I have been converted, I no longer buy evolution

[Steezie]

was Everest always there?

No, It was formed over millions of years through the same processes that most other mountains were formed.

As i said already, the creationists have dealt with these issues long ago.

Then perhaps you'd care to point me to WHERE this was dealt with?

 

[Hespera]

I don't disagree with that.

Well, i asked how you ACCOUNT for it not if you agree with it.

 

[Sri]

the cambrian explosion.

 

[Hespera]

the cambrian explosion.

ok you have nothing to say, so forget i asked

 

[atomweaver]

Plenty of Geologists listed here,
Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation

There's twelve geologists/geophysicists listed there. Twelve. You think twelve is "plenty"? On a quick search, one geological society alone has 22,000 members;

Geological Society of America - About GSA

Oh, look. One of your listed Geologists, isn't a geologist at all;

Professor of Biological Sciences : Dr Dennis L. Englin

Depending upon the assertion that the creationist is trying to support, it seems Dr. Elgin is either a biologist, or a geologist, whichever is convenient to the needs of the creationist at the time.

Its down to eleven. I wonder how many other not-Geologists I'll find if I dig? Hardly worth the effort, as they are dwarfed by the masses of geologists who actually make use of the consensus view to do useful and productive work.

I haven't really considered it, as it doesn't bother me that much. But the perspective of your question changes a bit considering that several Geologists do not agree with the b/millions of years time scales.

I see that of your eleven geologists/geophysicists, several are Old Earth Creationists, so it seems the bar for your "change in perspective" is set absurdly low...

Perhaps we should consider why some do and some dont, in light of the fact that Geologist do indeed work very hard studing the rocks

I wonder how much I could shorten your list of eleven, by removing those who have a financial stake in one or another for-profit creationist venture...

 

[Hespera]

There's twelve geologists/geophysicists listed there. Twelve. You think twelve is "plenty"? On a quick search, one geological society alone has 22,000 members;

Geological Society of America - About GSA

Oh, look. One of your listed Geologists, isn't a geologist at all;

Professor of Biological Sciences : Dr Dennis L. Englin

Depending upon the assertion that the creationist is trying to support, it seems Dr. Elgin is either a biologist, or a geologist, whichever is convenient to the needs of the creationist at the time.

Its down to eleven. I wonder how many other not-Geologists I'll find if I dig? Hardly worth the effort, as they are dwarfed by the masses of geologists who actually make use of the consensus view to do useful and productive work.



I see that of your eleven geologists/geophysicists, several are Old Earth Creationists, so it seems the bar for your "change in perspective" is set absurdly low...



I wonder how much I could shorten your list of eleven, by removing those who have a financial stake in one or another for-profit creationist venture...

We have not seen a creationist argument yet that wont evaporate in the light of close examination.

If we ever did it would be a world wide sensation of the first magnitude.

Its weird that people think there are solid arguments backed with data.

 

[Sri]

You do know of course that throughout earth history the fossils that are found show a sequence from simpler to more complex organisms, with both plants and animals. How would you account for that?

the cambrian explosion

Like I said, I DO believe the earth is around 3.6 billion years old; I believe evolution to be helpful in the sense that it files and keeps things organized in the classification or categories of species, but macroevolution does not take a place in my world view entirely.

We have not seen a creationist argument yet that wont evaporate in the light of close examination.

If we ever did it would be a world wide sensation of the first magnitude.

Its weird that people think there are solid arguments backed with data.

-I guess that just depends on perspective.
................................................................................................................

 

[Hespera]

Like I said, I DO believe the earth is around 3.6 billion years old; I believe evolution to be helpful in the sense that it files and keeps things organized in the classification or categories of species, but macroevolution does not take a place in my world view entirely.



-I guess that just depends on perspective.
.................................................................................
...............................

I asked how you account for the vertical arrangement of primitive to advanced organisms and you didnt remotely answer that.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

There's twelve geologists/geophysicists listed there. Twelve. You think twelve is "plenty"? On a quick search, one geological society alone has 22,000 members;

Geological Society of America - About GSA

Oh, look. One of your listed Geologists, isn't a geologist at all;

Professor of Biological Sciences : Dr Dennis L. Englin

Depending upon the assertion that the creationist is trying to support, it seems Dr. Elgin is either a biologist, or a geologist, whichever is convenient to the needs of the creationist at the time.

Its down to eleven. I wonder how many other not-Geologists I'll find if I dig? Hardly worth the effort, as they are dwarfed by the masses of geologists who actually make use of the consensus view to do useful and productive work.



I see that of your eleven geologists/geophysicists, several are Old Earth Creationists, so it seems the bar for your "change in perspective" is set absurdly low...



I wonder how much I could shorten your list of eleven, by removing those who have a financial stake in one or another for-profit creationist venture...

Quick calculation shows that 11 compared to 22,000 is .0005 percent. Statistically insignificant I'd say.

 

[Sri]

.0005 percent. Statistically insignificant I'd say.

Statisticallly insignificant to you.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Statisticallly insignificant to you.

No, according to statistics.

 

[Sri]

*raises eyebrow*

 

[marktheblake]

Devil is in them details, regarding your list.

Not at all, you made an absolute statement, I only had to find one to show that it is wrong. There is never a 'none'

The great 90%+ majority of those are people like engineers and psychologists whose opinion about the validity of geologists' work is of no value or significance whatever.

I agree with you. the 90% of scientist in that list does have no value or significance to the point you made and I did not represent it as such.

But You made the claim that

Certainly the ones who look are the hardest are geologists and none of THEM think its all the work of a few thousand yeras.

I gave you a list that shows there are some Geologists which is significantly more than none!

As for the few geologist sorts that are listed, there are some details that would have to be clarified.

-are they really geologists? I have a mail order dr. of divinity degree, Hovind I guess has a similar degree.

is Geology from Harvard good enough? you can check their credentials from said list or Google

-what is their actual position on "creation"? does it include belief that there was a 6 day creation, and a noah flood as described?

pretty sure that you can get that info from their Bios as well. If not, most of these guys have articles that are easily found online.

 

[marktheblake]

There's twelve geologists/geophysicists listed there. Twelve. You think twelve is "plenty"?

Absolutely, 12 is plenty more than None.

and You spent a lot of wasted time on that list, I didn't even count them.

Oh, look. One of your listed Geologists, isn't a geologist at all;

from your next statement it seems that he is.

Depending upon the assertion that the creationist is trying to support, it seems Dr. Elgin is either a biologist, or a geologist,

Many scientists have multiple degrees, no big deal with that.

Hardly worth the effort, as they are dwarfed by the masses of geologists who actually make use of the consensus view to do useful and productive work.

The claim was that there was none. So only one needs to be found, so you are right, it is hardly worth the effort and you have wasted enough time already.

 

[marktheblake]

Then perhaps you'd care to point me to WHERE this was dealt with?

Sorry, i am participating in a very similar thread to very similar posts, and such things already discussed and pointed to in that one, yet people still ignore them. So excuse me for getting the thread/people mixed up.

Secondly, it is my experience that if I point a skeptical person towards such resources they will disregard them, so little point.

It will be a much more rewarding experience if you google yourself, and you will find a balance view both sides of the argument. Suggestion "noahs flood where did the water go" 251000 search results.

 

[Hespera]

Not at all, you made an absolute statement, I only had to find one to show that it is wrong. There is never a 'none'

I agree with you. the 90% of scientist in that list does have no value or significance to the point you made and I did not represent it as such.

But You made the claim that
I gave you a list that shows there are some Geologists which is significantly more than none!

is Geology from Harvard good enough? you can check their credentials from said list or Google

pretty sure that you can get that info from their Bios as well. If not, most of these guys have articles that are easily found online.

The list implies far more than it states. Find me an actual geologist who thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, and show me what his basis is other than, say, dementia, and then you will have something.

Its real common to find people who believe things, for reasons related just to their own minds, for believing things despite all evidence. That says only something about them, not the truth of falsity of their belief.

Id have to see the specific empirical reason for the young earth, or it really means nothing.

You want to scoff, give a reason. Or you dont have a place at the table.

A person can SAY, oh I dont think Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.

Ok fine... why?

He can SAY
"uh duh i just dont think so." Zero value.

I didnt write what i said as carefully as I should have.

Lets try "You wont find a geologist anywhere on planet earth who can present a valid scientific reason for thinking the earth is only a few thousand yeras old."

 

[marktheblake]

The list implies far more than it states. Find me an actual geologist who thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, and show me what his basis is other than, say, dementia, and then you will have something.

One wonders how they got their science Phd's with dementia then.

Lets try "You wont find a geologist anywhere on planet earth who can present a valid scientific reason for thinking the earth is only a few thousand yeras old."

thats a No true scotsman tactic now.

In any case all those people have articles somewhere, easy to find. Now i wonder what you will define as valid.

 

[Hespera]

One wonders how they got their science Phd's with dementia then.

thats a No true scotsman tactic now.

In any case all those people have articles somewhere, easy to find. Now i wonder what you will define as valid.

People can and do get weird later in life.

"Lets try "You wont find a geologist anywhere on planet earth who can present a valid scientific reason for thinking the earth is only a few thousand years old."

That is a simple statement of fact, not a 'true scotsman tactic" If its about scotsmen it would be there are no false scotsmen. (Or real loch ness monsters)

IF you are making a counter claim that there are actual geologists who say that the earth is only a few thousand years old, then show me. I dont believe you.

Lets see what you have and then we will see if there is anything valid in it.

The main thing that is needed is data. The kind of pat way of putting it is, show me a pre cambrian bunny and i will believe the earth is not very old!

I am not locked into some ideology that wont permit me to see data for what it is.

There are people all over the world doing geology, and plenty of them wouldnt even know there are xtian cultists who insist the earth is only a few thousand years old.

If one of them came across evidence to show that it the case, well im sure he;d be happy to make himself famous. Science is about finding out how things really are not trying to match them to ideology.

Anyway... you know of so much as one data point anywhere that suggests the earth is not old, that there was a flood? if not, this is pointless discussion.

 

[marktheblake]

People can and do get weird later in life.

Some get weird very early too, like Kurt Wise who as a creationist received his Phd studying under Stephen Jay Gould is just one example.

"Lets try "You wont find a geologist anywhere on planet earth who can present a valid scientific reason for thinking the earth is only a few thousand years old."

Thats a little bit unfair, you did say something about no sensible person and then none. Now I worry that I cant find anything to give you that you will accept as valid. If you could define what you mean by valid before we move on that would be cool?

IF you are making a counter claim that there are actual geologists who say that the earth is only a few thousand years old, then show me. I dont believe you.

There was a list, I feel that is enough, it has their name, qualification and a link to some Bios or articles, or do you mean because of their affiliation to a Creation organisation that they are not an actual geologist?

 

[atomweaver]

There was a list, I feel that is enough, it has their name, qualification and a link to some Bios or articles, or do you mean because of their affiliation to a Creation organisation that they are not an actual geologist?

Sorry not engouh, by a spot check of half of them; they are Old Earth Creationists. You just assumed they supported a Young Earth version of creationism, because they signed off on a vague statement in support of "God created everything".