Surtsey still surprises (land features thought to take millions of years form in less than a decade)

Journal of Creation ^ | David Catchpoole, P.hD.

[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....

[CottShop]

You have no idea how I think- Unlike Buck I DO lo0ok at all info objectively- my personal opinions lie outside of the FACTS and evidences- I present just hte FACTS and evidences- Buck presents hand-waving OPINIONS which I called him out on! so take your childish little retort elsewhere

[Buck W.]

You're still drawing a general conclusion from unrelated special cases. That is simply not sound science. Since all dogs are mammals, your reasoning process would then conclude that all animals are mammals. My cockatiel is not a mammal. But he does talk better than my dog. Hmmmm, maybe there's something to it after all!

[Buck W.]

I believe his retort was a cut and paste of yours, right down to the typos.

[ColdWater]

I present just hte FACTS and evidences

... as quoted from the creationists' website which, IYDHO, contains facts.

[ColdWater]

You have no idea how I think

I have no idea IF you think ...

[CottShop]

[[I have no idea IF you think ...]]

What are you 12 years old?

[CottShop]

[[Which is why ID falls as science and is exposed as thinly-veiled creationism.]]

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Tell me the story about how 'ID is nothign but a 'thinly disguised' form of creationism again.... I love that petty little purjorative story that is more at home in petty little discussion forums like TO and DC than it is in any intellectually honest forums like FR

[Buck W.]

Evolution IS intelligent design.

[CottShop]

[[You’re still drawing a general conclusion from unrelated special cases. That is simply not sound science. Since all dogs are mammals, your reasoning process would then conclude that all animals are mammals. My cockatiel is not a mammal. But he does talk better than my dog. Hmmmm, maybe there’s something to it after all!]]

Lol- Yeah- keep posting- your little analogy has absolutely nothign to do with what we are talking about- The FACTS are FACTS- there is ample evidences supporting young earth- whether you accept htem or not isn’t hte quesiton- you are welcome to your opiniopn- but again- let’s not pretend your opinion is anyhtign but that- a subjective bias which apparently is anti-Creationism- If you can’t discuss the topic, without breaking out into some irrelevent anaology, then quite frankly, there’s no sense discussing hte matter with you as you keep moving goalposts.

You can try to downplay hte FACTS stated on that site al lyou like- but the FACTS stand- and coupled witgh other FACTS stand on their own contrary to your attempts at downplaying htem- You’ve had your say- I’ve had mine- there’s nowhere else to go on this- You don’t accept htem- We get that- point taken- You’ve shown you are more interested in subjective criticisms than in actual facts- Swell- whatever.

[Buck W.]

Bye!

[Secret Agent Man]

“I see that your hormones got the better of you thus ending any possibility of future reasonable conversation.”

No, your moronic post took care of that all by itself.

[Toddsterpatriot]

and were subsequently buried, at all different angles, and became petrified in a year or two.

Where do they have these petrified logs that they dug up?

[Buck W.]

“Where do they have these petrified logs that they dug up? “

With Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[editor-surveyor]

Keep having your tantrum of denial, but Surtsey demonstrates the same conditions in microcosm as the judgement: Volcanic eruption, heated water laden with carbonates, massive amounts of sediment, and rapid cementation of the initial layers.

Just can’t wrap your limited cognition around the destruction of your imaginary fantasy world, huh?

[Buck W.]

“Keep having your tantrum of denial, but Surtsey demonstrates the same conditions in microcosm as the judgement: Volcanic eruption, heated water laden with carbonates, massive amounts of sediment, and rapid cementation of the initial layers.

Just can’t wrap your limited cognition around the destruction of your imaginary fantasy world, huh?”

Keep it civil, pal. Your anger betrays a deep-seeded doubt.

[Fichori]

Ping.

[editor-surveyor]

"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 theory predicts equally wrong"

You're starting to catch on?

Except fot one thing: Not anecdotal, but comprehensive and completely congruent. The perfect laboratory of geological reality, right in your denying face.

[Fichori]

Cool!