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 1-5051-100101-149 next last

1 posted on 12/02/2009 7:13:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:

“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”

—Jim Robinson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78


2 posted on 12/02/2009 7:15:28 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Surprised?


3 posted on 12/02/2009 7:17:03 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

IBT*belongsinreligion*


4 posted on 12/02/2009 7:21:34 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So because Darwin misinterpreted a geomorphological process, you want to throw out the last 150 years of biological science?
5 posted on 12/02/2009 7:33:19 PM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Darwin was right about it when he said that if a cell was proven to be more than simple protoplasm and nucleus then the theory of evolution would not hold up.

Evolutionists have fallen into the “white swan” thought trap. It’s like trying to prove that there are no black swans by going around counting white swans. Evolutionists ignore the incredibly complicated inner workings of a SINGLE CELL and declare it just a random accident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dMlde9akBk

The above is just a partial and greatly simplified view of how a cell works.


6 posted on 12/02/2009 7:33:54 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Just read the piece. It has no place whatsoever in "religion" unless you're into finding lingas on the shoreline and pouring milk on them.

It is, however, another cautionary note to folks who think Darwin was a total genius who never got anything wrong ~ in this instance his uniformitarian viewpoints (gradual changes over time doing massive work) got the best of him.

Still, glacial rafting from mountain ranges is a recent enough finding that Darwin had never heard of it.

I seriously doubt Darwin wanted to climb up Andean mountains to see ice.

Within the last year or so the "uniformitarian" view regarding the way paint is mixed also collapsed in the face of computer models that correctly predict the outcome of various ways of mixing.

Remember, Darwin didn't know about DNA. He didn't know what a computer chip was or how it worked. He was rusty with calculus. And, when he was in fat city and ate bread with his meals he spent the next three days in the toilet unloading his bowels on a continuing basis. He knew alimentary piece only in the more primitive countryside where they ate oatmeal!

7 posted on 12/02/2009 7:38:00 PM PST by muawiyah (Git Out The Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stormer
So because Darwin misinterpreted a geomorphological process, you want to throw out the last 150 years of biological science?

The last 150 years of biological science were a test case precursor to the last 10 years of climatology science....

8 posted on 12/02/2009 7:41:58 PM PST by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest... ("Sooner or later in life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences." Robert Louis Stevenson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

oh no, yet another of the myriad of mistakes from darwin...and consequently, his followers....


9 posted on 12/02/2009 7:42:44 PM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Darwin attempted to give his “theory” of evolution the deep time it needed by hitching it to lyellian uniformitarianism, which is rapidly being discredited along with Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth.


10 posted on 12/02/2009 7:47:28 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Do you have a link for Darwin’s protoplasm comments? That would be a link well worth saving!


11 posted on 12/02/2009 7:50:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Now if we could only find his emails.


12 posted on 12/02/2009 7:54:19 PM PST by almcbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Eventually it’ll come down that Darwin was right about nothing, and wrong on everything else.


13 posted on 12/02/2009 8:05:18 PM PST by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Ah... It still is the norm for science to eventually outrun previous scientists and theory’s. I would guess that the eventual outcome will be something on the order of 30/70...ie, 30% of his theories will be right, 70% wrong. This might be the norm for 19th Century prognostications.

Anyone who expects higher results are just hoping that their current beliefs are right rather than following science...


14 posted on 12/02/2009 8:07:29 PM PST by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I think that he wrote in his book.


15 posted on 12/02/2009 8:09:04 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

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.


16 posted on 12/02/2009 8:14:58 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1
"Eventually it’ll come down that Darwin was right about nothing, and wrong on everything else."

Can you differentiate between wrong and incomplete? Can you name any 19th century scientific theory that was complete when initially presented? Can you name a 20th century theory that was complete when initially presented?

17 posted on 12/02/2009 8:19:54 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants; GodGunsGuts

I saw it there myself, but it was only a sentence or two and I don’t recall exactly where it was and am having trouble finding it again.


18 posted on 12/02/2009 8:19:58 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>Darwin attempted to give his “theory” of evolution the deep time it needed by hitching it to lyellian uniformitarianism, which is rapidly being discredited along with Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth.

As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking about.

Evolution was a concept that was debated since the time of the Greek philosophers and not a theory of Darwin.

Your claim of Darwin attempting to give evolution “deep time,” is a complete fabrication, this is, a lie that has no basis in fact.

Uniformitarianism, just like any other legitimate scientific theory, is continually subject to scrutiny. It is no big deal.

What Charles Darwin did in fact was to take along Charles Lyell’s book, “Principles of Geology,” which among other things demonstrated through the observing of irregularities in rock layers, that Earth’s sediments were not laid down at a single time from a biblical flood as previously believed, but was instead a process that had took hundreds of millions of years.

Radiometric dating and stratigraphy verify this. Since the science of Physics underlies this, and God created everything in the Universe, including the law of physics, anyone one denying this data is denying the existence of God.

Again, your accusing Darwin of proposing a “evo-athiest creation myth” is complete fabrication on your part, another lie.

You blame Darwin, but it is you who are truly evil, continually spouting out misinformation and hate.

George


19 posted on 12/02/2009 8:20:54 PM PST by George - the Other ("Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent" - G. Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I'm not surprised that Darwin was wrong in some of his statements about geology. I wouldn't be surprised that Louis Agassiz was wrong about some of his statements about geology, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Alfred Wegener was wrong about some of his statements concerning continental drift. I wouldn't be surprised if Auguste and Jacques Piccard were wrong about some of their statements concerning geology. I wouldn't be surprised if Andrija Mohorovičić was wrong in some of his statements about geology. I wouldn't be surprised if Giuseppe Mercalli was wrong in some of his statements concerning geology.
20 posted on 12/02/2009 8:23:01 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George - the Other
"As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking about........You blame Darwin, but it is you who are truly evil, continually spouting out misinformation and hate." I am disappointed but not surprised by the Lenninist tactics used to try to discredit science with an endless sream of lies posted as naseum. It is important for both God and science that we continue to correct the continuous stream of falsehoods presented in these threads.

("A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Lenin)

21 posted on 12/02/2009 8:34:53 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: George - the Other

==As usual, you have no clue of what you are talking about.

As usual, you have accused someone else of what you yourself are guilty of. The rest is ignored because, as usual, you didn’t write anything worth responding to. But if you ever get around to making specific arguments, I would be glad to engage your easily falsified evo-religion any time you are feeling up to the challenge.

—GGG


22 posted on 12/02/2009 8:47:38 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stormer; GodGunsGuts; metmom; Fichori

“So because Darwin misinterpreted a geomorphological process, you want to throw out the last 150 years of biological science?”

Your question amuses me. Your 150 years of “biological science” is no more sound in it’s conclusions than those of the global warming Nazi’s. Hide the data, folks... Darwin-Gate is only a hacker away.

Wait. That’s not right. The lack of evidence for Evolution screams louder and is much more far-reaching than a few emails belonging to a gaggle of stilted climatologists.


23 posted on 12/02/2009 8:48:34 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Actually, we have some of Darwin’s private thoughts have been hacked, so to speak. They come in the form of his recently released notebooks, and it is clear that, among other things, he had theological reasons for inventing his evo-atheist creation myth.


24 posted on 12/02/2009 8:59:27 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"evo-atheist creation myth." With this, your 10,000th reference to a complete lie you have been awarded the 2009 bronze Darwin Award! You cannot and never have cited even a single source that confirms the truth of this concept yet you keep posting it. Have you no shame?
25 posted on 12/02/2009 9:04:26 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Don’t ever post profanity in Keywords again.


26 posted on 12/02/2009 9:04:26 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Just because it happened a long time ago, doesn’t mean it took a long time to happen.


27 posted on 12/02/2009 9:09:06 PM PST by Zeneta (Do you want to be a little plastic soldier in someone else's dirt war ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

thanks - bump and bookmark


28 posted on 12/02/2009 9:12:28 PM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt (Obama's Deathcare ---- many will suffer and/or die unnecessarily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Not at all. A global flood could produce drastic changes in the surface of the earth.


29 posted on 12/02/2009 9:14:04 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Funny you should say that... I’m working on my Theory of Darwin right now that explores just that. The premise is that Darwin, just like the rest of Atheists had to believe in Evolution so that the whole thing would make sense.

The teaser has been this... “I have a theory about how Darwin evolved... regrettably, the theory itself is evolving and may take millions of years to post.”

If you have supporting documentation I’d love to see it. I’m still on the Dinosaurs right now, which is the jump-off point for the rest of the article.


30 posted on 12/02/2009 9:15:55 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - I have a theory about how Darwin evolved... more soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
"The premise is that Darwin, just like the rest of Atheists had to believe in Evolution so that the whole thing would make sense."

Your premise is patently false. Darwin was not an atheist.

31 posted on 12/02/2009 9:19:12 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I love a daily dose of GGG.


32 posted on 12/02/2009 9:19:37 PM PST by rae4palin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thank you.


33 posted on 12/02/2009 9:22:53 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
You mean, makes sense to them. To the rest of us, it looks even more silly than when the ancients naively postulated evolution without the benefit of any elaborate theories at all. Indeed, Darwin's endless "theory" is filled with one embarassment after another after another after another...
34 posted on 12/02/2009 9:23:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rae4palin

Why thank you rae4palin :o)


35 posted on 12/02/2009 9:27:58 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; GodGunsGuts

“Your premise is patently false. Darwin was not an atheist.”

And your premise is uneducated at best. Absolutely he was... not that I’m going to get into an argument with someone who hasn’t taken the time to study Darwin to his conclusion. Darwin’s earlier statements concerning God and faith, by his own admission were measured by his sensitivity to his family, friends and society. The man didn’t believe in God (at some point early on he stopped believing) but in those earlier years he was worried about hurting his family and his credibility so he didn’t fully disclose that fact. I didn’t say he lacked any nobility, but he was an Atheist.


36 posted on 12/02/2009 9:28:09 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - I have a theory about how Darwin evolved... more soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


37 posted on 12/02/2009 9:29:09 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“You mean, makes sense to them.”

Absolutely correct. It’s like when folks say Obama is a good speaker but all I see is a ferret in a bad pin-striped suit talking out of both sides of his yapper... about that silly.


38 posted on 12/02/2009 9:30:36 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - I have a theory about how Darwin evolved... more soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene
"And your premise is uneducated at best."

I am going to have to disagree with you there, Gordon. Darwin gave up on organized religion and Christianity after many years of abuse at the hands of the clergy for daring to publish a theory that did not conform with church teaching. He did not give up on God. Darwin cited and referred to a Creator on many occasions.

39 posted on 12/02/2009 9:32:43 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: George - the Other
Just how do you determine who is “truly evil”?
40 posted on 12/02/2009 9:34:43 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

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)


41 posted on 12/02/2009 9:34:47 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: George - the Other; GodGunsGuts

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.


42 posted on 12/02/2009 9:36:58 PM PST by OldNavyVet ("... where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Did you manage to assign verse numbers to each sentence of “Darwin’s Ghost” yet???


43 posted on 12/02/2009 9:38:44 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

” 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...


44 posted on 12/02/2009 9:40:14 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - I have a theory about how Darwin evolved... more soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

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.


45 posted on 12/02/2009 9:43:48 PM PST by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - I have a theory about how Darwin evolved... more soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Just how do you determine who is “truly evil”?

One clue lies in the fact that evil is solely and specifically associated with irrational humans.

46 posted on 12/02/2009 9:48:36 PM PST by OldNavyVet ("... where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

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.


47 posted on 12/02/2009 10:05:11 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Then irrationality is a sign of evil? In humans? Where do you find this clue?


48 posted on 12/02/2009 10:10:15 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Where do you find this clue?

The source of evil lies in the suspension of rational thought.

49 posted on 12/02/2009 10:29:53 PM PST by OldNavyVet ("... where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise." -- Thomas Gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; GodGunsGuts

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....


50 posted on 12/03/2009 5:39:30 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-149 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