Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 February 2017 - 04:38 PM

How is the formation of the Hawaiian island chain explained according to a YEC timeframe ?

These volcanic islands have been formed as the Pacific plate has slowly drifted in a north westerly direction over a stationary “hotspot” lying beneath the crust. Thus volcanoes have risen from the seafloor and remained active until tectonic movement cuts off the magma supply. The newest volcano, Loihi, is 22 miles to the south east of Hawaii but hasn't broken the surface yet, the summit still 975m underwater.
 

Attached File  Hawaiian_Hotspot.jpg   299.18KB   1 downloads

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.

 

Attached File  volc_age.jpg   40.71KB   0 downloads
 

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.

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.

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.



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:02 AM

 

 

Wibble: 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.

 

 

 

Wibble: 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

 

In the very same way, Humphrey's predicted rate of decay for helium was bang on balls accurate, for a young earth. 

 

So? 

 

http://creation.com/...onfound-critics

 

Attached File  rate.jpg   77.8KB   0 downloads

 

You can also expect 7.9cm a year from a flood thousands of years ago as evidence anyway, or are you saying that if there was an explosion fifteen years ago you would still expect shrapnel to be flying around at 500mph?

 

:rotfl3: 

 

 

 

Wibble: This can only happen as the island slowly subsides and erodes over millions of years.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Your argument is basically circular, you are arguing great age, then showing the evidence you think can only point back to great age but this depends on first assuming you have all of those years for a rate of 7cm..

 

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.

 

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.

 

So then you CONFLATE the cause, with long ages.

 

Another example of circular reasoning is this;

 

"well there is an incomplete fossil record."

"why?"

"because there are no transitionals."

"why?"

Because there is an incomplete record."

"why is it incomplete?"

"because there are no transitionals."

 

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?



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:18 AM

 

 

One of the characteristics of the magma (lava) that erupts on these islands is that it is very rich in radiogenic argon. Samples from the islands regularly give ages that are far too old. We quote examples on creation.com of lava observed to have erupted in the last 200 years on those islands that gave ages of many millions of years. So, the potassium-argon ages quoted are by no means definitive and there is a good precedent for not accepting them.

http://creation.com/hawaii-hot-spot

 

:acigar:



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 489 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:22 PM

 
Treating us to your trademark inconsequential waffle I see to avoid actually addressing the scientific evidence.

Sure you can posit that the rate of movement was different in the past but what actual evidence have you got for that ?

I haven’t presented today’s measured tectonic movement as evidence in isolation have I ? So it’s hardly isolated induction. It matches with the inferred rate from the sequence of radiometric dates, there is the observational evidence of the increased erosion of the islands along the chain, and there is the reef type sequence. Each one of which consigns 4000 years to the dustbin. Again, what evidence do you have that all the islands and seamounts are only a few thousand yrs old and/or formed at the same time ?

If you had any evidence you would present it rather than produce something completely off topic, as in the Humphrey helium diffusion graph which you haven’t critically evaluated but blindly present as some sort of counter argument. If you are interested in discussing that start another topic, it has nothing to do with the dating of volcanic island chains.
 

http://creation.com/hawaii-hot-spot
 
:acigar:


There you go, blindly presenting something else from CMI again without evaluating. If this was true, there would be no pattern to the data, and it would very likely not match the GPS measurements. Here's the graph of radiometric dates again, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Attached File  volc_age.jpg   40.71KB   0 downloads






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users