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 youth3 of the island!
The geologists surprise is understandable, given the modern thinking that young Surtseys varied and mature features ought to have needed long periods of timemillions of yearsto form....
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
You seem obsessed with DC. [excerpt]Well, if I signed up to DC and got banned and went and started my own site where all my friends who got banned from DC could got to talk about what was happening on DC and smear the regular DC posters, then yes, I suppose I would be obsessed with DC.
But since you read DC so obsessively, you know I dont go there to talk behind peoples backs. [excerpt]LOL!
If I post anything at DC about whats going on at FR, I have posted the equivalent here. [excerpt]Make that two bridges!
I indeed have some low opinions of several people here, but I say everything I have to say right here. [excerpt]Ok, ok, three bridges!
You will, no doubt, be able to back up your LOLs
And that goes for me as well. Somewhere along this thread I was accused of “talking behind backs” as well and that I was a wimp for spouting elsewhere.
You will, no doubt, be able to back up your LOLsIf I wanted to spend the time wading through the filth.
Wade to your heart's content. I don't go to other sites and trash FR. Anything I've said elsewhere was said here also.
And that goes for me as well. Somewhere along this thread I was accused of talking behind backs as well and that I was a wimp for spouting elsewhere.Got a link for that?
Anything I've said elsewhere was said here also. [excerpt]Does that include organizing disruptive activity?
Are you accusing me of organizing disruptive activity?
That's a fairly significant charge. I'd like to see you back it up.
See 214.
Yes. It went right over your head.
I'm not so sure it did ;-)(Do you even have a point?)Yes. It went right over your head.
Let’s start with the basics ....
God created the Day on Day one. God created the sun on Day 4!
ergo, the “Day” referred to in Genesis is NOT our 24 hour day!
Whoat, hold it, back up.Lets start with the basics ....I'm not so sure it did ;-)Yes. It went right over your head. --CWI don't think God spoke to Moses in English. --CWI don't think Moses spoke to God in English either!
(Do you even have a point?)
God created the Day on Day one. God created the sun on Day 4!
ergo, the Day referred to in Genesis is NOT our 24 hour day! --CW
I have known JS#### is one of THEM for a long time. That’s why I refuse to have anything to do with him. They hate creationists and they hate FR, as evidenced by their posts on Darwin Central. I hear they have now moved all their “I hate FR” talk to a closed area of DC. One can only imagine what they are saying about FR in their members only sanctums.
This evidently explains your attitude. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
Cheers!
Ah, the usual, if you take the Genesis account literally, you must take the whole Bible literally angle.
Evos are great at extrapolating.
Variation within species must = macroevolution.
Rejection of the current interpretation of the fossil record must = rejection of science as a whole.
Reading the creation account as it stands because of it being written as an account of something using declarative sentences must = reading the whole Bible literally.
Creationists almost invariably......
Where would evos be without hyperbole to try to discredit their opponents?
But *credible* scientists routinely extrapolate variation within species to long term macroevolution all the time.
So why is it a strategy that's valid in one branch of science and not another?
They’re such martyrs over at DC, aren’t they?
*snicker*
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.