I think you miss the point. There is no such thing as a neutral source. We are all grown ups and we can be objective. Instead of quibbling over sources maybe we should use our God given ability to think, be logical and be honest to view origins issues.
I strongly disagree. The raw empirical data is completely neutral. Anyone (YE or OE) can count tree rings or varve layers and get the same results. Anyone can do radioisotopic measurements on basalt and record the numbers. Anyone can do material strength tests on various materials and write down the results.
Let me clarify one thing. I did not come here to argue for an old Earth. I came here to get explanations for various empirically observed phenomena from the young earth perspective, explanations that I have been unable to find in searching the YE literature.
As I mentioned earlier, geology is an amateur hobby of mine. Like all inquisitive science nerds, I like to understand how things came to be. I have read quite a bit on mainstream geology, and have also read YE sources like ICR, AIG, Walt Brown, the RATE project, etc. What I have found pretty much without exception is that the OE folks can provide detailed, specific mechanisms for things, and in most cases provide multiple independent lines of evidence that point to their OE conclusion. The YEs, however, only ever argue that the OE interpretations are wrong and never offer up their own details specific mechanisms. YEs also are notorious for ignoring the multiple independent lines of evidence. They will provide one ad hoc
argument one at a time against each OE interpretation and never bother to consolidate all of their rebuttals into one coherent picture beyond "the Flood did it". Many times the YE ad hoc
arguments will directly contradict one another.
Here is another case in point: Incised meandering rivers. This is Goosenecks state park in Utah. The river makes three complete 180 deg. switchbacks and travels more than five total miles in less than one linear mile.
The OE explanation is that the original layers were laid down as sediment over a span of a billion years, and eventually hardened to rock. About 20 million years, a meandering river began flowing across the relatively flat top of the layers. As plate tectonics lifted the layers in elevation, the river slowly carved vertically walled canyons along the original meandering path.
The YEs say the sediment was all laid and the river carved in the soft mud by Flood run off in one year.
Then we look at the empirical data. Not interpretations, just pure empirically verifiable facts.
1. Meandering rivers only form at slow flow speeds. If the water is flowing too fast, you get straight cut channels. Evidence of this can be seen in the channels carved from the catastrophic ice-dam floods of the lake Missoula scablands.
2. To remove the volume of soil in one year necessary for the YE view, the flow would have to be orders of magnitude too fast to produce meanders.
3. Soft mud does not have the mechanical strength to support vertical walls, over a half mile high at some places in this case. Mud in a vertical orientation would slump under its own weight. Again, this is not interpretation but an empirically verifiable fact.
4. The layers of the canyon are occasionally interspersed with basaltic rock which allows radiometric dating. Without exception, the dating always shows the a top to bottom, youngest to oldest progression. If the layers were all laid in the same year, they should all show the same radiometric age even if that absolute age was wrong.
To top it off, examples of these incised meandering rivers are even found carved through solid basalt
, which for the uninformed is solidified lava.
Columbia River basalts
I'd love for someone to explain to me how a meandering, vertically incised river can be cut through molten lava.
So there's my dilemma. I'm open to new interpretations, but I need the YEs to provide a consistent, consilient one that I have been unable to locate myself.