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....

[metmom]

Never mind. I see now.

[js1138]

So what do you think of people who repost stuff that’s been deleted by the mods? Like your post #234?

By the way, you haven’t demonstrated that I have ever done that. I certainly didn’t do it during the DaveLoneRanger debate. I posted the link to that and to my “top secret thread.”

[mrjesse]

Said JS1138: So what do you think of people who repost stuff that’s been deleted by the mods? Like your post #234?

Js, my post was removed for specific technical reasons - and not because of any ill behavior on my part nor because of the content of the post - and I only reposted after communicating with the mod, and correcting the specific technical issues, and getting permission to repost it - hence the note at the top indicating that it was all fixed up now.

There was nothing disruptive about it nor did I intentionally do anything against the will of the mods!



By the way, you haven’t demonstrated that I have ever done that. I certainly didn’t do it during the DaveLoneRanger debate. I posted the link to that and to my “top secret thread.”

I couldn't find the link that you posted. Could you kindly point me to it?

Anyway, I was never claiming that you had actually reposted a deleted thread or whatever - but that you had, as Fichori alleged, partook in "organizing disruptive activity" -- and what I did prove is that yes, you indeed had been involved in organizing disruptive activity!

As you know, you didn't have to actually personally do any disruptive actions in order to organize others who were doing such!

-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?

I'm turning blue holding my breath.

What do you guys thing of people who repost things after the mods have deleted them?

Like post #234.

As for stealth accounts, I can only speak for myself. I don't do stealth accounts. There's nothing I want to say that I haven't said with my ten-year-old account. And on the rare occasions when the mods give me a subtle clue like deleting a post, I take the hint.

[js1138]

Here's the link to the DaveLoneRanger debate. Let's take my evil conspiratorial postings line by line, shall we:

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.

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.

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.

Hmmm. I wonder what that's all about? Here's my top secret thread. In it we see that I pinged DaveLoneRanger and aigbusted, the two debaters. It's riveting stuff, this conspiracy.

OK. Let's get to the good stuff, the part about saving stuff that might be deleted...

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.

Wow. that's truely evil. Saving a transcript of a debate.

Now why would I do that? Perhaps because the debate thread turned into a flame war, and such threads were often deleted. You may note, however, that I didn't save the flame war in my top secret thread, just the posts by the two debaters.

How evil I am.

So evil that I tried to save the content of a debate without all the snide comments from spectators. If you go even further back in my evil career you will find that I have been consistent in this, FR does not have software that can host a debate between two people without interference from outsiders, and I have often suggested taking debates to some site where just the participants could duke it out.

[js1138]

As you know, you didn't have to actually personally do any disruptive actions in order to organize others who were doing such!

My posts are right there for everyone to see. Google is not a substitute for thinking. The threads I worried about being deleted were not deleted and are still there, including all my posts.

I guarantee you that many evolution threads were deleted, and it was not an idle concern. This was, and remains, the only attempt at a formal debate at FR on the subject. Since it still exists, there's no need for anyone to make claims about who won. It's all there for you to read and to form your own opinion. You can also form your opinion of whether my participation was particularly disruptive.

[Fichori]

LoL!

You should learn to have more patience.

“Google is not a substitute for thinking.” [excerpt]

Well, at this point, Google has more credibility than a certain impatient disruptive troll from DC.

Pretty gutsy of you to continue to assert that you do not participate in disruptive activities the day after trashing someones thread.

[tongass kid]

Perhaps you are correct. The more you use the term “special case” in describing a geologic formation the less I understand your conversation. I know of no one in the geologic/volcanic discipline that would describe Surtsey as being a “special case”. I know of no peer reviewed article that has described Surtsey a being a “special case”. Thank you for the conversation and I believe it is best that we chat again when I have a better understanding of your use of “special case” Thank you.

[js1138]

Pretty gutsy of you to continue to assert that you do not participate in disruptive activities the day after trashing someones thread.

You are delusional. This is a forum. People express opinions. That's what it's for.

Sorry if I disagree with people who butt their heads against centuries of science.

[Fichori]

“You are delusional. This is a forum. People express opinions. That's what it's for.” [excerpt]

If I signed up on DC and did to your threads what you do to Creationists threads here on FR, I'd get banned in an instant.

As far as that goes, If I signed up on DC and said you were delusional, I'd get banned.

Oh, wait, I just remembered, DC isn't about expressing opinions, its just an echo chamber where the only opinions allowed are the ones that have been preapproved by the management.

Which goes to show that you are nothing but a disruptive troll and a hypocrite to boot.

“Sorry if I disagree with people who butt their heads against centuries of science.” [excerpt]

Disagreeing with someone does not give you the right to trash their threads.

Which is exactly what you have been doing.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

[mrjesse]

Sugar coat it all you like man, but I'm still convinced that Fichori carried his claim that you did indeed partake in the organizing of disruptive activity. [double wide grin]

That, and I still want an answer to my question about whether you DC'ers are really as insulting, bitter, and foul-mouthed as you appear on DC or if it's just an act. :-)

I couldn't believe the level of profanity and cutting remarks - by presumably educated scientific people (but I guess that last presumption may have been rather a risky one.)

Have a nice day anyway!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said js1138 to Fichori:You are delusional. This is a forum. People express opinions. That's what it's for.

Sorry if I disagree with people who butt their heads against centuries of science.

Well, I'm glad to hear that. What's your view about the big bang?

Do you really believe that there was nothing and then the vacuum fluctuated and bang, all the sudden matter came into existence? (Or that matter came into existence from nothing any other way?) If a impressionable youngster who looked up to you asked you "Did all matter really come to be from absolutely nothing with a big bang due to natural process?" would you say "Yes"?

You see, centuries of science has shown that matter doesn't tend to form from nothing. And it has not proved that matter can form from nothing. And worse even the big bang has never been proven possible, let alone proven to have happened.

And yet it is taught in government aided colleges across the country. Talk about butting heads with centuries of science!

Speaking of delusionalness, LeGrande believes that when (from earth) you look up and see the sun, it's actually 2.1 degrees away from where it appears because the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes the sunlight to reach it. If the sun orbited the earth every 24 hours - sure. But since the sun hardly moves at all in 8.3 minutes but rather the earth is turning, the apparent displacement will only be about 20 arcseconds which is mostly due to Stellar Aberration. LeGrande has heretofore refused to provide a single scientific source supporting his claim, and he also won't tell me how far lagged the sun would be if the earth were 12 light hours away.

So do you think LeGrande too is delusional and butting heads with centuries of science?

-Jesse