Posted on 01/31/2003 9:04:31 PM PST by CalConservative
Did you ever see the videos or the pictures of Surtsey Island in the North Atlantic. A brand new island formed in a matter of weeks and inside of a year, plant life was springing up, birds were nesting and so on. I remember everyone being amazed at how quickly it happened and I think National Geographic even did a spread on it.
What about the giant meteor hole in the Maya penisula?
Naww - you are just keeping an open mind and that is often refreshing here on FR!
The simple fact of the matter is that much of the finding of mineral deposits as well as oil and gas doesn't have much to do with how old the earth is presumed to be and that goes for a lot of science, in general. 1 + 1 still equals 2 whether you believe the earth is 10 days old or 10 billion years old.
From the perspective of a geologist, I can map the geology and stratagraphic relationships quite effectively without ever worrying about the age of rocks involved - just their relative position to each other. In a macro-sense it the mechanisms that are consistent with a young earth geology and those that go with an old earth geology can make a difference in interpretation, but I've never had problems with that.
It is amazing how fast volcanoes can build land surface. Do you remember the story about the Paracutin volcano in Mexico? I think it was the earlier part of this century, but a volcano literally popped up in the middle of a corn field and grew so rapidly that it buried the local town and became a mountain in a relatively short time. There was apparently litttle or no warning. Once again, extremely rapid mountain building, but this time right on land.
I cannot, however, spell! It should be "stratigraphic."
Well, I'm certainly not here to proselytize you. All I can tell you is why I believe what I believe and let you consider that. I teach classes on this for non believers and we spend a lot of time going over the scientific evidence that supports the literal interpretation of Genesis. From my observations, a lot of nonbelievers are amazed when they find there is a lot of good science that supports the Biblical creation account.
The important thing is that you have accepted Jesus Christ. All the rest is fun, but is just window dressing compared to that.
True- that is all that matters in the end.
No conspiracy - just simple geology and physics. The ocean floor is pretty thin where you get these hot spots. Based on the convection currents in the molten rock and lighter densities, they can move pretty rapidly.
Think about the seismic detection of the magma movements (recorded as "microquakes" under the volcano) at Mount St. Helens and how soon after we got the big eruption. This was a much denser felsic lava and much slower moving than the basaltic lavas you would see erupting in the Hawaiian Islands, Surtsey or any of the oceanic volcanic provinces.
Total garbage. Evolution demands no such symmetry and no such symmetry is observed in nature. According to the theory of evolution, a split can be symmetrical or not. Some splits in nature are symmetrical and some are not. This is true both genetically and morphologically. Furthermore, it is not true that when a taxon splits into two, the "parent" taxon necessarily ceases to exist.
I haven't read the above article in its entirety yet, but from the blurb you posted it isn't clear whether the author is saying that evolutionary theory demands symmetrical splits and doesn't get them, or that evolutionary theory can't explain why all observed splits are symmetrical. Either way he's wrong, however.
The most sophisticated-sounding formulation of the "Why are there still monkeys?" argument that I've seen. But it's still "Why are there still monkeys?" and it's still a stupid question.
There are still cyanobacteria, cephalochordates, lobe-finned fish, amphibians, you name it. You don't have to have two daughter species, the parent population being gone. Natural selection pressures can be innovative or conservative. Darwin knew this. Gould and Eldredge explained it again.
I'll put it another way. Look at the logic of the quoted paragraph. It claimed that evolution inevitably requires a "symmetric split."
... if this strict monophyletic hierarchy is to be regarded to be the result of an evolutionary process, then it must be the case ...Now, we have no original research so far, simply a supposed logical inference from the consequences of an evolutionary process. Proceeding further:
... It is next demonstrated that there is no formulation of the evolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism that can account for this fact of symmetry in evolution ...Did you derive the requirement for symmetrical divergence from the supposition of evolution itself or did you not? Hello? If evolution inevitably predicts it, then it "explains" it. Is that hard to follow?
Does it depend upon what you mean by "neo-Darwinism?" Gould used to spend a lot of time arguing with people he called "neo-Darwinists," which is why he so very often gets quote-mined out of context by Luddites trying to paint false pictures with the words of others. The people Gould was embroiled with for much of the 1970s didn't accept any important role for punctuated equilibrium. They were probably the majority for a short time but that situation has reversed. Hardly anyone now would deny that Gould was onto something, although they might argue about the importance of other scenarios or indeed whether Gould's insight wasn't a rehash of some statements of Darwin.
I mention it only because you clearly don't have a clue, yourself. You've found yet another instance of somebody, anybody, saying bad things about "neo-Darwinism." This you cite as proof that it's all a house of cards. Is this guy Engle one of you or one of us? I don't know offhand. From the pattern of the articles you've flooded FR with in the past week or so, neither do you. Who does he mean by "neo-Darwinists?" I don't know or much care. You think it means everybody but you.
Science is harder than you try to make it.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].
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.