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....

[Buck W.]

“Credible” scientists who don’t want to be embarrassed in peer review draw conclusions based on science. Are you claiming that the geology of Surtsey is the same as the geology of Alberta? Are you REALLY claiming that?

[js1138]

Just a few select quotes from a few DC posters.

Well, here's the big FR debate thread where I engaged in all the disruption. In it you will find a link to the "top secret thread" I started to keep track of just the posts of DaveLoneRanger and his opponent. You will also find that I notified Dave and his opponent of the "top secret thread" and my reason for posting it.

What you haven't demonstrated is that I post anything at other sites that I don't post here.

If you read the debate thread you will find that I wasn't the one hijacking the debate thread, and you will find that I started the parallel thread at FR for the simple purpose of keeping track of the actual debate posts.

And to counter the real possibility that the entire thread would be deleted.

[js1138]

It took some googling, but here’s my “top secret thread.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1915042/posts

Notice the conspiracy to disrupt. I’m soooooooo evil.

[editor-surveyor]

" 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."

But what I can't imagine is why the whole bunch hasn't been permanently zotted. They offer nothing of value here. (I don't include Dirt Boy, or Allmendream in this)

[editor-surveyor]

"Are you claiming that the geology of Surtsey is the same as the geology of Alberta? Are you REALLY claiming that?"

What a stupid strawman!

Since she made no such declaration, and since there is no reason to think that she would have, why would you ask such an irrelevant and ignorant question, except to cause confusion, and disinformation?

[js1138]

I dare say it sure looks like Fichori busted you on that one [double wide grin]

What you have exposed is the fact that at the time of the DaveLoneRanger debate, I was the only one who took the trouble to provide a disruption free transcript of the debate itself. And I did it right here on FR. The link is posted above.

The question I'm addressing is not whether I agree with everyone at FR. Nor is it whether I have ever been rude to anyone at FR. The question is whether I express sentiments at other sites that I don't express here. Despite all the googling, I don't see any evidence of that. I'm pretty transparent and pretty consistent.

As for the objects of my rudeness, I tend to return what I get.

I'm pinging DaveLoneRanger. We've certainly had some sharp exchanges, but he has been a gentleman, and I've tried to treat him -- if not his ideas --- with considerable respect. We have had numerous private exchanges regarding our personal beliefs. I disagree with him on many things, but I haven't engaged in any hypocritical backbiting.

Take the time to read the debate thread. Look wherever you want. I notice GGG is watching this thread. Ask him if I have ever held back anything on FR.

[metmom]

mm: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?

BW:“Credible” scientists who don’t want to be embarrassed in peer review draw conclusions based on science. Are you claiming that the geology of Surtsey is the same as the geology of Alberta? Are you REALLY claiming that?

Could you answer the question instead of accusing me of something I neither said nor implied?

Is there an evo around who could actually reply to what someone asks instead of replying to a strawman they constructed about the person they're replying to?

[Buck W.]

You’ve experienced a hazard of joining a thread late. The comment to which you’ve responsed will make sense if you read the entire exchange.

[Buck W.]

I think you’re a thoughtful person so I’ll make it a bit easier for you. Start with post 84.

[js1138]

" 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."

And it's sooooo hard to become a member, what with the pagan initiation rites and the mandatory tithing.

Seriously, you really ought to check out what I say about FR on the members only forum, especially on the hate FR threads.

I am sooooo evil.

[RFEngineer]

“a theory which EVO’s desperately try to ignore,”

Who ignores it? And why the characterization as “desperate”?

It is creationists that ignore what is before their very eyes, so the desperation is on the creationist side.

This sort of belligerence exhibited towards people that believe in reasoning and science - despite it’s flaws and shortcomings - and the process of science which assumes flaws and shortcomings along with future new sources of information is exactly the reason why fundamentalists will never and should never have significant political power in government outside of Afghanistan.

If there is new information, I assure you, science will embrace it. This is something creationists cannot do, and is why you must be hostile towards ideas created by man based on observation and study.

[whattajoke]

Got a link for that?

Eh. I thought when you wrote something about "Don't tell Jim what your REALLY think" that you were suggesting I hadn't. (Which isn't exactly a damning charge anyway.) Regardless, I certainly did back during "the purge." But that's all in the past.

[tongass kid]

You belief Surtsey is an anomaly or unique or a special situation. If another Surtsey were to appear today in the same area then similar events would occur. The reference you need to cite will demonstrate that this would not occur and therefore Surtsey would therefore be a true geologic anomaly. If you wish to learn more about geologic/volcanic formation I direct you to the Alaska Volcano Observatory. There are numerous scientist working there that will be pleased to inform you that Surtsey is not unique from a volcanic or geological perspective.

[tongass kid]

I believe our friend Mr. Buck has an interest in volcanic geologic formation. He just needs to do some home work to learn more.

[Buck W.]

Ah, jeez! Okay, ONE MORE TIME—

Surtsey is NOT an anomaly. It is, however, a special case of landmass formation. Credible scientists cannot extrapolate the development of formations on Surtsey and conclude that ALL other landmasses formed the same way. However, another undersea volcanic eruption that leads to the creation of an island would probably look very much the same.

That’s all. It’s logic, not geology. I’m beginning to think that YECs are the logical equivalent of 9/11 truthers.

[mrjesse]

Said metmom: Could you answer the question instead of accusing me of something I neither said nor implied?

Is there an evo around who could actually reply to what someone asks instead of replying to a strawman they constructed about the person they're replying to?

Alas I have not seen many evos of that caliber of late.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Hey, where’d it go...?

[mrjesse]

Ahah! There it is! All fixed up, tied down, tucked away and good to go this time!

---

Said Fichori:
Does that include organizing disruptive activity?

Replied js1138:
Are you accusing me of organizing disruptive activity?

That's a fairly significant charge. I'd like to see you back it up.

And now responds mrjesse to js1138:

Wow, dood, Fichori is right! And he actually did provide in his post the evidence of his claim that you partook in organizing disruptive activity! I googled some of the phrases he provided and found the original posts on dc!

I present for your reading pleasure the following exchange, WITH links to the actual DC posts! (I've emphasized a few parts with bold.)

js1138 Said:	I started a top secret thread in chat to document just the posts by the debaters. Dave has had plenty of time to comment on this thread without actually debating. I'm thinking Dave is seeing this debate as a fifty page term paper for the meanest teacher ever. But that's what peer review is.
phantomworker Replied:	I saw that super secret thread and it's all clearly organized, waiting for Dave's response. Wouldn't it make it all worthwhile if, because of this debate or lack thereof, Dave had a breakthrough. You know a "Eureka!" or "Aha!" moment, with respect to evolution?
SeaLion asked	Link available? It's a great idea to set that up, but where is it? Ta!
js1138 replied:	Search "the debate continues" on FR. I can't hide it, but I didn't ping anybody. Ryan is doing something similar on his blog.
annyokie said:	I have a stealth account over at TOS. I'll bump js1138's thread until I get banned again, if need be.
js1138 Replied:	I'd just as soon keep it under wraps until the regular debate moves or fizzles. If Dave tries to say the main debate thread has been hopelessly corrupted, we can start bumping the clean one.
annyokie Replied:	Deal.
js1138 Said:	I have the debate part of the thread saved at home. If they delete the original thread, I have a backup already posted. If they delete that, I'll post it again. If they ban me, I'll post it here. In the meantime, we'll just keep bumping the original thread.

I gotta say, guys, I couldn't believe the foul language and low down insults peppered throughout your posts. Are you DC'ers really that bitter or is that just an act?

Anyway, above is some very interesting references - top secret threads, stealth accounts, backup posts, reposting deleted posts, bumping threads -- and who appears to be in charge of this? You, my friend, appear to be coordinating!

So don't you think that reposting something that the mods clearly don't want and have deleted is pretty close to disruptive activity? And stealth accounts, and bumping threads?

I dare say it sure looks like Fichori busted you on that one [double wide grin]

-Jesse

[js1138]

So don't you think that reposting something that the mods clearly don't want and have deleted is pretty close to disruptive activity?

Are you referring to your reposting your own post #234, which the mods deleted?

[metmom]

Where’d what go? Since there’s no number indicating what you replied to, I can’t tell.