Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves. Quite simply, Whitcomb and Morris were able to provide seemingly compelling answers to questions which were still up for grabs in pres geology.
A cautionary tale, Montgomery writes, showing that blind faith is not solely the provenance of religion. However, there can be little doubt that he also regarded analogies as reasons in themselves to transpose concepts from one area of knowledge to another.
Why does this disprove the creationist view of geology? This is the version of creationism to which Ken Ham subscribes — you might remember his debate with Bill Nye from Hence, by analogy, geo-history should always be reconstructed by assuming that past processes have always acted as they do today, being of the same kind, having the same energy and producing the same effects.
Some rock formations millions of years old show no evidence of such large-scale water erosion. And when evidence later surfaced that catastrophic Earth-changing events did indeed occur at times, the geological establishment fought it for decades.
Perhaps, they concluded, the days in the week of creation corresponded to geological ages. After looking into the long history of engagement and cross-pollination between geology and Christianity, I find it curious that the conversation constantly gravitates to arguments for and against evolution.
Because a conglomerate made of fragments of an older conglomerate not only requires a first round of erosion, deposition, and burial deep enough to turn the original sediments into rock.