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

Skip to comments.

Surtsey still surprises (land features thought to take millions of years form in less than a decade)
Journal of Creation ^ | David Catchpoole, P.hD.

Posted on 02/16/2009 9:40:48 AM PST by 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....

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; surtsey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-272 last
To: Nathan Zachary

“a theory which EVO’s desperately try to ignore,”

Who ignores it? And why the characterization as “desperate”?

It is creationists that ignore what is before their very eyes, so the desperation is on the creationist side.

This sort of belligerence exhibited towards people that believe in reasoning and science - despite it’s flaws and shortcomings - and the process of science which assumes flaws and shortcomings along with future new sources of information is exactly the reason why fundamentalists will never and should never have significant political power in government outside of Afghanistan.

If there is new information, I assure you, science will embrace it. This is something creationists cannot do, and is why you must be hostile towards ideas created by man based on observation and study.


251 posted on 02/18/2009 8:41:48 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Got a link for that?

Eh. I thought when you wrote something about "Don't tell Jim what your REALLY think" that you were suggesting I hadn't. (Which isn't exactly a damning charge anyway.) Regardless, I certainly did back during "the purge." But that's all in the past.
252 posted on 02/18/2009 3:23:03 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
You belief Surtsey is an anomaly or unique or a special situation. If another Surtsey were to appear today in the same area then similar events would occur. The reference you need to cite will demonstrate that this would not occur and therefore Surtsey would therefore be a true geologic anomaly. If you wish to learn more about geologic/volcanic formation I direct you to the Alaska Volcano Observatory. There are numerous scientist working there that will be pleased to inform you that Surtsey is not unique from a volcanic or geological perspective.
253 posted on 02/18/2009 8:34:15 PM PST by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I believe our friend Mr. Buck has an interest in volcanic geologic formation. He just needs to do some home work to learn more.


254 posted on 02/18/2009 8:38:40 PM PST by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid

Ah, jeez! Okay, ONE MORE TIME—

Surtsey is NOT an anomaly. It is, however, a special case of landmass formation. Credible scientists cannot extrapolate the development of formations on Surtsey and conclude that ALL other landmasses formed the same way. However, another undersea volcanic eruption that leads to the creation of an island would probably look very much the same.

That’s all. It’s logic, not geology. I’m beginning to think that YECs are the logical equivalent of 9/11 truthers.


255 posted on 02/18/2009 9:16:55 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Buck W.
Said metmom: Could you answer the question instead of accusing me of something I neither said nor implied?

Is there an evo around who could actually reply to what someone asks instead of replying to a strawman they constructed about the person they're replying to?


Alas I have not seen many evos of that caliber of late.

-Jesse
256 posted on 02/18/2009 10:39:49 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

Hey, where’d it go...?


257 posted on 02/18/2009 10:47:36 PM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
Ahah! There it is! All fixed up, tied down, tucked away and good to go this time!


Said Fichori:
Does that include organizing disruptive activity?
Replied js1138:
Are you accusing me of organizing disruptive activity?

That's a fairly significant charge. I'd like to see you back it up.

And now responds mrjesse to js1138:

Wow, dood, Fichori is right! And he actually did provide in his post the evidence of his claim that you partook in organizing disruptive activity! I googled some of the phrases he provided and found the original posts on dc!

I present for your reading pleasure the following exchange, WITH links to the actual DC posts! (I've emphasized a few parts with bold.)

js1138


Said:
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.
phantomworker


Replied:
I saw that super secret thread and it's all clearly organized, waiting for Dave's response. Wouldn't it make it all worthwhile if, because of this debate or lack thereof, Dave had a breakthrough. You know a "Eureka!" or "Aha!" moment, with respect to evolution?
SeaLion

asked
Link available? It's a great idea to set that up, but where is it?

Ta!
js1138


replied:
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.
annyokie


said:
I have a stealth account over at TOS. I'll bump js1138's thread until I get banned again, if need be.
js1138


Replied:
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.
annyokie


Replied:
Deal.
js1138


Said:
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.

I gotta say, guys, I couldn't believe the foul language and low down insults peppered throughout your posts. Are you DC'ers really that bitter or is that just an act?

Anyway, above is some very interesting references - top secret threads, stealth accounts, backup posts, reposting deleted posts, bumping threads -- and who appears to be in charge of this? You, my friend, appear to be coordinating!

So don't you think that reposting something that the mods clearly don't want and have deleted is pretty close to disruptive activity? And stealth accounts, and bumping threads?

I dare say it sure looks like Fichori busted you on that one [double wide grin]

-Jesse
258 posted on 02/19/2009 12:18:10 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse
So don't you think that reposting something that the mods clearly don't want and have deleted is pretty close to disruptive activity?

Are you referring to your reposting your own post #234, which the mods deleted?

259 posted on 02/19/2009 5:28:51 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

Where’d what go? Since there’s no number indicating what you replied to, I can’t tell.


260 posted on 02/19/2009 6:10:46 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse

Never mind. I see now.


261 posted on 02/19/2009 6:12:15 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Fichori

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.”


262 posted on 02/19/2009 7:30:45 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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
263 posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:33 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Fichori
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.

264 posted on 02/19/2009 9:25:22 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Fichori
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.

265 posted on 02/19/2009 10:20:36 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: mrjesse; Fichori
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.

266 posted on 02/19/2009 10:28:38 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.
267 posted on 02/19/2009 1:26:57 PM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
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.
268 posted on 02/19/2009 6:49:54 PM PST by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
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.

269 posted on 02/20/2009 6:53:26 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: js1138
“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.
270 posted on 02/20/2009 11:29:47 AM PST by Fichori (To everyone who gave Zero his own Hawaiian-good-luck-salute and donated to the FReepathon, THANKYOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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
271 posted on 02/21/2009 12:59:06 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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
272 posted on 02/21/2009 1:15:44 AM PST by mrjesse (Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-272 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