Skip to comments.Darwin Was Wrong About Geology
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 Darwins Boulders were deposited by a completely different process than he thought. The modern team, publishing in the Geological Society of Americas December issue of the GSA Today,1 noted that Darwins thinking was profoundly influenced by Lyells 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 uniformitarianismthat continued small changes, as witnessed in the field, could account for dramatic changes of Earths 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 ...
snip: I dont 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 Darwins 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.
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.
The rock hounds are constantly having there theories blown apart and it continues, albeit less frequently today.
I am guessing that you are trying to say that if Darwin was wrong about rocks he was wrong about evolution. Nice try, but the connection is not at all relevant. They, the geologists, were lacking in information about many things that we have a better understanding of today, including plate tectonics and the area affected by glaciers. I am convinced that there will be more changes in scientific understanding to come. Many more....(Like the global warming hoax)
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?
Oh good. So my neighbors and I CAN kill my disobedient children.
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Please, for everyone's sake, use your mind to consider what you've said.
This is probably more deserving of a discussion in the Religion Forum, but Scripture and the word of God is not predicated upon a single passage, it is all contextual. God speaks to us and directs us both through Scripture and through the works of the Holy Spirit. It is not incumbent upon us to decipher the mysteries and hidden meanings of Scripture to gain the Kingdom of Heaven. We could succeed at that if we discarded everything in the Old and New Testaments and kept only the Beatitudes.
There have been plenty of intellectually brilliant men who were incredibly evil.
People don’t make moral judgments based on how smart they are.
You obviously don’t have a clue as to the distinction.
Show me where morals equate to intellect.
"Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy; it cannot survive without a philosophical (particularly epistemological) base. If philosophy perishes, sicence will be next to go."
Using your own mind, can you tell right from wrong?
Thanks for the cliche’ but the Bible writer James under the direction of God’s spirit explained why humans engaged in evil, as did many of the other writers, like Paul in explaining how all humans were sinful and why. And King David. And Moses. And Joshua.
I don’t recall any of them bringing up suspension of rational thought, quite the opposite in fact. But maybe you have something else in mind.
Ahhh...nothing like a ration of rationality.
Modern science tells us there's more to a stream's path than accident.
From Darwins Ghost by Steve Jones Pages 213-4
Streams evolve through a balance of forces. The bed shifts as it erodes one bank and dumps its remains on the other. It returns when its loops are cut off as the water finds a more direct route downhill. Complexity meandering is opposed by simplicity, the shortest path to the sea. Raindrop, Meander and Mississippi follow the same rules. Measurements of dozens of rivers, and computer simulations of many more, show that the relationship between their shortest possible path across a plain and their actual length is always the same. It is pi, the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. Each river, whatever its size, goes a little more than three times farther than it needs on its way to the sea.
“Darwin the Geologist
Léo F. Laporte, Earth Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064,
The irony of Darwins success as a geologist was that he had
little formal instruction in the subject. In his second year at the
University of Edinburghbefore he dropped outhe attended
the lectures of Robert Jameson, a champion of Werners Neptunist
theory, but they were incredibly dull. The sole effect they
produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to
read a book on Geology or in any way to study the science. Yet I
feel sure that I was prepared for a philosophical treatment of the
subject (Autobiography, p. 52).
IF Darwin had knowledgeable instructors he would have known that what he was observing was remnants left from the first heaven/earth age and what was living had been created/formed at the beginning of this humans placed in flesh body age.
Using one’s own mind, one can justify anything.
Right and wrong stand apart from intellectual justifications.
That only leads to situational ethics, like we’re having today with embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia and justifying abortion.
Of course the mind is used in decision making, but that is not the source of right and wrong. Otherwise, right and wrong would be different for everybody on the planet.
Morals are not based in intellect, whether or not intellect is used to make decisions. Morals are based on an outside standard of right and wrong.
One is not immoral (or evil) if one is irrational, one is simply irrational. And even the definition of *irrational* is up for grabs. One person’s behavior may seem irrational to another. Burning witches at the stake is irrational to someone who doesn’t believe in witches. But if someone really believed that they existed and had the power of life and death and were killing others, executing a murderer is not an unreasonable thing to do.
Do you believe in situational ethics or that there’s an objective, outside standard of right and wrong to which one can gauge one’s actions?
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.
Dude, try reading the ENTIRE thing, in context, realizing that there is an OLD and NEW Testament, that Jesus came to abe a Savior to remove much of the OT ‘law’, as it could only CONDEMN and not SAVE.
Biblical Cherry-pickers, quite amusing overall.
OK then; what about homosexuals?