I’ve been meaning to post this for a few days, but not got round to it yet.
The article I had in mind was one on the Age of Rocks blog titled “Can Young-Earth Creationists Find Oil?” The premise of this article is incredibly useful because it illustrates the point that long ages are motivated at least in part by real-world, practical applications where geologists are under strong financial incentives to produce results that are correct, not results that are convenient. As such, it is a powerful rebuttal to the oft-heard YEC claim that old-earth results are motivated by atheistic presuppositions.
It also illustrates how the assumptions of historical science can be verified, by using them to make testable predictions, and it also provides a rebuttal to Andrew Snelling’s claim that the age of oil deposits is irrelevant.
The problem is that it takes far too long to get to the point, and before you actually get to it, you have to wade through some very confrontational language that isn’t actually all that relevant. Any YEC reading it would read the subtitle, “Active vs. Passive Strategies for Combatting YEC” and possibly the first paragraph, and dismiss it as being ideologically motivated without reading any further. It also doesn’t do justice to the point about the motivation behind long ages being practical rather than ideological.
What I’d like to see is a rewrite of this article, preferably by a petroleum geologist, that addresses these issues, and possibly even goes into a bit more detail. In particular, if they could give some kind of indication about the financial and political implications of drilling in the wrong place, or finding that the oil deposits are too young or too old, that would also be useful.