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 ...
The rock hounds are constantly having there theories blown apart and it continues, albeit less frequently today.
I am guessing that you are trying to say that if Darwin was wrong about rocks he was wrong about evolution. Nice try, but the connection is not at all relevant. They, the geologists, were lacking in information about many things that we have a better understanding of today, including plate tectonics and the area affected by glaciers. I am convinced that there will be more changes in scientific understanding to come. Many more....(Like the global warming hoax)
Then it should be easy for you to explain why we find no trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we find no dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata, or no mammals in the Cambrian strata?
Oh good. So my neighbors and I CAN kill my disobedient children.
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Please, for everyone's sake, use your mind to consider what you've said.
This is probably more deserving of a discussion in the Religion Forum, but Scripture and the word of God is not predicated upon a single passage, it is all contextual. God speaks to us and directs us both through Scripture and through the works of the Holy Spirit. It is not incumbent upon us to decipher the mysteries and hidden meanings of Scripture to gain the Kingdom of Heaven. We could succeed at that if we discarded everything in the Old and New Testaments and kept only the Beatitudes.
There have been plenty of intellectually brilliant men who were incredibly evil.
People don’t make moral judgments based on how smart they are.
You obviously don’t have a clue as to the distinction.
Show me where morals equate to intellect.
"Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, sicence will be next to go."
Using your own mind, can you tell right from wrong?
Thanks for the cliche’ but the Bible writer James under the direction of God’s spirit explained why humans engaged in evil, as did many of the other writers, like Paul in explaining how all humans were sinful and why. And King David. And Moses. And Joshua.
I don’t recall any of them bringing up suspension of rational thought, quite the opposite in fact. But maybe you have something else in mind.
Ahhh...nothing like a ration of rationality.
Modern science tells us there's more to a stream's path than accident.
From “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones … Pages 213-4
“Streams evolve through a balance of forces. The bed shifts as it erodes one bank and dumps its remains on the other. It returns when its loops are cut off as the water finds a more direct route downhill. Complexity – meandering – is opposed by simplicity, the shortest path to the sea. Raindrop, Meander and Mississippi follow the same rules. Measurements of dozens of rivers, and computer simulations of many more, show that the relationship between their shortest possible path across a plain and their actual length is always the same. It is pi, the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. Each river, whatever its size, goes a little more than three times farther than it needs on its way to the sea.”
“Darwin the Geologist
Léo F. Laporte, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064,
laporte@cats.ucsc.edu
INFLUENCES
The irony of Darwin’s success as a geologist was that he had
little formal instruction in the subject. In his second year at the
University of Edinburgh—before he dropped out—he attended
the lectures of Robert Jameson, a champion of Werner’s Neptunist
theory, “but they were incredibly dull. The sole effect they
produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to
read a book on Geology or in any way to study the science. Yet I
feel sure that I was prepared for a philosophical treatment of the
subject” (Autobiography, p. 52).
gsahist.org/gsat/gt96dec8_10.pdf”
LOL,
IF Darwin had knowledgeable instructors he would have known that what he was observing was remnants left from the first heaven/earth age and what was living had been created/formed at the beginning of this humans placed in flesh body age.
Using one’s own mind, one can justify anything.
Right and wrong stand apart from intellectual justifications.
That only leads to situational ethics, like we’re having today with embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia and justifying abortion.
Of course the mind is used in decision making, but that is not the source of right and wrong. Otherwise, right and wrong would be different for everybody on the planet.
Morals are not based in intellect, whether or not intellect is used to make decisions. Morals are based on an outside standard of right and wrong.
One is not immoral (or evil) if one is irrational, one is simply irrational. And even the definition of *irrational* is up for grabs. One person’s behavior may seem irrational to another. Burning witches at the stake is irrational to someone who doesn’t believe in witches. But if someone really believed that they existed and had the power of life and death and were killing others, executing a murderer is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Do you believe in situational ethics or that there’s an objective, outside standard of right and wrong to which one can gauge one’s actions?
“Thus sayeth those who read and comprehend the Truth in Gods Word. All of it, not just the pretty parts, the easy to like parts. All Of It.”
Still LOL,
Dude, try reading the ENTIRE thing, in context, realizing that there is an OLD and NEW Testament, that Jesus came to abe a Savior to remove much of the OT ‘law’, as it could only CONDEMN and not SAVE.
Biblical Cherry-pickers, quite amusing overall.
OK then; what about homosexuals?
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.