S
Steezie
Guest
No, It was formed over millions of years through the same processes that most other mountains were formed.
Then perhaps you'd care to point me to WHERE this was dealt with?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, It was formed over millions of years through the same processes that most other mountains were formed.was Everest always there?
Then perhaps you'd care to point me to WHERE this was dealt with?As i said already, the creationists have dealt with these issues long ago.
Plenty of Geologists listed here,
Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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.
.................................................................................
...............................
Quick calculation shows that 11 compared to 22,000 is .0005 percent. Statistically insignificant I'd say.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...
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'Devil is in them details, regarding your list.
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.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 gave you a list that shows there are some Geologists which is significantly more than none!Certainly the ones who look are the hardest are geologists and none of THEM think its all the work of a few thousand yeras.
is Geology from Harvard good enough? you can check their credentials from said list or GoogleAs 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.
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.-what is their actual position on "creation"? does it include belief that there was a 6 day creation, and a noah flood as described?
There's twelve geologists/geophysicists listed there. Twelve. You think twelve is "plenty"?
from your next statement it seems that he is.Oh, look. One of your listed Geologists, isn't a geologist at all;
Many scientists have multiple degrees, no big deal with that.Depending upon the assertion that the creationist is trying to support, it seems Dr. Elgin is either a biologist, or a geologist,
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.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.
Then perhaps you'd care to point me to WHERE this was dealt with?
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.
thats a No true scotsman tactic now.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."
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.
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?"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."
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?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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?