A Birth Of A New Island Revealed Some Surprises

An enormous undersea volcanic eruption took place as a column of ash, cinders, and pumice were blown up to 1,000 feet in the air eventually after four months of erupting the ash reached  30,000 feet for a period time. Then on November 1963, off the south coast of Iceland, among the Westman Islands, an island named; Surtsey was born. It was thought by many scientists to be an ideal place to study evolution but it turned up some interesting surprises which is still surprising to this day for evolutionists.

Surtsey in a short period of time looked mature crushing the evolutionary slow process framework as one wrote in 1967. “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.”

The island has all sorts of complexity which was supposed to be beyond it’s youth, like sandy beaches, channels, ‘boulders worn by the surf which were nearly round, gravel banks, cliffs, faultscarps, and gullies.

This proves, the birth of an island does not take millions of years to form like stated in the uniformitarian theory which was gaining acceptance before Darwin formulated his version of evolution.

January 2006 article in New Scientist, “The island has excited geographers, who marvel that canyons, gullies and other land features that typically take tens of thousands or millions of years to form were created in less than a decade.”

It was also a surprise the flowering plants were the first to take root on the island not lichens and mosses. Lichens came a few years later in 1967, and then mosses in 1970. One wonders why lichens and mosses were assumed to be the first invaders of a newly born island.

As we can see, the evolutionary paradigm didn’t have any predictive value whatsoever to describe such an awesome phenomena. One couldn’t find any complex adaptation to the newly created surroundings, nor even a replication of ecosystems on neighbouring islands.

Insects were the first to come, spiders followed, birds came after the lava stop flowing around 1970. This is a great lesson to be learn, as evolutionists like to argue all the time, that the phenomena we seen at Surtsey (and other islands we haven’t observe being created) are suppose to take between tens of thousands of years, to millions to accomplish through naturalism. But in fact, islands do not take nearly that time at all, again what we observed with Surtsey has proven an island becomes mature quite quickly which is within the framework of the creationist model. So Surtsey is not a great study for evolution after all, but instead it’s a great study for creationism.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “A Birth Of A New Island Revealed Some Surprises

  1. You really are contradicting yourself – so the island formed through natural causes, yet it is a great example for creationism ?

    The island is a classic case of biocolonisation – life from neighbouring islands, and the main island of Iceland itself, simply hopped over. What has that got to do with evolution ?

    BTW: the island is likely to erode away, just like its neighbours. Nothing new there, these island pop up all the time.

  2. No link origin links…lol…You mean you can answer this on your own…lol…Surtsey gives us insight to how we got post-Flood distribution of plants and animals we see in the world today. I don’t really think you understand creationism. Let me give you insight, Everything has a purpose, God created mechanisms on earth such as thunderstorms for example. “Geologist Sveinn Jakobsson of the Surtsey Research Society estimates that Surtsey’s ash plains will be totally washed away within a century or so. And there’s a lesson in that, too—fast erosion means the world is young.”

  3. I guess you mean links to http://www.talkorigins.org, this one-stop very handy database of creationist rebuttals ?
    Of course I can answer this on my own, but why should I when someone else has already done so, and I agree with their answer ? Surtsey is not on there, though.
    Surtsey shows biocolonisation in action, and nothing else.

    So do you think for yourself, or do all your answers come from your one book ? Or, perhaps, from the web ?

    Your quote from Jakobsson helped me to find where you copied most of your post from, by the way. Google helped me find http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1314758

    You should reference that (it was written by David Catchpoole).

    Is http://www.freedominion.com.pa the website where you get most of your wisdom from ?

  4. biocolonisation? is that one of more species populating a new area? If so, that’s colonization not biocolonisation…Where did you get that word from? Surtsey showed for it’s youthful age, a matured state, remember evolution is believed to move rather slowly.

  5. Biocolonization is simply colonization by all sort of life, not just humans (for which the word ‘colonization’ is typically used). Just look up Surtsey on wikipedia, or wherever.

    Are you really trying to say that on a new island like Surtsey, close to the coast of Iceland, life *should* form ‘ab initio’ all over again from nothing ? That really is stupid reasoning, I cannot find any other word for that ….

    That would take 2 billion years. But then you would have to completely isolate the island from the rest of the planet, which is not only hard, but has not been done. Existing life simply hopped over (well, flying, mostly), and that takes no time at all.

    So what about my questions ? Why do you answer with questions again (which I dutifully answered) ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s