From the article:
"As one wrote: ‘On Surtsey, only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief."
Posted on 02/16/2009 9:40:48 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Surtsey still surprises
by David Catchpoole
After the island of Surtsey was born of a huge undersea volcanic eruption off Iceland in 1963,1 geologists were astonished at what they found.
As one wrote: ‘On Surtsey, only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief.’2
There were wide sandy beaches, gravel banks, impressive cliffs, soft undulating land, faultscarps, gullies and channels and ‘boulders worn by the surf (see picture left), some of which were almost round, on an abrasion platform cut into the cliff.’2 And all of this despite the ‘extreme youth’3 of the island!
The geologists’ surprise is understandable, given the modern thinking that young Surtsey’s ‘varied and mature’ features ought to have needed long periods of time—millions of years—to form....
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
What “ilk” would that be?
From the article:
"As one wrote: ‘On Surtsey, only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief."
Now all we need is for people to realize that one anecdotal example of a prediction not following a theory makes every assumption the theory was base on wrong, and everything else the thoery predicts equally wrong.
I’ve noticed that.
Wow are you a total idiot. You deny what happened right in front of scientists’ eyes because it messes up your millions of years theory.
Dude- there is no ‘althernative explanation’ to what I psoted- they are verifiable facts
You’re ignoring the operative part of my post (which includes your excerpt):
“Unfortunately, all of those cases are one-offs. They do not represent or support a consistent position or process. They are individually selected by YECs to throw stones at more rigorous science.
Together, they’re just a group of curious natural occurrences, many of which have alternative explanations. There is no cohesive story that they tell collectively.”
Okay, um, Dude?
I see that your hormones got the better of you thus ending any possibility of future reasonable conversation.
There’s no ‘special’ case here. Its exactly the same conditions in microcosm of the Genesis judgement, and is a solid proof of basic ‘flood’ geology. - I know that you don’t like it, but it fits like a glove.
O.J.'s glove?
No meteor, just the Genesis judgement that severed Pangea into the present continents.
It moved the continents in about a year if I remember right. Can you explain how the oceans didn’t boil away from the released energy of moving that much tectonic plate that far in such a short time or the colossal vulcanism that would accompany such an event or how the birds managed to survive in such an environment, let alone Noah and his ship.
Any creationists done any research on this or did they just fall back on the old supernatural, ‘God did it’ routine?
Please keep posting—you’re making my point for me. Surtsey IS a special case in itself. One cannot generalize Surtsey’s conditions and origin to the entire earth/universe. There are far too many differences in the geologies of Surtsey and Alberta or India.
Not to mention what it would do to earth's rotation and orbits of the earth and moon.
New phrase for a YEC'er. Which site did you get that one from?
Dude- there is no ‘althernative explanation’ to what I psoted- they are verifiable facts- Facts are facts- AND they DO represent a consistent position or process- you just refuse to accept it and wave it away- many of your preferred ‘old earth’ evidneces have ‘other explanations’ as well- does that mean they are wrong? Does that invalidate them? Does it mean the old earth position is ‘inconsistent’?
Think what ya want- but don;’t pretend to be objective when you clearly are not.
“Dude- there is no ‘althernative explanation’ to what I psoted- they are verifiable facts- Facts are facts...Think what ya want- but don;’t pretend to be objective when you clearly are not.”
I’m not the one citing creationism sites, Dude!
Think what ya want- but don;’t pretend to be objective when you clearly are not.
Dude! UI’m not ‘citing creationist sites’ I’m citing FACTS from creationist sites which you conveniently dismiss- Again- beleive what you want, but don’t pretend to be objective when you dismiss FACTS in such a manner
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.