Jump to content


Photo

Schweitzer Does It Again....


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#81 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 May 2009 - 04:46 PM

This list goes on and on. We haven't even touched on the geological evidence for the age of the earth. Do you have any idea how much volcanic material is on top of sedimentary layers and what this means for the amount of sulfur that would be in the air if this occurred in the last few thousand years?


Yes,it would cause an ice age.Scientists are proposing injecting sulfur into the atmosphere to slow global warming.

One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the atmosphere, a scientist suggested today.

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. It also releases sulfur that cools the planet by reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.


http://www.livescien...ect_sulfur.html - 42k -

Posted Image

How long did it take the sedimentary layers in the middle to accumulate on the bottom layer of dry ash fall?

It only took hours when Mt. St. Helens erupted.

#82 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 31 May 2009 - 04:59 PM

...cont. from my last post

We have galaxies 12 billion light years away that some believe provide support for a 6000 year old universe. You get people proposing that the speed of light must have been different without any idea of how such a change would alter the universe or change the heat from our own sun.

View Post


Regarding a decrease in the speed of light: First, that theory is not at all currently favored within creationist circles. Secondly, many secular theorists have proposed changes in the speed of light as well, so it's hardly a criticism that can be uniquely leveled against creationists. See Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation by João Magueijo. Also, read Andrew Sibley's review of the book in TJ, Variable speed of light research gets a boost

Speaking of galaxies, we have fully formed, mature galaxies that are billions of light-years away that have no business, according the the Standard Model, being at that stage of development. Such galaxies were expected - indeed predicted - to be in the early stages of development. Does this shake the establishment's faith in their model? Of course not.

We have marsupials like koala bears that walked from the ark to Australia without their food sources to reach the land of their fossil ancestors, without leaving a fossil record and somehow all these marsupials crossed oceans to get there. 

View Post


First, you're assuming (in the Flood model) that there weren't any land-bridges that would have enabled marsupials to trek to Australia. What is the basis for this assumption? Second, there are marsupial fossils in places other than Australia. Terry Mortenson, in his article National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin writes:

Biogeography

Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible distributions, then it explains nothing at all.

Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia “because they evolved there.” And evolutionists have to admit that marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas). Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:

Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5

But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth. See Migration Q&A and chapter 1 of Woodmorrappe’s book, Studies in Flood Geology.

References:

[...]

5. Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science302:1899–2, 2003


Your assumption that the Koala Bear diet must consist of eucalyptus leaves is in error. In his article Cuddly cold-cures counter critics, Carl Wieland points out:

It now looks as if the koala’s well-known exclusive diet of gum leaves is really a behavioral addiction, rather than a genetic inability to eat or digest other types of food.
It certainly seems true that koalas reared in the wild feed exclusively on eucalyptus leaves and die without them. Their bodies become literally saturated with the pungent eucalyptus oils until they smell like furry cough sweets.3

But according to Roland Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at UCLA, this dependence on these intoxicating substances is learnt in early infancy; the baby koala literally becomes ‘hooked’ through its mother’s eucalyptus-flavoured milk. Yet orphan koalas reared away from any contact with these substances ‘can thrive on a diet of cow’s milk, bread and honey.’4

Koalas may have only become addicted to an exclusive gum-leaf diet in this way well after arriving in Australia.

References:

[...]

3- Spinney, L., Animals seeking oblivion, New Scientist 143(1945):29, 1994.
4- Spinney, Ref 3.


Eucalyptus is known from the fossil record from Washington St. to Austrailia and even more species existed in the past than there is now.Besides,where is the experimental data that proves koalas' can only survive on eucalyptus.

View Post


It's worse than that Jason. As seen above, there is experimental data the prove that koala's can survive on food other than eucalyptus. :P

We have 5000 species of frog, 2000 species of snake, various species of elephants, cats, rodents, new world monkeys, old world monkeys. But there is no evidence of a 5000 year old genetic bottle neck.
This list goes on and on. We haven't even touched on the geological evidence for the age of the earth. Do you have any idea how much volcanic material is on top of sedimentary layers and what this means for the amount of sulfur that would be in the air if this occurred in the last few thousand years?

View Post


I'm not aware of any material in creationist literature that addresses the bottleneck issue. That's not to say it isn't there, I'll have to look. I'm curious though, what would constitute such evidence? As for volcanic material atop sedimentary deposits, extreme volcanism and global scale sedimentation are integral components of Flood Geology. Regarding the amount of sulfur in the air, this would have to be examined in the context of a global cataclysm with its attendant storms and what effect extreme precipitation, for instance, would have on the sulfur concentration of the atmosphere. Again, I'm not aware of such a study at the moment.

Speaking of lists, there is also much evidence of a global flood. Andrew Snelling has a series of articles that address this:

- High & Dry Sea Creatures: Fossils of sea creatures are found in rock layers high above sea level.

- The World’s a Graveyard: Fossil graveyards found in rock layers around the world are evidence of the global Flood.

- Transcontinental Rock Layers: Every continent contains layers of sedimentary rocks that span vast areas. Many of these layers can even be traced across continents.

Posted Image

- Sand Transported Cross Country: We find layers of thick sandstone around the earth. Where did the sand come from? Evidence indicates it was carried across entire continents by water circling the globe.

Posted Image

- No Slow and Gradual Erosion: Today we see the effects of weathering and erosion all around us. But where is the evidence of millions of years between rock layers? There is none.

- Many strata laid down in rapid succession (not yet available on the web): Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places, we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening.

Regarding this last point, there is also the fact that most rock layers have smooth, flat boundaries between them. In other words, they lack the erosion surfaces which would have formed had their been any significant period of time between the their deposition. In his book The Great Turning Point, Terry Mortenson discusses this, along with the other geological objections that the 'Scriptural Geologists' advanced against the long-age uniformitarianism then being promoted:

Young and Fairholme especially, and to a lesser extent Gisborne, argued that the insensible transitions between the different mineralogical formations were a dominant feature of the geological record. This characteristic of one kind of mineral deposit gradually changing into another kind, without evidence of erosion or soil at the transition line, shows that the strata were deposited in rapid succession (as expected in a global flood), while the subjacent strata were still rather soft and moist. There, they reasoned, the notion of long ages during deposition of a single mineralogical layer (the uniformitarian view) or between the deposition of two different strata (the catastrophist view) was erroneous.

Many geological writers recorded their observations of this geological feature. William Smith alluded to this fact many times in his 1816 work on identifying strata by their fossils. The mineralogical transitions were so smooth, said Smith, that frequently the fossils provided the only means of dividing them. In describing the secondary formations from the transition rocks up through the Oolite found in Gloucestershire and Somerset, Thomas Weaver frequently remarked on the gradual intermingling, or "reciprocal incorporation", of different minerals at the contact boundary of two different adjacent formations.

Buckland and Conybear described how the strata of the Greywacke up to the coal measures and the New Red Sandstone up to the Oolite "graduate so insensibly" into each other as to make it very difficult to assign the precise limits of each.

- pp. 203-204


Mortenson goes on to recount other instances of geologists of the day recording similar observations. The other objections he discusses are polystrate fossis, shells and dating the strata and the infant state of gelogy.

That last point is important because the idea of long ages and uniformitarianism was being promoted when the science of geology was in its infancy. The Scriptural Geologists pointed out that it was then far too early to be offering comprehensive theories of the earth with so little observation and data on hand; indeed with much evidence to to contrary. They were ignored...

Ok, fine. Show me where to look. The creationist journals appear to have an odd collection of ideas. Some accept the geologic column, some do not. Some accept the age of the universe as 12 billion years, some think it is 6000 years. Some still think the earth is the center of the universe. Some accept significant evolution since the flood (to create all the species alive) - most do not.

View Post


It seems to would impose a standard upon creationists that doesn't hold for evolutionists. You have the gradualists vs. punctuated equilibria-ists, the metabolism first crowd vs. the RNA-world theorists, you have Stephen Jay Gould who loved to point out that if nature had to do it all over again, nothing would be the same vs. Simon Conway Morris, the title of whose book says it all Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. You also have those who still cling to the 'Tree of Life' notion first promulgated by Darwin vs. those, like Carl Woese, who reject the 'tree' metaphor in favor of a 'web of life' or a 'ring of life'. Further, you have those in the camp of Lynn Margulis who excoriate those who rely almost exclusively on mutation and natural selection as the 'engine of evolution' in favor of lateral gene transfer.

The reason such - often mutually exclusive - differences (i.e. details) are tolerated within the evolutionary establishment is the same reason they are tolerated in creationism: All agree on the philosophical/historical framework within which they are working (i.e. the big picture); for evolutionists, it is materialistic naturalism, for creationists it is the historical framework of Genesis.

If Schweitzer wanted to understand why genetically related marsupials were found in Australia, where would she go to see the Creationist theory so she could compare this with the evolutionary theory?

View Post


Well, she could read up on Baraminology (the creationist biology). Understanding the Pattern of Life: Origins and Organization of the Species by Wood, Wise & Murray would be a good place to start. She could visit the website of The Creation Biology Study Group, read the available papers and perhaps even attend one of their annual conferences.

There is a whole raft of papers and articles in recent creation science journals on this subject and in particular how it relates to the rapid diversification (not evolution) and migrations that took place after the Flood. A presentation given by Dr. Kurt Wise & Dr. John Whitmore at the 2008 ICC entitled Rapid and Early Post-Flood Mammalian Diversification Evidenced in the Green River Formation might also prove helpful.

No offense James, but your knowledge of the current state of creationism seems to be rather lacking.

#83 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 May 2009 - 06:17 PM

Your assumption that the Koala Bear diet must consist of eucalyptus leaves is in error. In his article Cuddly cold-cures counter critics, Carl Wieland points out:


QUOTE
It now looks as if the koala’s well-known exclusive diet of gum leaves is really a behavioral addiction, rather than a genetic inability to eat or digest other types of food.
It certainly seems true that koalas reared in the wild feed exclusively on eucalyptus leaves and die without them. Their bodies become literally saturated with the pungent eucalyptus oils until they smell like furry cough sweets.3

But according to Roland Siegel, a psychopharmacologist at UCLA, this dependence on these intoxicating substances is learnt in early infancy; the baby koala literally becomes ‘hooked’ through its mother’s eucalyptus-flavoured milk. Yet orphan koalas reared away from any contact with these substances ‘can thrive on a diet of cow’s milk, bread and honey.’4

Koalas may have only become addicted to an exclusive gum-leaf diet in this way well after arriving in Australia.

References:

[...]

3- Spinney, L., Animals seeking oblivion, New Scientist 143(1945):29, 1994.
4- Spinney, Ref 3.


Hey,thanks for that,wombatty.

I was'nt sure,but i figured evolutionists were assuming again without testing.

#84 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 01 June 2009 - 06:10 PM

James,do you know what your model says about lemers getting to Madagascar?According to evolutionists,not just one incredible surf pro lemer,but his mate as well,endured 12 ft. waves on a log on the beach in Africa,just because they wanted to go surfing and ended up stranded in Madagascar.

At least creationists have a plausable explanation and a mechanism.The ice age after the flood would have dropped sea level hundreds of feet forming a land bridge from Vietnam to Austrailia.And that is given the assumption that the continents had already drifted to their current position.
Thanks.

View Post


James I. Nienhuis has book & a video on just this subject. He details many uderwater cities and structures just off continental coasts all over the world (50 ft or so underwater, I believe). These structures are identical to those on the coastal ruins we see today. At the close of the Ice Age, the melting glaciers raised the seal level around 300 ft (if memory serves) and inundated many land-bridges between the current landmasses.

#85 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 June 2009 - 06:04 AM

...cont. from my last post

First, you're assuming (in the Flood model) that there weren't any land-bridges that would have enabled marsupials to trek to Australia. What is the basis for this assumption? Second, there are marsupial fossils in places other than Australia. Terry Mortenson, in his article National Geographic is wrong and so was Darwin writes:

Biogeography

Evolutionists say that only evolution can explain why there are certain creatures in one location, say kangaroos in Australia, but not in another location. However, Darwin claimed that evolution explained the pattern of life on fixed continents, while now evolution is supposed to explain the pattern of life on continents that moved apart from one big one. If evolution is so flexible that it can explain such mutually incompatible distributions, then it explains nothing at all.


Land bridges cannot form across deep oceans and abyssal plains - they require a shallow continentental shelf where the bridge is merely a by-product of a relative eustatic low i.e. a fall in sea level or else localised uplift. The only way to account for the distribution of modern animals is through continental drift and this includes the marsupials of Australia. Continental drift REQUIRES and old earth model and can be directly measured today. Darwin's belief of fixed continents makes no difference - the evidence for continental drift had not then been discovered. In fact Alfred Wegner did not publish his theory until 1915, and it took a further 15-20 years of evidence gathering before enough scientists became convinced and the theory universally adopted.

Darwin's view of evolution wrongly assumed fixed continents, however evidence for moving continents simply strengthens the theory. In fact with out continental drift evolution would have a major problem.......

#86 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 June 2009 - 02:47 PM

Land bridges cannot form across deep oceans and abyssal plains - they require a shallow continentental shelf where the bridge is merely a by-product of a relative eustatic low i.e. a fall in sea level or else localised uplift.

View Post


Reread the part of my quote that you snipped:

Biogeography

Also, there are many puzzles to the observed distribution of living and fossil creatures. For example, kangaroos are not mainly in Australia “because they evolved there.” And evolutionists have to admit that marsupials once lived in Europe, Asia and North America (in profusion in the latter), but now are largely absent (except for opossums in the Americas). Here is a revealing admission from two evolutionists:

Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5


But creationists contend that there are much better explanations of the biogeographic evidence, which flow from understanding the changes in climate and sea level after the global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah and the fact that post-Flood people would have intentionally (and sometimes unknowingly) taken plants and animals to different parts of the world as they repopulated the earth. See Migration Q&A and chapter 1 of Woodmorrappe’s book, Studies in Flood Geology.

References:

[...]

5. Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science302:1899–2, 2003


Note the bolded text above and then note that there was a land bridge between Asia & Australia.

From Wikipedia:

Migration was achieved during the closing stages of the Pleistocene, when sea levels were much lower than they are today. Repeated episodes of extended glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch, resulted in decreases of sea levels by more than 100 metres in Australasia. The continental coastline extended much further out into the Timor Sea, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait. Nevertheless, the sea still presented a major obstacle so it is theorised that these ancestral people reached Australia by island hopping.[6] Two routes have been proposed. One follows an island chain between Sulawesi and New Guinea and the other reaches North Western Australia via Timor.

The sharing of animal and plant species between Australia-New Guinea and nearby Indonesian islands is another consequence of the early land bridges, which closed when sea levels rose with the end of the last glacial period. The sea level stabilised to near its present levels about 6000 years ago, flooding the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea.


Posted Image

The only way to account for the distribution of modern animals is through continental drift and this includes the marsupials of Australia. Continental drift REQUIRES and old earth model and can be directly measured today. Darwin's belief of fixed continents makes no difference - the evidence for continental drift had not then been discovered. In fact Alfred Wegner did not publish his theory until 1915, and it took a further 15-20 years of evidence gathering before enough scientists became convinced and the theory universally adopted.

Darwin's view of evolution wrongly assumed fixed continents, however evidence for moving continents simply strengthens the theory. In fact with out continental drift evolution would have a major problem.......

View Post


Continental drift only REQUIRES and old earth model if you assume that the drift measured today is typical of what happened in the past. Dr. John Baumgardner's theory of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics proposes very rapid continental drift during the Flood.

#87 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 June 2009 - 03:15 PM

Continental drift only REQUIRES and old earth model if you assume that the drift measured today is typical of what happened in the past. Dr. John Baumgardner's theory of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics proposes very rapid continental drift during the Flood.

View Post


Science does'nt assume anything at all. Drift rates can be measured directly from the rock record. There is no ambiguity and no debate. We KNOW that todays drift rates are similar to those of the past. How? Well lets take the formation of the Howaii island chain as an example.

Posted Image
Posted Image


Howaii is currently the youngest island and it formed as it sits above a stationary "hot spot" of magma. As the continental plates have drifted over time islands also formed when they were over this hotspot. The entire Hawaiian-Emperor Volcanic Chain was formed as the plates slowly drifted over this stationary hotspot. Mejii Seamount is approximately 80 million years old; Midway Island is 27.7 million years old; Kaua'i is 5.1 million years old, and the Big Island of Hawai'i is less than half a million years old. Island formation has been occurring over this hot spot for at least 80 million years. This slow continual drift is recorded, and is still happening today.

These rates are also supported by other independent evidence for example from palaeomegnetics etc. If one invokes a faster spread rate then EVIDENCE must be brought forward.

The evidence for plate tectonics and palaeo-drift rates are overwhelming.

#88 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 June 2009 - 03:34 PM

Science does'nt assume anything at all.

This is false. To add insult to injury evolutionary origins is so loaded with assumptions that it can get difficult to find the actual facts. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack, looking for the facts in the evo-tales.

The amount of assuming you did in the above post is proof enough.

Hey, one quick question. If your Hawaiian plate has moved at the same rate, why is the youngest island also the biggest?

#89 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 June 2009 - 04:51 PM

Hey, one quick question. If your Hawaiian plate has moved at the same rate, why is the youngest island also the biggest?


Would you please stop looking at the facts and just start agreeing with the assumptions.They hate it when you do that. :lol:

#90 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 June 2009 - 05:32 PM

This is false. To add insult to injury evolutionary origins is so loaded with assumptions that it can get difficult to find the actual facts. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack, looking for the facts in the evo-tales.

The amount of assuming you did in the above post is proof enough.

Hey, one quick question. If your Hawaiian plate has moved at the same rate, why is the youngest island also the biggest?

View Post

Indeed, why are there islands (plural)? Why isn't it just one long island?

:lol: Typical evostory. If anyone pays any attention at all, they're immune.

#91 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 June 2009 - 05:48 PM

Science does'nt assume anything at all.

View Post



I know you didn't just say that :lol:

#92 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 June 2009 - 05:54 PM

Indeed, why are there islands (plural)? Why isn't it just one long island?

View Post

Well, that is another excellent question. Just tap your heals three times and repeat after me...


"I know evolution is true."


"I know evolution is true."


"I know evolution is true."

:lol:

#93 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 08 June 2009 - 08:13 PM

Science does'nt assume anything at all. Drift rates can be measured directly from the rock record. There is no ambiguity and no debate. We KNOW that todays drift rates are similar to those of the past. How? Well lets take the formation of the Howaii island chain as an example.

Howaii is currently the youngest island and it formed as it sits above a stationary "hot spot" of magma. As the continental plates have drifted over time islands also formed when they were over this hotspot. The entire Hawaiian-Emperor Volcanic Chain was formed as the plates slowly drifted over this stationary hotspot. Mejii Seamount is approximately 80 million years old; Midway Island is 27.7 million years old; Kaua'i is 5.1 million years old, and the Big Island of Hawai'i is less than half a million years old. Island formation has been occurring over this hot spot for at least 80 million years. This slow continual drift is recorded, and is still happening today.

View Post

It sounds to me like the plate-drift rate is based upon the putative age of each of these islands. Now, if these islands are that old, then you have a point; but geological ages are one of the central points of contention in the creation-evolution debate.

A good question to ask at this point is 'Is there any solid evidence that might lead one to question the conventional age of the Hawaiian Islands?' It just so happens that we do, right off the coast of Iceland: the Island of Surtsey. Surtsey was born in a volcanic eruption in 1963. What has happened since then? Wikipedia's page on the island states:

Settlement of life

A classic site for the study of biocolonisation from founder populations that arrive from outside (allochthonous), Surtsey was declared a nature reserve in 1965 while the eruption was still in active progress. Today only a small number of scientists are permitted to land on Surtsey; the only way anyone else can see it closely is from a small plane. This allows the natural ecological succession for the island to proceed without outside interference. In 2008, UNESCO declared the island a World Heritage Site, in recognition of its great scientific value.

Plant life

In the summer of 1965 the first vascular plant was found growing on the northern shore of Surtsey, mosses became visible in 1967 and lichens were first found on the Surtsey lava in 1970. Plant colonization on Surtsey has been closely studied, the vascular plants in particular as they have been of far greater significance than mosses and lichens in the development of vegetation.
Mosses and lichens now cover much of the island. During the island's first 20 years, 20 species of plants were observed at one time or another, but only 10 became established in the nutrient-poor sandy soil. As birds began nesting on the island, soil conditions improved, and more vascular plant species were able to survive. In 1998, the first bush was found on the island – a tea-leaved willow (Salix phylicifolia), which can grow to heights of up to 4 metres (13 ft). As of 2008, 69 species of plant have been found on Surtsey, of which about 30 have become established. This compares to the approximately 490 species found on mainland Iceland. More species continue to arrive, at a typical rate of roughly 2–5 new species per year.

Birds

The first puffin nests were found on Surtsey in 2004
The expansion of bird life on the island has both relied on and helped to advance the spread of plant life. Birds use plants for nesting material, but also assist in the spreading of seeds, and fertilize the soil with their guano. Birds began nesting on Surtsey three years after the eruptions ended, with fulmar and guillemot the first species to set up home. Twelve species are now regularly found on the island.
A gull colony has been present since 1984, although gulls were seen briefly on the shores of the new island only weeks after it first appeared. The gull colony has been particularly important in developing the plant life on Surtsey, and the gulls have had much more of an impact on plant colonisation than other breeding species due to their abundance. An expedition in 2004 found the first evidence of nesting Atlantic Puffins, which are extremely common in the rest of the archipelago.
As well as providing a home for some species of birds, Surtsey has also been used as a stopping-off point for migrating birds, particularly those en route between Europe and Iceland. Species that have been seen briefly on the island include Whooper Swans, various species of geese, and Common Ravens. Although Surtsey lies to the east of the main migration routes to Iceland, it has become a more common stopping point as its vegetation has improved. In 2008, the 14th bird species was detected with the discovery of a Common Raven's nest.

Marine life

Soon after the island's formation, seals were seen around the island. They soon began basking there, particularly on the northern spit, which grew as the waves eroded the island. Seals were found to be breeding on the island in 1983, and a group of up to 70 made the island their breeding spot. Grey seals are more common on the island than harbour seals, but both are now well established. The presence of seals attracts orcas, which are frequently seen in the waters around the Vestmannaeyjar archipelago and now frequent the waters around Surtsey.
On the submarine portion of the island, many marine species are found. Starfish are abundant, as are sea urchins and limpets. The rocks are covered in algae, and seaweed covers much of the submarine slopes of the volcano, with its densest cover between 10 and 20 metres (33 to 66 ft) below sea level.

Other life

Insects arrived on Surtsey soon after its formation, and were first detected in 1964. The original arrivals were flying insects, carried to the island by winds and their own power. Some were believed to have been blown across from as far away as Mainland Europe. Later insect life arrived on floating driftwood, and both live animals and carcasses washed up on the island. When a large, grass-covered tussock was washed ashore in 1974, scientists took half of it for analysis and discovered 663 land invertebrates, mostly mites and springtails, the great majority of which had survived the crossing.
The establishment of insect life provided some food for birds, and birds in turn helped many species to become established on the island. The bodies of dead birds provide sustenance for carnivorous insects, while the fertilization of the soil and resulting promotion of plant life provides a viable habitat for herbivorous insects.
Some higher forms of land life are now colonising the soil of Surtsey. The first earthworm was found in a soil sample in 1993, probably carried over from Heimaey by a bird. Slugs were found in 1998, and appeared to be similar to varieties found in the southern Icelandic mainland. Spiders and beetles have also become established.

What started as an eruption of a typical volcano gave birth to a new island and now, in under 50 years, it is teeming with life. Just imagine what could happen given the super-volcanic activity that must have accompanied the Flood and in the ~4,000 years since!

In an article on the island in the March 1995 issue of Creation, Carl Wieland quotes official Icelandic geologist Sigurdur Thorarinsson:

An Icelander who has studied geology and geomorphology at foreign universities is later taught by experience in his own homeland that the time scale he had been trained to attach to geological developments is misleading when assessments are made of the forces—constructive and destructive—which have molded and are still molding the face of Iceland. What elsewhere may take thousands of years may be accomplished here in one century. All the same he is amazed whenever he comes to Surtsey, because the same development may take a few weeks or even days here.

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. During the summer of 1964 and the following winter we not only had a lava dome with a glowing lava lake in a summit crater and red-hot lava flows rushing down the slopes, increasing the height of the dome and transforming the configuration of the island from one day to another. Here we could also see wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags lashed by the breakers of the sea. There were gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs … There were hollows, glens and soft undulating land. There were fractures and faultscarps, channels and screes … You might come to a beach covered with flowing lava on its way to the sea with white balls of smoke rising high up in the air. Three weeks later you might come back to the same place and be literally confounded by what met your eye. Now, there were precipitous lava cliffs of considerable height, and below them you would see boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round, on an abrasion platform cut into the cliff, and further out there was a sandy beach where you could walk at low tide without getting wet.’

Sigurdur Thorarinsson, Surtsey: The New Island in the North Atlantic (English translation by Viking Press in 1967, now out of print), pp. 39–40.

Wieland adds:

In a later, more popular account in National Geographic, Thorarinsson wrote:

‘ … in one week’s time we witness changes that elsewhere might take decades or even centuries … Despite the extreme youth of the growing island, we now encounter a landscape so varied that it is almost beyond belief.’

Sigurdur Thorarinsson, ‘Surtsey, island born of fire’, National Geographic 127(5):712–726, 1965

Here, much like the 1981 Mt. St. Helen's eruption, we have a living laboratory which provides a comparative test of the creation and evolution models. Geological formations and biological diversity which we have been taught takes millions of years happens before our eyes in days, weeks and years. This is hard, empirical evidence of the kind that creationism requires, for without it, the creationist timescale is in doubt (from a scientific point of view). On the other hand, this is the sort of evidence that is absolutely devastating to evolution as it renders the millions & billions of years insisted upon by the theory superfluous at best.

A few articles on the subject:

Surtsey, the young island that ‘looks old’

Surtsey Still Surprises

The lessons of Surtsey


These rates are also supported by other independent evidence for example from palaeomegnetics etc.

View Post

Interesting that you mention paleomagnetics, as it turns out to be another strong point for creationism - to the detriment of evolution. Dr. Russell Humphrey's investigated the evidence for reversals of earth's magnetic field and found it compelling. He postulated that they happened very rapidly (during the Flood) and later proposed a physical mechanism to explain such reversals. He then went on to make a specific, detailed prediction to test his theory:
 

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Now this is was a very 'risky' prediction. These reversals must have happened rapidly for the data to be explained within a creationist framework. Further, rapid reversals are not compatible with conventional magetic dynamo theories.
 
A few years later, his prediction was fulfilled - twice:
 

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.

Now that is solid science.

{The papers by Coe & Prévot are:

- R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292–298, April 1989.

- R.S. Coe, M. Prévot and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374(6564):687–692, 1995
}

Snelling writes:

Coe and Prevot commented:

This period [of 15 days] is undoubtedly an overestimate…Nonetheless, even this conservative figure of 15 days corresponds to an astonishingly rapid rate of variation of the geomagnetic field direction of 3° per day.

They also estimated that the minimum change in magnetic field intensity was at an average rate of at least 300 gammas per day. This compares with typically measured rates of geomagnetic variation globally today of only a few degrees per century and about 150 gammas per year. No wonder Coe and Prevot found the calculated rate in lava flow B51 at Steens Mountain hard to believe:

'The rapidity and large amplitude of geomagnetic variation that we infer from the remanence directions in flow B51, even when regarded as an impulse during a polarity transition, truly strains the imagination…’

With due caution, Coe and Prevot thus felt prompted to search for alternative explanations. However, since other hypotheses required ‘special pleading’, they decided that the most straightforward interpretation explains the data best, that is, ‘the balance of evidence now in hand weighs in favor of rapid geomagnetic field variation.' They concluded:

'We think that the most probable explanation of the anomalous remanence directions of flow B51 is the occurrence of a large and extremely rapid change in the geomagnetic field during cooling of the flow, and that this change most likely originated in the [earth’s] core. This interpretation must remain tentative until our investigation is completely finished, but, if true, it has important implications for the reversal process and the state of the earth’s interior.'

Those poor evolutionists just keep getting surprised...

Here is a list of articles on the subject. Much more can be found by following the references contained therein:

The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young

The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth

Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field

The ‘principle of least astonishment’!

Creation in the physics lab


If one invokes a faster spread rate then EVIDENCE must be brought forward. The evidence for plate tectonics and palaeo-drift rates are overwhelming.

View Post

Dr. John Baumgardner's theory of Catastophic Plate Tectonics is rather well developed. In fact, he contends that many geological features that are difficult to explain with conventional plate tectonics make much more sense within his model. It is not universally accepted within creationist circles, but it is definitely 'on the table'. You can find a boatload of material on his model by searching 'Catastophic Plate Tectonics' on both ICR'sand CMI's websites.

p.s. You can consider this post an initial response to your request in another post for a 'test and/or prediction that would directly support creationism'.

#94 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:20 AM

"it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day" ;)




"I know evolution is true."


"I know evolution is true."


"I know evolution is true." :lol:

#95 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 09 June 2009 - 02:53 AM

"it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day"  ;)
"I know evolution is true."
"I know evolution is true."
"I know evolution is true." :lol:

View Post


Maybe if you get yourself a pair of ruby-red slippers, close your eyes and click your heels together three times...:)

#96 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 June 2009 - 03:00 AM

Maybe if you get yourself a pair of ruby-red slippers, close your eyes and click your heels together three times...:D

View Post

;) :lol: :)

#97 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 09 June 2009 - 05:02 AM

I love the bind this kind of evidence puts evolutionists in. Geological features like those at Mt. St. Helen’s, Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington, Providence Canyon in southwest Georgia, Canyon Lake Gorge in Texas & Surtsey Island (with its teeming life) force evolutionists to engage in special pleading; insisting that these processes aren’t typical.

Concerning Humphreys’ work on magnetic field reversals (not to mention his very successful planetary magnetic field theory), evolutionists have to accommodate the data to their theory, whereas Humphreys predicted it.

#98 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 09 June 2009 - 06:39 AM

A good question to ask at this point is 'Is there any solid evidence that might lead one to question the conventional age of the Hawaiian Islands?' It just so happens that we do, right off the coast of Iceland: the Island of Surtsey. Surtsey was born in a volcanic eruption in 1963. What has happened since then? Wikipedia's page on the island states:
What started as an eruption of a typical volcano gave birth to a new island and now, in under 50 years, it is teeming with life. Just imagine what could happen given the super-volcanic activity that must have accompanied the Flood and in the ~4,000 years since!


Surtsey simply shows how quick a new volcanic island can be colonised by wildlife after is formation and nothing else.

Interesting that you mention paleomagnetics, as it turns out to be another strong point for creationism - to the detriment of evolution. Dr. Russell Humphrey's investigated the evidence for reversals of earth's magnetic field and found it compelling. He postulated that they happened very rapidly (during the Flood) and later proposed a physical mechanism to explain such reversals. He then went on to make a specific, detailed prediction to test his theory:


I have tried to get hold of the papers by Coe & Prévot but It requires payment to Nature (unless youhave a copy you could provide me with). All this evidence shows is that the mechanism for pole reversal is not yet well understood. It may indeed change rapidly/fluctuate during a longer period of change, however this is only one small bit of evidence.

Posted Image

Oceanic floor spreading and the recorded palaeomagnetism clearly shows long periods of sustained magnetism and reversals. Based on current day spreading rates these represent long (millions of years) periods. No doubt you will say that the rates were faster in the past to account for this, but please just think through the consequences of this. If you only have 6,000 years or so to fit in all of the observed plate movements then they would have occurred 1000's of times faster than the typical cm or so a year today. Where is the evidence from the historical record? 2,000 years ago the land masses would have been SIGNIFICANTLY closer together than today. And just when do you suppose that the spreading rates changed? 100AD, 1,066AD last century?

p.s. You can consider this post an initial response to your request in another post for a 'test and/or prediction that would directly support creationism'.

View Post


This is not evidence. Any prediction would also have to account for the other observed palaemagentic changes in the rock record (i.e. the ones that have lasted considerably longer). A prediction or test must be able to account for ALL of the obersved data and not just a cherry picked sub set.

Hey, one quick question. If your Hawaiian plate has moved at the same rate, why is the youngest island also the biggest?

View Post


The oldest islands have been sub aerially exposed for a longer time and have therefore been subject to more erosion.

Indeed, why are there islands (plural)? Why isn't it just one long island?

:lol:  Typical evostory. If anyone pays any attention at all, they're immune.

View Post


It is one long island!

Posted Image
The entire Archipelago is one long SINGLE structure that rises some 6,000m above the sea floor. Over time the vocanic activity has waxed and waned. When it's at it's periodic maximum the seamounts break the the ocean surface and form new islands.

The aging of the islands with distance from the current hot spot is demonstrated in the diagram below, where distance along the chain is approximated as distance away from Kilauea volcano (the youngest above-sea-level Hawaiian volcano).
Posted Image

#99 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 09 June 2009 - 07:04 AM

just quickly...

Surtsey simply shows how quick a new volcanic island can be colonised by wildlife after is formation and nothing else.

View Post

Note that the geological processes were also were taking place at an 'unbeleiveable' rate.

I have tried to get hold of the papers by Coe & Prévot but It requires payment to Nature (unless youhave a copy you could provide me with).

View Post

Unfortunately, no :lol:

All this evidence shows is that the mechanism for pole reversal is not yet well understood. It may indeed change rapidly/fluctuate during a longer period of change, however this is only one small bit of evidence.

View Post

Evolutionists have long maintained that magentic reversals, as well as so many other processes, take millions, if not billions of years. They were wrong here (and many other places) - why should we have confidence in their other pronouncments of age and process?

This is not evidence. Any prediction would also have to account for the other observed palaemagentic changes in the rock record (i.e. the ones that have lasted considerably longer). A prediction or test must be able to account for ALL of the obersved data and not just a cherry picked sub set.

View Post

Really? Humphreys prediction here related specifically to magnetic reversal rates and he nailed it (just as he has with his predictions of planetary magnetic field values). Further, your assertion that 'a prediction or test must be able to account for ALL of the obersved data and not just a cherry picked sub set' disqualifies the evolutionary timescale as they did not predict rapid reversals and were very surprised by the evidence.

It seems a habit among evolutionary believers that they demand of creationists what they will not demand of their own: that they explain everything right now. Troublesome data and unexplained phenomena 'falsify' creationism whereas they are simply 'research opportunities' for evolutionists.

Even when creationists do solid science with successful predictions, they are dismissed.

#100 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 09 June 2009 - 08:49 AM

Going back to the impetus for my initial post, here is a bit that I was unaware of. In 2001, Mark Armitage of the Creation Research Society reported his research on mummified collagen fibers in fossil Tyrannosaurus Rex bone :

Abstract

A specimen of hip bone from a Tyrannosaurus rex, excavated from a ranch in Wyoming over 100 years ago, and thought to be 65 million years old is shown, by scanning electron microscopy, to have intact, mummified microscopic collagen fibers and other ultrastructural features within compact bone. Bone Haversian canals as well as lacunae and canaliculi are well preserved. Networks of collagen fibers remain intact within lacunae and what may be mummified osteocytes are shown to be present. Twenty-year-old, similarly fractured natural human hip bone shows comparable patterns of canals, collagen networks and cells, including crenated erythrocytes. Hip bone from “Moab man,” human remains collected from Utah and thought to be less than 200 years old, contains no such soft tissue features within compact bone. Moab man specimens appear cleanly stripped of soft tissues and harbor burrowing insect remains. These data call into question the long ages ascribed to these dinosaur fossils and support their rapid preservation in the absence of decomposers. The high level of ultrastructural preservation also implies that these dinosaur bones are simply not very old.

Just something to add to the pot.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users