Posted on 12/02/2009 7:13:55 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Dec 2, 2009 — Field geologists have revisited a site Darwin visited on the voyage of the Beagle, and found that he incorrectly interpreted what he found. A large field of erratic boulders in Tierra del Fuego that have become known as “Darwin’s Boulders” were deposited by a completely different process than he thought. The modern team, publishing in the Geological Society of America’s December issue of the GSA Today,1 noted that “Darwin’s thinking was profoundly influenced by Lyell’s obsession with large-scale, slow, vertical movements of the crust, especially as manifested in his theory of submergence and ice rafting to explain drift.” Lyell, in turn, felt vindicated: “Lyell celebrated these observations because they supported his idea of uniformitarianism—that continued small changes, as witnessed in the field, could account for dramatic changes of Earth’s surface over geologic time.” In this case, though, a more rapid phenomenon provides a better explanation for the observations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:
“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”
—Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78
Surprised?
IBT*belongsinreligion*
Darwin was right about it when he said that if a cell was proven to be more than simple protoplasm and nucleus then the theory of evolution would not hold up.
Evolutionists have fallen into the “white swan” thought trap. It’s like trying to prove that there are no black swans by going around counting white swans. Evolutionists ignore the incredibly complicated inner workings of a SINGLE CELL and declare it just a random accident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk
The above is just a partial and greatly simplified view of how a cell works.
It is, however, another cautionary note to folks who think Darwin was a total genius who never got anything wrong ~ in this instance his uniformitarian viewpoints (gradual changes over time doing massive work) got the best of him.
Still, glacial rafting from mountain ranges is a recent enough finding that Darwin had never heard of it.
I seriously doubt Darwin wanted to climb up Andean mountains to see ice.
Within the last year or so the "uniformitarian" view regarding the way paint is mixed also collapsed in the face of computer models that correctly predict the outcome of various ways of mixing.
Remember, Darwin didn't know about DNA. He didn't know what a computer chip was or how it worked. He was rusty with calculus. And, when he was in fat city and ate bread with his meals he spent the next three days in the toilet unloading his bowels on a continuing basis. He knew alimentary piece only in the more primitive countryside where they ate oatmeal!
The last 150 years of biological science were a test case precursor to the last 10 years of climatology science....
oh no, yet another of the myriad of mistakes from darwin...and consequently, his followers....
Darwin attempted to give his “theory” of evolution the deep time it needed by hitching it to lyellian uniformitarianism, which is rapidly being discredited along with Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth.
Do you have a link for Darwin’s protoplasm comments? That would be a link well worth saving!
Now if we could only find his emails.
Eventually it’ll come down that Darwin was right about nothing, and wrong on everything else.
Ah... It still is the norm for science to eventually outrun previous scientists and theory’s. I would guess that the eventual outcome will be something on the order of 30/70...ie, 30% of his theories will be right, 70% wrong. This might be the norm for 19th Century prognostications.
Anyone who expects higher results are just hoping that their current beliefs are right rather than following science...
I think that he wrote in his book.
I don’t know what you are trying to prove here but the field of geology was very primitive 150 years ago and Darwin was not a geologist. Further his geologic interpretations were heavily influenced by his friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, a creationist.
Can you differentiate between wrong and incomplete? Can you name any 19th century scientific theory that was complete when initially presented? Can you name a 20th century theory that was complete when initially presented?
I saw it there myself, but it was only a sentence or two and I don’t recall exactly where it was and am having trouble finding it again.
>Darwin attempted to give his “theory” of evolution the deep time it needed by hitching it to lyellian uniformitarianism, which is rapidly being discredited along with Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth.
As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking about.
Evolution was a concept that was debated since the time of the Greek philosophers and not a theory of Darwin.
Your claim of Darwin attempting to give evolution “deep time,” is a complete fabrication, this is, a lie that has no basis in fact.
Uniformitarianism, just like any other legitimate scientific theory, is continually subject to scrutiny. It is no big deal.
What Charles Darwin did in fact was to take along Charles Lyell’s book, “Principles of Geology,” which among other things demonstrated through the observing of irregularities in rock layers, that Earth’s sediments were not laid down at a single time from a biblical flood as previously believed, but was instead a process that had took hundreds of millions of years.
Radiometric dating and stratigraphy verify this. Since the science of Physics underlies this, and God created everything in the Universe, including the law of physics, anyone one denying this data is denying the existence of God.
Again, your accusing Darwin of proposing a “evo-athiest creation myth” is complete fabrication on your part, another lie.
You blame Darwin, but it is you who are truly evil, continually spouting out misinformation and hate.
George
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.