In my paper I will be talking about article The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for life in the 21st century by Terry Mortenson. I will discussing the main points of the article along with the strengths and weaknesses. This article is a breakdown of a huge debate that has been going on for years.
As I mention before this article is based on a debate that has been occurring for years. It is just another argument between the theories of the young- earth and Old-earth. A lot of the information within the article is a based on the creation of earth. Mortenson, uses scientists of religious and non-religious backgrounds which had different philosophies. It is also includes the views of uniformitarianism and catastrophism events and how it was believed to impact the creation of earth.
Article strengths in this article are large in number. The author gave us a good outline by the way he broke every paragraph down. Terry used several different scientists that had several different perspectives. These are just a few of the things that I feel were done right. Next I will talk about the points he had clear and if they were writing precisely. We started the article with a section pointing out the new theories on the history of creation. Terry beginning by using the Christian view that has been teach from thousands of years. Let us know that in the 4000 BC God created the world and everything in it within six 24-hour days. The same world he created was the same one he destroyed by flood 1600 years later. I now want to talk about the scriptural geologists, which is a very good subject. The scriptural geologists explains the theories behind the how the world was created from a biblical view. Fairholme fells in a high category in the strengths for me. He believed in backing up all of he’s theories and studies. Just being known as man who did investigations and experiments to prove his work. This makes his theories believable to me. In the relevance for today paragraph the old s. young earth theory is shown in the relation of biblical and non-biblical views. Example: Biblically that the evidence from the fossils and rocks are accurate with the Bible recordings. Of course, the old earth would show and try to prove it wrong because of their rejection with God and creation.
Now I will be talking about the weaknesses I discovered in the reading. One main weakness is trying to relate scriptural geology to earth science. They may have something’s that are similar gut they are not the same. They are two things that just don’t go together. Earth science focus on non-Christian views. While scriptural obviously is a Christian aspect. I can’t relative natural science with supernatural activity. What God does is supernatural work. Natural activity would be like the results of a flood or earthquake. There are a few things the author could have made a little clearer for the purpose of understanding. Next, I will mention these points in these last few sentences. It does seem like some of scientists are confusing their own work. Some believe in the old earth but are revealing young earth evidence. Which is why I feel like the debate is so huge. I do believe that this article is based on assumptions and a few proven facts. I don’t understand how you can be a scriptural geologists but deny God is work in creating the world by saying it happen naturally.
Overall the article presented a lot great evidence on the young vs. old earth. The different scientific views by different scientists were all believed to be true in same way. I’m still a little confused on what to believe when it comes to the debate. Finally, as a Christian I would have to believe and accept Gods role in creation.

Bibliography
1. Mortenson, Terry. “The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramification for Life in the 21st century.” Answer in Genesis
5th of August 2003