Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin Was Wrong About Geology
CEH ^ | December 2, 2009

Posted on 12/02/2009 7:13:55 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

Dec 2, 2009 — Field geologists have revisited a site Darwin visited on the voyage of the Beagle, and found that he incorrectly interpreted what he found.  A large field of erratic boulders in Tierra del Fuego that have become known as “Darwin’s Boulders” were deposited by a completely different process than he thought.  The modern team, publishing in the Geological Society of America’s December issue of the GSA Today,1 noted that “Darwin’s thinking was profoundly influenced by Lyell’s obsession with large-scale, slow, vertical movements of the crust, especially as manifested in his theory of submergence and ice rafting to explain drift.”  Lyell, in turn, felt vindicated: “Lyell celebrated these observations because they supported his idea of uniformitarianism—that continued small changes, as witnessed in the field, could account for dramatic changes of Earth’s surface over geologic time.”  In this case, though, a more rapid phenomenon provides a better explanation for the observations...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: absolutebs; antiscience; argentina; atomsdonotexist; beagle; belongsinreligion; bible; boulders; bovinescat; catastrophism; catholic; christian; christianright; climatechange; creatard; creation; crevolist; darwin; darwinism; darwinsboulders; darwinwaswrong; electricityisfire; evangelical; evolution; flood; galapagos; genesis; geologists; geology; gggbs; godsgravesglyphs; gravityisahoax; intelligentdesign; judaism; latinamerica; lyell; lyellsobsession; moralabsolutes; noahsflood; notasciencetopic; notnews; propellerbeanie; protestant; religiousright; science; southamerica; spammer; tierradelfuego; totalcrock; uniformitarianism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: stormer

What about them?


101 posted on 12/03/2009 12:08:35 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Using one’s own mind, one can justify anything.

Rationalization does not always identify rational thought.

Morals are based on an outside standard of right and wrong.

I wouldn't accept Sharia Law. Would you?

Do you believe in situational ethics or that there’s an objective, outside standard of right and wrong to which one can gauge one’s actions?

Beliefs belong in church ...

102 posted on 12/03/2009 12:23:11 PM PST by OldNavyVet (The source of evil lies in the absence or suspension of rational thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I don’t recall any of them bringing up suspension of rational thought,

When you write: James under the direction of God’s spirit explained why humans engaged in evil, as did many of the other writers you are referencing surrealistic writings.

103 posted on 12/03/2009 12:58:07 PM PST by OldNavyVet (The source of evil lies in the absence or suspension of rational thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"IF Darwin had knowledgeable instructors......

The "Earth Ages" theology was then as it is now, a fringe element of Christianity. But had Darwin had such a faculty he would never have gotten on the Beagle nor would any scientist ever have gone to a science class or lab because because his "knowledgeable instructors" would have already have deciphered all of the answers to science from Scripture. (Please let me know where in Scripture I can find some answers to semiconductor technology I am working on. I would really appreciate it.)

104 posted on 12/03/2009 1:09:15 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby; stormer
"Dude, try reading the ENTIRE thing, in context, realizing that there is an OLD and NEW Testament, that Jesus came to abe a Savior to remove much of the OT ‘law’, as it could only CONDEMN and not SAVE.

Biblical Cherry-pickers, quite amusing overall."

As a courtesy perhaps you could post a marked up Old Testament to show which parts are allegorical, which parts are literal, and which parts are no longer applicable. I would hate for our cherry picking to not be synchronized with yours.

105 posted on 12/03/2009 1:18:16 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Perhaps you could please illustrate where I used the word or idea that the Bible is ‘allegorical’?

If you are hostile to Faith, then so be it. But try to keep it elsewhere (DU Perhaps?)

There is much of the ‘Law’ in the OT that is no longer applicable, due to the sacrifeice of Jesus on the Cross. If you do not understand that, and Truly wish to learn, that would be great. If you only wish to try to mock, then I would sooner you not let the proverbial door hit you on the way out.


106 posted on 12/03/2009 1:39:22 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
"There is much of the ‘Law’ in the OT that is no longer applicable, due to the sacrifeice of Jesus on the Cross."

Exactly my point. Because Scripture is incomplete God guides us both through Scripture and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must guide us in our understanding of Scripture. The hand of the Holy Spirit works through the teachings and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, when anyone suggests that this necessary act of guidance has been exercised by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church (of course AFTER they finished amalgamating Scripture into the Bible) they are excoriated by the YEC crowd here on FR because the Roman Catholic Church has stated that science and the bible are not incompatible and that Genesis was not intended by God to be a science test book. Perhaps the YEC crowd has determined that the Holy Spirit only works through them when guiding interpretation of Scripture and God's will.

107 posted on 12/03/2009 3:02:09 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

To an evolutionist, EVERYTHING is just a random accident and NOTHING is by design.


108 posted on 12/03/2009 3:18:49 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

I’m an evolutionist and I don’t believe everything is a random accident.


109 posted on 12/03/2009 4:36:55 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Then you cannot be an evolutionist. Evolution states that living things change slowly over a long period of time because some accidental mutation has made subsequent generations more competitive or more specialized.


110 posted on 12/03/2009 4:54:26 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Well, then you too are a random accident, because you are a random combination of inherited traits.


111 posted on 12/03/2009 5:02:16 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"Evolution states that living things change slowly over a long period..."

Not true. Punctuated Equilibrium is a rapid change within an otherwise slow process.

112 posted on 12/03/2009 5:33:35 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Not true. Punctuated Equilibrium is a rapid change within an otherwise slow process.

Punctuated equilibrium is a neo-evolutionist doctrine devised to explain why traditional evolution failed to described what was being observed in the fossil "record." It's the old invoking of the secondary hypothesis to rescue the primary hypothesis. It is the dark matter of biological evolution.
113 posted on 12/03/2009 5:36:43 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

There is nothing random about God’s plan. He knew that you and I would be born before He even created the earth.


114 posted on 12/03/2009 6:22:05 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You take one tiny portion and try to make everything I said seem false. The essence of evolution is still random and accidental mutations somehow made living beings better.


115 posted on 12/03/2009 6:29:15 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
There is nothing random about God’s plan.

So Mendelian genetics isn't part of God's plan?

116 posted on 12/03/2009 6:32:44 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

You make the mistake of limiting God, thinking that His hand is not in everything. God INVENTED the genetics that Mendel discovered.


117 posted on 12/03/2009 6:41:00 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
God INVENTED the genetics that Mendel discovered.

OK, so Mendelian genetics and its observed randomness is part of God's plan.

118 posted on 12/03/2009 6:59:47 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

” Science Daily leapt from a Stanford study of isotope ratios in rocks said to be 3.4 billion years old that the earth was cooler a billion years earlier than thought, and therefore life must have evolved earlier than thought. “Their findings suggest that the early ocean was much more temperate and that, as a result, life likely diversified and spread across the globe much sooner in Earth’s history than has been generally theorized.”


119 posted on 12/03/2009 7:02:52 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
"Punctuated equilibrium is a neo-evolutionist doctrine devised to explain why traditional evolution failed to described what was being observed in the fossil "record.""

1) There is no such thing as neo-evolutionism. Theories (pardon the pun) continuously evolve.

2)Science does not have "doctrines".

3P Punctuated equilibrium is not a new concept. It has a long history in the fields of behavioral science and computer modeling in which an iterative orthogonal array process can be greatly accelerated.

4) You obviously don;t know what you are talking about.

120 posted on 12/03/2009 7:26:05 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson