Where Darwin Went Wrong

Charles Darwin camped on the Santa Cruz River at the basalt cliffs on April 26, 1834. From "Camp Darwin" in Argentina he interpreted the river valley as having been eroded by extremely slow process during enormous time. Dr. Steve Austin shows that the landscape that Darwin saw was eroded extremely rapidly by a giant river flood that was six miles wide and four hundred feet deep. The Santa Cruz River marks an early blunder in Darwin's career. How else was Darwin wrong about science?

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Where Darwin Went Wrong
• WhereDarwinWentWrong
• Charles Darwin
• Darwin
• Charles Lyell
• wrong
• evolution
• darwinism
• evolutionist
• uniformitarianism
• catastrophism
• creation
• creationist
• natural selection
• creationism
• evolutionism
• Austin
• Steve Austin
• Steven A. Austin
• geology
• geologist
• flood
• erosion
• geomorphology
• origins
• Argentina
• Patagonia
• Santa Cruz River
• Camp Darwin
• glacier outburst flood
• boulder
• deposit
• megaflood
• megariver
• glacier
• glaciation
• dam
• rupture
• breached dam

[WhereDarwinWentWrong]

Wikipedia entry "Santa Cruz River (Argentina)" follows Austin's thoughts: "One wonders how Darwin's thinking may have been different had his ship reached the glacial lake and the geology paradyms of Lyell seen as not always reliable, a paradym Darwin would extrapolate from the realms of geology to biology. The Santa Cruz river valley is one of many valleys once thought to have been cut slowly over millions of years but today recognized to have been made quickly by catastrophic glacial flooding."

[H4z3y420]

lol this video is perfect for people with a god complex. IMO I think free thought is better than continueing a religious tradition of believing evolution isn't real. I am spiritual and acknowledge God/nature, but I am not going to hold on to religious dogma's like all these creationists do. Philosophy took a huge hit when people closed their minds to questioning the creation of the universe because they were too loyal to the church's dogma.

[WhereDarwinWentWrong]

@H4z3y420 Although we could talk about religion and philosophy here, we have focused our attention on Charles Darwin as a geologist. Many geologists are ready to admit that Darwin was wrong in his interpretation of the erosion of Santa Cruz River valley. What is most interesting is that Darwin had access to what we now believe is the "correct" way of thinking about the erosion of the valley. Darwin deliberately rejected that good way of thinking, and followed the idea of Charles Lyell.

[prschuster]

What else was Darwin wrong about? Gee, let me guess. Oh, I know. Just because he was wrong about gradual change with erosion by the Santa Cruz River, he must also be wrong about gradual evolutionary change? Is that your argument against evolution?

[WhereDarwinWentWrong]

@prschuster If you would have met Charles Darwin in the 1840's, he might have talked with you at length about geology. Geology was on his mind. Darwin showed himself to be great at observation. Darwin was not very good at interpretation. What you see in reading Darwin's geology publications is his use of observations to make interpretations--that is his methodology. His methodology of doing geology was not very good. That reflects on Darwin as a scientist.

[WhereDarwinWentWrong]

GSA poster text of "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River" by Austin & Strelin (2011), says, "These spillover cobbles indicate that one megaflood was 100-m deep and 10-km wide. Flood discharge can be estimated from the Manning Equation using channel cross-sectional dimensions, channel roughness, and channel slope. The Manning parameters at Rincon Grande allow us to estimate this megaflood's mean flood flow velocity at over 5 m/sec and discharge at 5 million m3/sec."

[fossilguy9]

@lawilson200 Your spelling tells us about you. You wrote,"Wikipedia is not like the Enclycopedia Britanica, ... if Enclycopedia Britanica ...." Are you referring to Encyclopedia Britannica? My English teacher told me "Spelling is important!"

[lawilson200]

@WhereDarwinWentWrong "Darwin deliberately rejected that good way of thinking" What does that suppose to mean? Charles Lyell based Prinicples of Geology on Isaac Newton, James Hutton and John Herschell. Are you saying Newton and Hutton had bad thoughts too?

It is time you end this lie. that all it is. A lie. It a line of arguments developed by Austin that never had support of history, philosophy or even reality.

[lawilson200]

@WhereDarwinWentWrong

After three years, please tell us. how did "Darwin ... access to what we now believe is the the 'correct' way of thinking ..." has anything to do with anything? Darwin's theory of evolution is still regarded as the best idea ever and it has expanded far beyond what Darwin could possible have known. How does the Santa Cruz River change this? Stop with the innuendos and actually produce something. Darwin or megefloods, you can't have it both ways,

[lawilson200]

@WhereDarwinWentWrong -

I am really growing tired of you constantly making this false accusation. It shows that you have not bothered (after 3 years) to actually understand history, including life of Charles Darwin and geology during the 19th Century. First, Darwin role in all this is strictly historical. Second, Darwin admitted in his autobriography, that his position on the Ice Age and Glen Roy in particular, were wrong. Catastrophism is a bogus argument as are you!

[lawilson200]

@WhereDarwinWentWrong You do realize this is completely meaningless. Wikipedia is not like the Enclycopedia Britanica, especially since any one and every one can place an entry, update and change a previous entry. I would be more impressed if Enclycopedia Britanica supports "Austin's thought."

I am still waiting for the peer reivew papers. It is time for Austin to stop being lazy and actually produce somehting more than a poster.

[geferlek3]

@WhereDarwinWentWrong I like the last sentences of the Wikipedia article: "The Santa Cruz river valley is one of many valleys once thought to have been cut slowly over millions of years but today recognized to have been made quickly by catastrophic glacial flooding. Catastrophic deglaciation flooding has also been suggested related to glacial Lake Missoula in the Northwestern United States and although initially ridiculed is now accepted as the prevailing view."

[geologyeducation1]

@fossilguy9 "Best Posting" vote of 2011 clearly goes to Carrmike1,"What if my prediction for 2011 comes true? I believe a "major player" in the geology of the Santa Cruz River will go public about megaflood evidence. That's when I would stop posting if I were you! You will not "bet" on what I believe will happen, but you should drop out when it happens. The debate is not over, it has just begun! Watch and see."

[geologyeducation1]

@fossilguy9 "Worst Posting" nomination geos to Lawilson200 for, "Since it is you who is making these exaggerated claims on the works of Jorge Strelin, the burden falls on you to prove. All you need to do is give us the name of the paper, the page number and the exact quote supporting 1) A massive lake; 2) megaripples and 3) flood erratics. I am all ears." See Austin & Strelin, 2011, "Megafloods on the Santa Cruz River..." Geol Soc Am. Abstracts with Programs, vol 43, no 5, p. 249.