Grand Canyon
Moderator: Moderators
-
USIncognito
- Apprentice
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:17 am
Post #31
This might come as a surprise to Creationists, but your version of geology has been stagnant for a hundred years now. It least scientific geology has not only progressed, but found more and more evidence to buttress it's findings nearly 200 years ago.
I've been rereading an excellent book called "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers. It's a historical survey of the Creationist movement and will introduce you people who proffered the same discredited ideas Hovind, Walt Brown, Henry Morris, et. al. try to suggest are novel since the 19th Century. Largely forgotten is George Mccready Price, but if you read his arguments from the early 1900s, they sound exactly like those offered by Sender and his sources above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price
One has to wonder, if Price "figured out" a fatal flaw in scientific geology 100 years ago, why hasn't there been a pradigm shift in the intervening century? The question of why no new ideas have come from the Creationist camp in that time (Brown's rediculous "hydroplate theory" aside)?
I've been rereading an excellent book called "The Creationists" by Ronald L. Numbers. It's a historical survey of the Creationist movement and will introduce you people who proffered the same discredited ideas Hovind, Walt Brown, Henry Morris, et. al. try to suggest are novel since the 19th Century. Largely forgotten is George Mccready Price, but if you read his arguments from the early 1900s, they sound exactly like those offered by Sender and his sources above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price
One has to wonder, if Price "figured out" a fatal flaw in scientific geology 100 years ago, why hasn't there been a pradigm shift in the intervening century? The question of why no new ideas have come from the Creationist camp in that time (Brown's rediculous "hydroplate theory" aside)?
