The usual line from the YEC camp that catastrophic plate tectonics occurred during the flood when the continents shifted into today's position over a period of days or weeks does not in the slightest tally with this evidence of radiometric ages, erosion and reef structures, while it is completely in accord with the mainstream view.
Logically irrelevant. You know why? because your example is one of isolated induction.
That is to say, I can take a Jack the ripper suspect, and give you what seems like a solid induction as to why only him being the ripper, can explain such evidence but really you are taking a line of evidence in isolation, and ignoring all of the other evidence which does not fit your notion. You have simply affirmed the consequent in your mind, because "if theory X evidences P is expected" you have then reversed it and concluded that because of evidence P, therefore X.
First, it is not one line of evidence, there are two independent lines of converging evidence.
Rejecting the other evidence for cause is not the same as ignoring it.
As would be expected if the islands formed over a very long timespan the island centred over the hotspot (Hawaii) is the largest and least weathered. The islands become progressively smaller and more rugged along the chain and are followed by flat topped underwater seamounts and coral atolls.
Potassium-argon dating has subsequently confirmed this age progression, covering 80 million years of island formation and erosion.....
If an island's potassium-argon age is divided by the island's distance from the hotspot it can be shown that the islands have moved at an average rate of 6.6-9.1 cms per year.
GPS can measure the rate of movement today. These measurements give a rate of about 7.9 cms per year, right in the middle of the range deduced independently from the radiometric dates.
Right, the R.A.T.E. study. Remember, I said the evidence is rejected "for cause?"
Here's what Dr. Larry Vardiman, head of the R.A.T.E. group had to say about the findings:
Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth.
We don't even need to discuss the radiation poisoning of Noah, his family, and menagerie as the potassium in their bodies undergoes rapid radioactive decay.
Further, there is no proposed mechanism for the acceleration of radioactive decay nor is there a proposed mechanism for the decay rate changing to modern, measured values. This is a significant problem in its own right.
I submit that vaporizing the oceans and melting the crust is sufficient cause to reject the R.A.T.E. findings without further consideration. You probably consider such conditions to be a minor inconvenience.
Coral reefs provide a further layer of evidence of great ages. The younger islands at the south east of the chain have fringing reefs. With age progression to the north west barrier reefs appear and then finally atolls. This can only happen as the island slowly subsides and erodes over millions of years.
Also, around the youngest islands (between Molokai and Hawaii) there are terraced reefs going down to a depth of 1500m caused by the combined effect of subsidence (as the island has moved away from the hotspot) and sea level rise at the end of successive glacial stages during the Pleistocene (making a mockery of the YEC assertion of a single 500 yr ice age after the Flood). Corals can only grow a few cms a year max and reefs don’t form below about 50m depth.
Warning signs in my mind go off when I hear people say; "this can only happen if evolution and millions of years are true", because let's face it, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether you are correct, nor can you test if you are. For all you know it has absolutely nothing to do with age.
Red herring fallacy noted. Nothing has been mentioned about evolution. Not a word. This is about geology and physics, not biology.
Do you have an alternative explanation for the apparent age of the islands in terms of erosion and coral and radiometric findings and measured movements by GPS all converge on ages in the millions of years, not thousands? An explanation that "has absolutely nothing to do with age."
Warning bells go off in my mind when people reject multiple lines of evidence, propose an explanation that will melt the planet for one and offer no alternative at all for the other three.
The lawyer expression comes to mind.... (paraphrasing)....
"When your client is guilty argue the law, when he is innocent argue the facts."
It's noteworthy you spend far more effort arguing the "law" than the "facts."
Sure, you want to affirm-the-consequent badly, by proclaiming evidence unique only to great age, but that's just not how it works. Very seldom indeed, do the scientists that don't accept great ages, actually have problems explaining it without that age.
Well, some of us might think melting the planet is a problem.
Will you present some evidence showing the Hawaiian Island chain is not millions of years old?
Essentially barrier reefs don't need millions of years, movement at 7cm a year don't need millions of years unless you assume millions of fictional years to begin with.
Totally unsupported assertions noted.
Argumentum-ad-absurdum fallacy noted (ie: "fictional").
It is a complete falsehood that radiometric dating processes "assume millions of fictional years to begin with." They do have assumptions, but "millions of years" is not one of them.
Nor do GPS measurements have anything at all to do with an assumption of "millions of fictional years to begin with."
Complete absence of an alternative explanation noted.
EXAMPLE of circular reasoning;
"This person has been walking at 2mph around the world...look, we can show that for the past three years he has done this at a 2mph rate, therefore because he claims to have travelled X amount, and this figure would fit exactly with our theory he has been walking since he was three years old, around the planet, therefore he has been walking around the planet for this long and because we believe he is actually 145 years old, then these figures all match with each other as if it was a 2mph rate then that would fit with him walking the earth for 142 years, as he admits he has done X mileage."
But this assumes that those years existed to begin with and that the rate was the same for the years they did not measure.
Your analogy is fatally flawed. In this case, the person has checked in at multiple "time clocks" along the way. Each island in the chain acts as a "time clock. So you not only have the age of the person, but the time he reached multiple points along the route.
There is no assumption the years existed. Each island along the chain acts as a check for the rate of motion. Simply divide the distance by the estimated age of the island. Do that island-by-island down the length of the chain and you get a check that the rate has been consistent for as long as the islands have been
What you do not seem to realize is that each island is a separate "mile post" and the plot demonstrates that the rate of motion has been consistent for as far back as the data goes.
You need to address the data, Mike.
Think about it, it's begging-the-question because in order for your long age date to work, first you need to assume you have millions of years worth of annual 7cm rates to play with, which is actually what you are trying to prove. But equally I can argue logically thus; "if there weren't millions of years, why are they moving slowly?" Then by answer we can see that in the past the earth was one super continent, which split apart, and it makes sense that when such things happen, they happen catastrophically. It makes sense that a violent event cause the pangea to split, which is the actual cause of the movement, as well as the plate activity, not long ages. So then if the islands were already X amount apart and have been moving for most of the time since, at 7cm, then that is perfectly explainable without long age. (Do you know the original place they were, if you assume a 7cm rate? For example if you extrapolate backwards, that might fit with long ages, but what if they haven't drifted that far? Did you think to ask that question?) For example, if a car breaks down, if someone pushes it from one town to the next at a certain rate, that works only if you know they started pushing from that town, but if they drive 90% of the way, then broke down, then you don't need the hour you thought you needed.) In the same way, if they have only been drifting for a short amount because of their original location then you don't need millions of years.
You are really good at obfuscation, Mike.
Not only that, but your fixation that an assumption of millions of years is a necessary starting point is approaching argumentum-ad-absurdam proportions.
The cause of the movement is irrelevant to determining the time of travel. Further, it doesn't matter if it is the hot spot or the crust that is moving. Even if both are moving, the time it takes to burn thru will be the same.
Logically it's weak evidence and a tenuous case to accept that millions of years of history exist based on a rate because the rates can change. So then you have to say that the rate an island moves, can never be beyond cm a year. Can you provide scientific evidence that physics won't allow matter to move beyond 7cm per year?
Straw man. No one says matter can't move faster than 7cm/yr. What is said is that the DATA supports a conclusion the rate of movement for the Hawaiian Island chain is about 7 cm/yr.
There is no EVIDENCE the rate of motion was more than a few centimeters a year and you have certainly provided none.
Let's ass-u-me for a second that the R.A.T.E. finding will not melt the planet and radioactive decay rates were a million or so times faster than in the past. That would mean the islands would need to have been moving a million times faster. That's 7,000 km/yr or a little under 20 km/day.
Do you have any EVIDENCE supporting such a claim?