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 ...
I think of him more like a bobble-head that bobbles between teleprompters :o)
Speaking of which, do you suppose anyone has thought of that idea yet. I think we might have just found a way to make our first million :o)
Good post ...
Missing in this thread is the fact that Chapter IX in Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is titled “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.”
And now, in Steve Jones’ “Darwin’s Ghost,” subtitled “The Origin of Species - Updated,” Jones writes in his same titled chapter ...
“Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution” ... and ... “The archive of the rocks is a series of snapshots, taken at long intervals with a badly focused camera.”
Jones goes further in his Chapter IX by revealing the extent geological knowledge has increased since Darwin.
The current accepted age of the Earth, for instance, is based on moon rocks collected on Apollo missions.
Did you manage to assign verse numbers to each sentence of “Darwin’s Ghost” yet???
” I think we might have just found a way to make our first million :o)”
And I certainly don’t mind you saying “we” in that context. I’ll give you my PO box later...
K.
I like your theory... let me know when it becomes a hippopotamus (or is that hypotenuse... or hypothesis. I forget; is there a keyword for that?).
Good evening.
One clue lies in the fact that evil is solely and specifically associated with irrational humans.
What was the context of “ Darwin cited and referred to a Creator on many occasions.”
One can hardly read Darwin’s comments over the years and miss the fact that he wanted to maintain, at least, an appearance of belief in some sort of higher power without actually stating clearly just what he believed.
In that he’s rather like Carl Sagan’s comment that he could believe in a “benign and indifferent god”, one that basically was not involved in the material world.
Then irrationality is a sign of evil? In humans? Where do you find this clue?
The source of evil lies in the suspension of rational thought.
I can see what’s coming now.
Evos get to define who and what *rational* is and anyone who doesn’t fit their measure is *evil*.
Never mind that good and evil are MORAL issues, not intellectual ones. But that never stopped an evo from making, dare I say it, an irrational connection....
snip: I don’t know what you are trying to prove here but the field of geology was very primitive 150 years ago and Darwin was not a geologist. Further his geologic interpretations were heavily influenced by his friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, a creationist.
Spirited: Logically, Darwin’s theory must cancel itself out in accordance with the demands of materialistic empiricism (naturalism) which emphatically declares that only the sensory-material realm exists. This means that the immaterial realm, the realm of mind (reason, conscience, memory, etc), presuppositions, assumptions, morality, ideas, truth, natural law, laws of logic, theories, etc. must be denied. In keeping with this nonsense, materialists (using their minds, btw) stupidly proclaim that man is ‘nothing but’ chemical and/or neuronological reactions, robots, and other such stupidity. When we deny the obvious, as do materialist empiricists, we become stupid and depraved.
Either the immaterial exists, thus allowing us to know about Darwin’s immaterial theory or it does not, which logically means that robotic-man can know nothing, for he has no mind withwhich to know anything, let alone reason about it.
And this goes for you, Natural Law. When you attack God Guns and Guts, you are not doing so from within the parameters of the naturalist-worldview straitjacket which you paradoxically hold as true but rather from within the worldview of creationists, which you paradoxically deride as superstition.
Of course. That's why the the anti-science crowd attacks Darwin in a field that's not his specialty, instead of attacking the works of people like Ronald Fisher and Edmund Ford that made natural selection accepted science.
When has any evolutionist ever said that a cell is a random accident? For people who believe in irreducible complexity, you have a habit of leaving out the most important parts.
Then it should be easy for you to explain why we find no trilobites above the Permian strata, and why we find no dinosaurs above the cretaceous strata, or no mammals in the Cambrian strata?
You mean like Ray Comfort and his Banana?
Evolutionists believe that life was ‘created’? By God? No, they do not. If not created, then it just ‘happened. How? How is not important, it just did, and you just never mind about that God, He’s irrelevant. Thus sayeth an evo.
God did not ‘create’ man by having him evolve from pond scum, or anything thing else you may want to point at. We were created, as described, in Genesis. Thus sayeth those who read and comprehend the Truth in Gods Word. All of it, not just the pretty parts, the easy to like parts. All Of It.
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.
This, very clearly, is untrue...false....a bogus claim.
The newly theorized process is "bolders fall in landslide onto passing glacier 200km from the coast, which carries them to the sea where they are deposited as the ice melts on the coast."
Darwin's theory was "boulders scoured from mountains by glaciation....the glacier then calves into the ocean....and the icebergs carry them to the coast where they are deposited as the ice melts on the coast."
Nowhere NEAR a "completely different process." The only significant difference between the 2 is the "rock-slide" versus "glacial scouring"....the rest is very similar just with different routes....ice carrying the rocks to the coast where they melted and deposited the rocks.
OMG....Darwin didn't get everything exactly right 150+ years ago...that means something!!! Yep, it means that he didn't travel 200 freakin miles inland and made a hypothesis based on the information at hand. Burn 'im at the stake!!!
Hint: he was damned close about the process.
Based on cosmogenic nuclide dating methods, the authors estimated the boulder deposits to be in the 22-74 thousand year range
Uh oh....so now you're pushing that the Earth is at least 22,000 years old?
All that typing without answering the question.
It was answered quite well for those with the ears to her.
Evo’s deny creation. Life ‘happens’. If it ‘happens’ and is not an ACT, then it follows that it is random or accidental.
Yet another who would look at the Word of God, read it, and then declare God a liar, based on the works of man. Prayers up for George - The Other.
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.