slevesque writes:
But, from an outsiders look, it is not impossible that some geologist in the last century have looked into this.
They most probably have. However, geologists are NOT evolutionary biologists. Which is what Lithodid was asking for.
Now unless you think that NO one in the scientific community since then has looked into this before Humphreys and Austin came along, than yes you may think that this claim is BS.
No. He thinks it is BS because it uses the term "evolutionist". Biologists don't concern themselves with salt concentrations in the oceans, so they wouldn't have looked into it. Thus, the claim is meant to portray evolution in a bad light, while in fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
But reasonnably, I think that an unsolved problem always attracts the interest of a scientist once in a while, and it is certainly logical that geologists have been looking to solve it in the past 110 years.
I think they probably have. But not evolutionary biologists.
I'll reiterate that I don't care what semantics you use. I don't get it why it bothers anyone that someone says ''evolutionist'' or ''Darwinian'', or any such words.
Because they are meant to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, while it has nothing to do with that. That's dishonest behaviour.
I certainly don't waste my time correcting everyone when someone talks about creationists with the word ''fundamentalist''. As long as I understand what the person means, I don't care what word he uses ...
While YOU might understand what they mean, there are others who don't. It is because of them these terms are used, to put them on the wrong idea.
I hunt for the truth