter creationist arguments
from a neutral (not Christian) perspective, ask me via Email and I will
supply you a copy of the talk.origins Books FAQ.
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology