It would indeed be strange granite, which is why I don't think
ordinary granite is young. It could have large or small crystals
(microscopic or no crystals, and it would not be granite, by definition),
but there's no need to replicate the crystallization pattern that would
occur by gradual cooling. Conversely, if the oldest granite often had
patterns of crystallization not expected from gradual cooling, if Gentry's
halo claims were geologically sound, etc. it would be more plausible that
the granite was created as is. Again, it is not mere process but history
that is the problem.
It's not how I think things should be done, but how I think things
were done that is the problem here. Jesus is the same yesterday, today,
and forever, so it seems like a good assumption that He has run the
universe similarly in the past as in the present. If the physical
condition of the earth is not a meaningful source of information about its
past, why do you try to find geological evidence compatible with your
views? We agree that creation should be comprehensible and in accord with
I do see claims about how God should have created imposed by
current "intelligent design". The claims for the necessity of gaps within
biological evolution seem to be based on a non-Scriptural philosophical
premise. Why should God be constrained by Plato?
Although I can see the possibility of justifying a young-earth view
from Scripture (in contrast to the issue of evolution, which seems
unmentioned), it also seems possible to interpret these passages
figuratively. ["Not literal" is often used as a euphemism for "not true,
but you might realize I'm attacking the Bible if I came out and said it".
I'm referring to intentional use of metaphor in the original, rather than
my ability to ignore the verses.] As I see two possible interpretations of
the Scripture and one of creation, I favor compatibility.