Wibble: Yes Mike, technically. Your fondness for analogies is just something for you to hide behind instead of actually tackling the science. An escape up a side alley.
If you look at the context of my posts you'll see someone who admits to a compelling case for both age and youth has no reason to "escape".
My post is to show you that inescapable logical rules mean that an induction of evidence, no matter how personally impressive, has little to do with, "proof".
As for the science, some basic reading I have done on your proposed example has already led me to several errors you have made.
One of those errors is an ad hominem attack that CMI isn't honest. The chances are the examples they speak of are either common knowledge to science or are linked at the bottoms of the page. You can contact CMI about this and I am satisfied they will be able to show you.
I also think it's a real case of the pot calling the kettle black that we are told by atheists to never accept answered prayer, even incredibly specific answered prayers, as anything more that coincidence, but when your little example of the datings growing larger as expected with your prediction comes along, you then drop any possibility of coincidence. There could be any number of unknown reasons why a rate isn't what you think it is. This is because there are so many assumptions behind any rate that is based on uniform measures.
Your example of an atoll for example, logically unless you can prove the reef itself is the same long age your propose the island is, then it isn't evidence of the island's age, which is an example of your poor understanding of logic, for if the atoll is thousands of years old, that doesn't prove an island is millions of years old.
The supposed slow growth of coral reefs has been claimed by evolutionists to show that coral atolls required many tens of thousands of years to form, but in fact coral can grow rapidly—see Telling a geological tale for surprising visual evidence of this. The 4½ thousand years since the Flood is adequate time for today’s coral atolls to have developed, especially considering the accelerated growth that the warm post-Flood seas would have induced—
The reason I don't get into these details is it is like a can of worms. It goes from discussing one line of evidence, to another, to another, until the minutia is bandied around endlessly and the evolutionist will just go on insisting that there MUST be age, ad nauseam. The fact is I have shown there mustn't be age unless you assume the rates of change are forever the same, which is a logical error.
The reason I use CMI is because all of the most predictable evolutionist arguments used by amateurs on forums, aren't arguments those evolutionists have come up with themselves, but are usually the same regurgitated old canards that have been argued for decades, which the evolutionist thinks are irrefutable examples but most of the time simply aren't. So CMI basically is a site condensed to give all of the answers most conveniently, to all of the common sophistry evolutionists use instead of using critical thinking and genuine rationalism.
All you have said here is, "I believe in this rate, that it can only be old", but that changes nothing I have said, because as with the corals, sometimes it can even be shown things happen quickly but evolutionists can't wait for examples of things happening quickly, so they argue from ignorance;
"I see no reason or evidence there is any cause other than old age therefore there isn't one."
And then what? And then they find corals growing super fast.
This is nearly always the case but you have memory problems you evolutionists. You forget that once upon a time you gave a long list of things which, "can only happen with long age" and you conveniently whistle in the silence when it is revealed that all or most of that list has been vanquished with examples of things that can happen quickly.
That is why the car analogy is germane, for a car's speed can change, and so can the growth of a coral reef. Stone can happen quickly too, in Yorkshire they put soft toys under a waterfall and come back in a year and the sediment flow has turned them to stone. We can also get coal quickly, petrification, all sorts. None of these things depend on age, but you repeat the dead arguments forgetting all of the examples that have been disproven.
Wibble: Irrational belief irks me, whether it is astrology, crystal healing, climate change denial or young earth.
Begging-the-question fallacy. (which you would know if you were a rationalist like me, which you aren't.)
IMPLYING you are rational then including creationism in a list of things that are irrational, doesn't mean you are rational and creation isn't, for associating yourself with rationalism but not being able to comprehend it, isn't any proof you are rational. If you were rational and we as creationists aren't, then why did you commit such an irrational BTQ fallacy?
So what do you want? Do you want me to pretend I am a scientist like you do, and that I have read into your case for the islands? That is inappropriate. As a person of truth, unlike the laymen evolutionists on forums, I for one don't pretend to know things I don't, and I don't pretend to be a scientist by associating myself with it.
So of course I don't understand the particulars of your dating method - why would I? But you yourself have only read an article or two about it, which we both know.
I myself have no reason to say, "this science is all wrong" but it seems clear to me that this method can't be trusted to have any accuracy.
Yes technically, you could surmise that the plate motion is not constant but just happens to be currently at a rate that ties in with the rate deduced from the spatial change in radiometric dates along the chain.
Wibble: Well then, what possible explanation do you have for that graph which seems to show that the rate of movement has been constant over the last 70 million years ? Did exactly the right amount of contaminating argon just happen to be present in the lavas that built each island and seamount ? Why did the amount of argon retained in the rock increase along the chain in just the right way so that it gives apparent ages that fit so well with the measured rate ? Pure coincidence ?
Poor reasoning again. You are asking me to accept the dates given which indicate 70 million years, in objecting to me not accepting a date of 70 million years. THINK about it Wibble - use your brain for once since you are so rational and we a bunch of crystal healers. You are saying this; "if you think this dating method is wrong because it dated a new rock we know is new to be a million years old or whatever, then how come these other rocks we say are 70 million years old because of the dating method, are dated older?"
That is the CIRCULARITY in your argument. I don't accept a dating method as accurate then you say, "but look what the dating method shown". LOL
If the dates from rock we know to be fairly recent give millions of years, why then should rock maybe a couple of thousand years old or older, not also give a higher date of more millions of years?
Like with the RATE example from Humphreys, the same data which may give an expected pattern of old age, can also be a pattern expected for young age.
If anything the fact new rocks can be dated to be millions of years old, gives us IMMENSE logical credence, in arguing that the date can't be trusted because it can give millions of years for new rock. So then logically if it gives us millions of years for new rock, what might it do for rock that is hundreds or thousands of years old?
The very obvious answer even for you should be this; "well, give us perhaps many millions of years of age."
EXAMPLE: I date your shoes being 20 years old, to be 1,000 years old.
Okay then, so how old will I date shoes that are 200 years old? (kegs) I date them at 10,000 years old.
But the point is - you simply can't trust something that far off the mark to begin with, so your rate of changing dates could mean the happening of something that occurred over thousands of years or hundreds of years.
You may buy shoes every ten years, rather than every 1,000 years. So if the islands did happen not concurrently in some fashion, even quickly but successively , we may also expect the same pattern despite the lack of age.
So stop attacking me and creationists personally, and relying on insults. As you can see I get deal with all the details if I want to, and you haven't shown anything remarkable here Wibble, you simply think you have because of your desire to believe it happened over eons of great time.