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 ...
You mean that evolutionists believe in irreducible complexity? Who knew?
If a cell isn't a random accident, then what caused it? Who or what designed it? For what purpose?
That’s a pretty succinct summary.
He was a failed theologian and a medical school drop out.
Such a "scientific" intellectual hero you have! No wonder you think an evolution thread "belongsinreligion".
Further his geologic interpretations were heavily influenced by his friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, a creationist.
According to Antrhro Palomar.edu an evo-inclined site, Lyell was not a biblical creationist (operative term) at all. I quote: "While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution. However, neither man accepted a traditional Biblical account of creation and a young earth. Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin's proof of evolution, but Lyell did. He came to accept this proof in the early 1860's along with most leading scientists of that time. Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin."
Can't even get your facts straight. Such a careless little DU-schlub disruptor you are. Your research skills are bested by most public school third graders.
Everyone's a "creationist" in the general sense. Some of us know how we got here, Who cretaed us, why we got here, and what our purpose for being here is.
On the other hand "creationists" like you can't even seem to tell us how or why you chose to evolve your stupid little selves in the first place.
And on a site devoted to discussions intended to promote conservative principles one wonders why evo-materialists such as yourself whose "science" is at the root of totalitarian philosophy are even here, but for purposes of disruption and keyword mischief. (Yeah, we know it's you, "Natural Loser".)
Global warming suckers seem to start out as evo-suckers, but it looks like your little "peer-reviewed" pantheon -- the gate keepers of lies -- is about to come crumbling down around the both of your science-less philosophies.
That's a strawman. Evolutionists don't call cells random accidents.
Saying a cell is a random accident is like me saying you are a random accident because you are a random combination of traits from your parents.
And you, being pretty much wrong about everything, fit right in.
PS: Darwin was not a geologist.
*sigh* Science should never have been divorced from philosophy.
Hello.... if it isn't a accident (random accident being somewhat redundant), then the only other option is that there was intent.
What was the intent? Where did it come from? What was the mechanism (which inherently implies design) behind it?
Says nothing of the sort.
Trying to explain my existence is moot, I know from whence I come. My life is a gift from God through my parents.
So, then Moonman, before I invest anymore of my time with this, WHAT exactly would be your view of how that wonderful little bio-engineering feat that we calla ‘cell’ came into being?
It's an exercise in "freedom of religion". To some, that means "borking the heretics".
Such a "scientific" intellectual hero you have!"
Darwin is not a hero, but he is a very sympathetic character. For the sin of publishing his pbserevations and attempting to explain them he was attacked and ridiculed endless by the good and loving clergy and church members he had once counted as friends. Darwin's sin wasn't blaspheming Scripture, it was making people like you uncomfortable because you couldn't dismiss or explain away his observations with the dogma that was the source of their personal spiritual, political and economic capital.
Some of us know how we got here, Who created us, why we got here, and what our purpose for being here is."
The Who, what and what are not in dispute. The how is where you are hung up and attempting to confabulate science from Scripture isn't flying among the large majority of Christians (check the Catholic Church's position on this). Insisting that those who do not believe exactly like you are not in Communion with God is the act of taking God's name in vain for vain purposes.
And on a site devoted to discussions intended to promote conservative principles one wonders why evo-materialists such as yourself whose "science" is at the root of totalitarian philosophy are even here, but for purposes of disruption and keyword mischief."
TO quote Ronald Reagan; "There you go again.". I will put my conservative bonafides up against yours or anyone elses on FR. It is you and peoplpe like you who wish to suppress dissent to your beliefs. You would gladly remove my 1st Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion to remain in your comfort zone. Totalitarian? It is those like you who manipulate God's word, science, and the law for personal purposes that have been the greatest abusers of freedom.
Global warming suckers seem to start out as evo-suckers"
This is the latest straw-man being put forth by people like you to discredit science. However, it is a perfect example of what happens when science is perverted and manipulated by those like you who know nothing of science. Now go point your crooked finger at someone else.
It does NOT matter what Darwin observed if his observations are against the Heavenly Father that first created his ‘soul/spirit’. Now which side of the ‘gulf’ old Darwin returned when his flesh returned to the ‘dust’ is none of anyone business, because at least he willingly passed though this flesh age.
EVOLUTION is a joke/hoax not unlike the hot air of climate science. And it does not matter what any man appointed church claims to the contrary. They were wrong about Galileo and they are wrong about evolution.
Paradoxically, I am not attacking GGG, I am defending the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which holds that the Bible is not and was never intended to be a science text book and does not attempt to explain how God created the universe and everything in it, only to affirm that He did.
First, you need to show me where evolutionists say a cell is a random accident and nothing more.
Even though randomness plays a large role in who you are (we all inherit a random combination of traits from our parents), saying you are a random accident is just as incorrect as saying that a cell is a random accident.
The theology of the photographer is not important. Darwin's observations are a snap shot of the works of the Creator. If his observations are contrary to the beliefs and interpretations of men who preceded him then it is they who must have erred because God's work is perfect.
Random? Did I say Random?
And, should you fail to answer the last question I posed to you, this will be the last reply. I’ll not ‘argue’ my beliefs with someone who will not receal his own.
Darwin dreamed dreams about what he observed. He had no clue that Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages and that the soul/spirit was created long before Genesis 1 and 2 creation/formation of flesh vessels to house that soul/spirit body that returns to the Maker upon death of the flesh vessel. No you do know Peter, right? So why do you ignore the words of Peter?
Not true. Look at the path of a stream. Is it an accident? No, it's heavily constrained by the landscape it flows through. In fact, its path is inevitable, given the nature of the soil, placement of the rocks, and so on. Does that mean there was intent? Did the rock say, "I want this stream to narrow, so I'm going to plunk myself down here"? Did Someone Else put it there so that the stream would narrow? No, the location of the rock is likewise constrained by the forces acting on it--it's not an accident that it wound up in the stream, but its location doesn't demand intent either.
Is the RANDOM radioactive decay of an isotope an accident?
Completely a false dichotomy that either something is RANDOM and therefore an “accident” or there was some “intent”.
Do you not know your Bible?
“the dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord”.
Is a dice roll an accident, or just random?
You butted into my reply to someone else with nonsense. I was just trying to get you on track.
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.