Geology

... only reason I would add that though is that evolution is dependent on an ancient earth. So biological evolution rests on the interpretations of geology in that light. Darwin even acknowledged geology and the teachings of Hutton and Lyell.

See entire post

... a workable theory. Panspermia fails, as FZ demonstrated, and spontaneous generation went out over a century ago. AFJ seems to be obsessed with geology, which has very little to do with biological theories. Are we to infer from this that there is no alternative theory to evolution? Hm . . .

See entire post

... this post * Reply with quote New postby AstusAleator » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:02 am http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/c ... t/83/2/161 http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... 18/12/1199 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5430/1025 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... ne&aid=623 ...

See entire post

http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/2/161 http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/12/1199 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/285/5430/1025 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=623 ...

See entire post

... Nobody has witnessed firsthand the subsurface forces that account for all of our rocks except extrusive volcanics and sediments. Does this mean Geology is not a science? Finally: Biology = study of life If we knew the exact definition of life, would we need biology?

See entire post