As usual we get the argument from authority line. If 95percent of scientists believe it , it has got to be right.?   No, it could be wrong. History has a list of the majority being wrong. How about a reasoned argument that don't consist of consensus must be right.   And as usual, creationists are being mocked, but fail to give solid evidence against it.      And I don't know how Greenland got its name, but I did read that there is evidence of former plant life in its strata. I will try and find the ref if you want to argue about it.