I may have ruined my credibility by my flood post, but I am going to go ahead and post this. Check this site out: The Geoscience Research Institute

What do you think? Also
A flood model

I don't support or critize this model, but I would like to see what you think.

I had a brief look at the GRI website. Their starting point is clearly noted up front:

"The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. "

Their library is a curious mixture of hard-core YEC and more temperate papers. I thought the expose's on the origin of the geological science, and the controversies it generated with established theological thought, actually rather good and reasonably unbiased. It is worth alerting hard-core fundie YEC's to this paper. Another worthwhile technical summary is the one on paleomagnetism - the author issues a warning to YEC'ers not to focus exclusively on the anomalies in the data, but rather on the trends. This is something I have tried to point out as well many times to creationists. Unfortunately, the author doesn't then follow his own advice, as no explanation of the trends in a YEC context is given (unsurprisingly?).

A lot of other papers are simply more or less contrived attempts to bend the data, zoom in on the noise rather than the signal, ignore other existing explanations and in general obvious efforts to force-fit the natural data into a biblical straightjacket.

Nothing new there.

It remains to be explained why anyone would think that the bible would have much useful to say about the minutiae of geology, palentology and biology. Or why it is necessary to reconcile the findings of natural science with a literal interpretation of the text.

I will take a look at the Flood model later.

fG