Lyell Geology Influence Found To Be Incorrect

In the year of a celebration concerning the found of evolution, geologists decided to revisit a site where Darwin himself had visited during his voyage of the Beagle.  Darwin was first a geologist, his study of the boulders were declared wrong  In fact, modern geologists say, the “Darwin’s Boulders” were deposited by a completely different process.

Geological Society of America’s December issue stated the reason for this error was based on a bad influence…

“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.”

Here’s Darwin’s story:  the land supposedly rose slowly over millions of years where icebergs carrying boulders from far away became stranded in the shallow water.  Then these boulders and where left behind. However, the latest story is much different: supposed avalanches up in the Andes dropped the boulders onto glaciers, which ferried them many miles toward the coast.  When the glaciers melted, the boulders were left behind.

Notice the differences.  Darwin interpretation was based on his vision of slow and gradual. Lyell’s geology was accommodating to the new hypothesis. Today, geologists envision the potential of massive avalanches and long-distance glaciation. based on cosmogenic nuclide dating methods. These dating methods place the boulders age  around 22-74 thousand-year range – not millions of years old. However as you might have noticed already, they had their own problems with this data.

“Our Bahía San Sebastian dates reveal anomalously young ages (74.4 to 38.1 k.y.) for moraines previously interpreted to be ~1 m.y., thus requiring significant reworking.”

Let’s see, Darwin got it wrong because he was influenced by Lyell but modern secular geologists were influenced by Darwin and got it right. It’s interesting to note that the article did not have anything particularly nice to say about Lyell or uniformitarianism. But in light of that downplayed it so Darwin didn’t look bad only that he lacked the tools.

Creationism has been light years ahead in geology compared to Darwinists. Nicholas Steno, the father of stratigraphy, was a creationist.  Many early geologists like Sedgwick had a Biblical framework and criticized Darwin himself for rejecting modern geology at that time.  Lyell was the first to try and separate geology from the biblical account.

Creation papers that describe a universal flood do so within the constraints of the geological processes involved rather than with a filtered worldview of Lyellian uniformitarian.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Lyell Geology Influence Found To Be Incorrect

  1. Michael: “Darwin was first a geologist, …”

    WHAT??!? WHAT??? WHAT?!!? Darwin a geologist? You must have been reading a Creationist history book again. Please give a source for that stupid remark.

    Michael: “In fact, modern geologists say, the “Darwin’s Boulders” were deposited by a completely different process”

    Darwin was wrong about siome things. Only in creationism does nothing ever change when the evidence changes. That is a failing of creationism, not of science.

    Michael: “Notice the differences. Darwin interpretation was based on his vision of slow and gradual. Lyell’s geology was accommodating to the new hypothesis. Today, geologists envision the potential of massive avalanches and long-distance glaciation. based on cosmogenic nuclide dating methods.”

    In 1912, Alfred Wegener based his continental drift theory opn the action of winds and tides. Then we found oyut about the shifting of gigantic plates on a plastic mantle. But the continents astill move, even though the reason was wrong.

    Michael: “Let’s see, Darwin got it wrong because he was influenced by Lyell but modern secular geologists were influenced by Darwin and got it right.”

    In science, tyou don’t get things right or wrong according to who “influences” you. Why do you persist in applying theological mindsets into science? No wonder you don’t understand what is going on.

  2. Pingback: Evolutionary Tree vs Molecular Data « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

  3. Both Lyell and Darwin were victims of mis-interpretations. What they saw as uplift of the crust was not. It was not that the crust had uplifted buy rather it was that the sea had receded. There lies the rub. Aggazzi came along and added glaciology and the ice burden. He then came up with the Isostatic Rebound Theory which is the bane of geology up to the present time. We have to get rid of “Isostatic Rebound” and start looking at the seas recession. Science will make a quantun leap forward with all the new discoveries to be made if we just get rid of “Isostatic Rebound” and relegate the theory to the scientific scrapheap. See: widemargin2000.com or email richard_guy72@yahoo.com or tel 347-275-5616 for arranging speaking engagements.
    Richard Guy

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