Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 492 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.


  • Goku and mike the wiz like this

#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 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
  • 2,599 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
  • 492 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



#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:31 PM

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.

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

 

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?



#6 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:47 PM

 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

First, it had long been thought that K-At dating would have a problem with rapid cooling because it would not allow intrinsic argon enough time to escape which would result in older than actual dates.  This was later confirmed by testing done on Hawaiian pillow lavas.  As a result, that kind of rock is considered unsuitable for K-At dating.

 

Also, what you are talking about is an "offset" not something that has anything at all to do with the actual dates.  For example, I once had a Timex watch that was very precise.... it would be exactly two minutes a day fast.  It got to where I simply set the walk back two minutes each morning and checked the watch once a week.

 

We can simply correct for the initial reading.  You will still end up with the same rates of motion though the overall age will be reduced by the amount of the offset.

 

 

:acigar:

 You really should stop smoking Mike, it's bad for you.



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:26 PM

It's a crock guys, get over it. Millions of years between your ears.

 

That's my official logical conclusion folks. :D ...It's elementary Watson! :gotcha:



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:40 PM

 I sympathise.

 

Long age isn't something I am necessarily AGAINST, for I am open to the possibility of long age. So then we can agree that the long ages may have existed, it's just that we dispute which things are old.

 

You may say, "Fred is old, 95! It can only be so!" I don't agree, but that doesn't mean that I am saying that Martha can't be 95 years old. But essentially my position is that the fossils/rocks are only thousands of years old.

 

Young dino meat deductively proves this, for if one meat is fresh enough for hamburgers at MacDonalds, then all fossils in the same layer are the same age also. You can argue until the ends of time, but nothing is going to make that fresh meat old.



#9 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 02:34 PM

 I sympathise.
 
Long age isn't something I am necessarily AGAINST, for I am open to the possibility of long age. So then we can agree that the long ages may have existed, it's just that we dispute which things are old.


Given the strength of the convergent evidence for the great age of the Hawaiian Island/seamount chain from different lines of reasoning, coupled with your acceptance that distant starlight is persuasive evidence of an old universe perhaps you might consider being a little less tentative than “open to the possibility”. It can be hard to leave ingrained belief behind but given the evidence perhaps you’d like to express your position more strongly in favour of long age ?

Given the linear relationship between K-Ar radiometric dates and distance in that graph together with the close agreement with GPS data on drift rate would you accept that the method of K-Ar dating actually works ?



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2017 - 03:23 PM

Wibble, the problem is it's not really an issue of, "belief" for me, the age of things because I don't really believe anything in particular, except that somehow the things in the bible happened as written, - yes, that I do believe, and I believe humanity and all life is thousands of years old. That seems the best interpretation of Genesis but I am "open" shall we say, to something like Hugh Ross's interpretation being correct or partially correct.

 

While I don't take the position Hugh Ross takes of an old earth and universe, and believing in the Big Bang as the creation event, I would say that there is enough evidence on both sides to make a compelling case either way. 

 

It could well be that some things are old and some things are young. This is the key problem for me, that according to logical rules if you are presented with compelling cases for and against then how do you choose one or the other? For that reason I have chosen neither. 

 

So I'm not spitting on what you say, I agree that a correlation, or a seeming correlation like that, does seem compelling, it's just that as I said before, I have to consider all the other evidence of all the other cases, for and against age in the rocks. So I liked your opening message because it is a fairly well presented case, written as a topic should be, and I don't necessarily take the position of, "you're wrong", it is indeed a compelling case when two strings of evidence seem to agree. On that we can agree I suppose.



#11 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 19 February 2017 - 04:04 PM

While I don't take the position Hugh Ross takes of an old earth and universe, and believing in the Big Bang as the creation event, I would say that there is enough evidence on both sides to make a compelling case either way. 


What do you consider is the equally compelling evidence in favour of a young earth then ?



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:15 AM

 

 

Wibble: What do you consider is the equally compelling evidence in favour of a young earth then ?

 

I think differently from how evolutionists and Yecs think of it. You both tend to think in terms of black or white. "either a young earth universe or an old earth universe."

 

I approach it differently. I think that fresh dino tissue directly favours youth of that dino and therefore youth of the rocks it is in. Now before you think, "haha, what bias as a creationist", you should know that I would also argue that starlight directly favours an inference that the farthest galaxies are about 13.8 billion years old.

 

So then to my mind it is a possibility at least, that the dino and rocks it was in, while being young, doesn't rule out the earth itself being old or the universe being old.

 

This puts me in the position of being an extreme minority. Even so I think it does make logical sense to say that some things could be young and some things could be old and that it's not always going to be possible to know which things are and which things aren't.

 

You seem to offer a compelling case for age in these islands, in some ways, but for me direct evidence always trumps indirect correlations which are assumption-based. Starlight is directly factual inference. Young dino meat is directly factual inference. You can't make starlight young without big assumptions, and you can't make fresh dino burgers old without big assumptions.

 

If you cut away those assumptions, the most obvious explanation is that starlight is old and dino meat is young. 

 

However, we are still making inferences about history, which we simply can't test in any way, so all of this to my mind, is somewhat conjectural, no matter how logical or scientific the specific case in question may seem.

 

Yes, I basically agree with 95% of what YECs say because I am a creationist that also accepts a global flood and that life was created by God certainly not more than thousands of years ago rather than millions.

 

There are other cases for youth which I admit I am not knowledgeable about but I have heard about. For example Dr Grady would call them, young "geochronometers". One of them is there is only a few thousand years worth of mud at the mouth of every river on earth when we might expect a basin to be filled with mud. Another example is that if the continents split apart slowly, the wash off would fill in the gaps before they travelled further apart, at such a slow rate.

 

There are also the more complicated arguments such as water gaps that leave water that is still salty if I remember correctly, but also the strange features of morphology that exist, can't have been made be slow uniform process, such as planation, which cuts flat rock both soft and hard, equally. How could erosion do that? The planated surfaces are absolutely pan flat, even the tops of mountains have been literally shaved off.



#13 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:56 PM

You seem to offer a compelling case for age in these islands, in some ways, but for me direct evidence always trumps indirect correlations which are assumption-based. Starlight is directly factual inference. Young dino meat is directly factual inference. You can't make starlight young without big assumptions, and you can't make fresh dino burgers old without big assumptions.

 
Indirect correlations which are assumption based ? What do you mean by that ? Treated in isolation you could say it is an assumption that today’s measured plate drift has remained about the same for millions of years. However, any significant change is ruled out by the radiometric data. The radiometric dates are direct evidence same as distant starlight is for an old universe unless you make wild claims that the laws of physics were different in the past in a way which coincidentally exactly mirrors changes in plate drift.

You actually can’t make “fresh” dino tissue young without making far more assumptions than the reverse. We know dino bones are old not only because of the lack of association with modern fauna in the layers that they are found (you have to assume that dinos never ever lived alongside any modern mammal etc.) but also because of absolute dating where layers are bracketed by volcanic material such as ash deposits. Which can be dated by the same potassium-argon method that was used for the Hawaiian islands.

By using dinosaur tissue to overturn the masses of evidence that life did not just appear 6000 yrs ago you are ironically committing the fallacy you rashly accused me of, that of isolated induction. The only assumption I have to make about dino tissue is that we didn’t understand how long it was possible for collagen to preserve, the decay of which is not bound by any law, unlike radiometric decay.
 

Yes, I basically agree with 95% of what YECs say because I am a creationist that also accepts a global flood and that life was created by God certainly not more than thousands of years ago rather than millions.


Which is ruled out (under this topic) by the coral reef progression and deep water terracing around the islands. You could make unsupported assertions that corals didn’t depend on photosynthesis a few thousand years ago and were able to grow reefs massively faster than today for some reason. But a coral atoll only forms once the island has subsided/eroded to below sea level having progressed from a fringing reef stage and barrier reef. Coral atolls don’t form from scratch and there are drowned reefs on the seamounts further north than Kure Atoll. The northernmost seamount, Meiji, closest to being subducted under the North American Plate, has 1044m* of sediment on top of it, yet more evidence of antiquity. *source

 

Attached File  Coral Reef Formation.jpg   42.23KB   0 downloads



#14 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:19 PM

I approach it differently. I think that fresh dino tissue directly favours youth of that dino and therefore youth of the rocks it is in. Now before you think, "haha, what bias as a creationist", you should know that I would also argue that starlight directly favours an inference that the farthest galaxies are about 13.8 billion years old.

First, this "fresh dino tissue" is far from:

"fresh enough for hamburgers at MacDonalds"

In fact, the tissue is so badly degraded that even if there were enough of it to eat, it would probably make you really, really sick.

 

I would also like to point out that radioisotope decay is at least as direct as any attempt to use the state of biological decay as an age determinant.... as are the other three factors mentioned.

 

So then to my mind it is a possibility at least, that the dino and rocks it was in, while being young, doesn't rule out the earth itself being old or the universe being old.

You ignore direct evidence the rocks are old.

 

 Even so I think it does make logical sense to say that some things could be young and some things could be old and that it's not always going to be possible to know which things are and which things aren't.

Not always.  What we can do is gather evidence and evaluate it to determine what is the most likely case.  The real world is a lot less binary than a logical argument.

 

You are not making logical sense when you reject multiple other methods in favor of biological decay.  Let's just look at the two leading candidates.... biological decay versus radioisotope methods.

 

First biological decay....

The process is subject to a half dozen or so external factors that can change the rate of progression by factors in the tens of thousands.  Most of these are ordinary environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, exposure to the elements, and pH.  The state of decay has never been used to reliably establish an age much beyond a few weeks or months.  Certainly not decades let alone millennia.

 

Next, nuclear decay .....

The process proceeds at a stable rate.  In the interest of full disclosure, there is a 1% seasonal variation that cancels out over the course of a year.  In more than 100 years of trials, nothing short of a nuclear chain reaction (which leaves its own evidence) or temperatures over 200,000,000K cause any significant change in the rate at which the process proceeds.  Extensive testing and experimentation have demonstrated the process will produce statistically valid results.

 

It is illogical to favor the former over the later.

 

Unless, of course you are doing this:

.... you are taking a line of evidence in isolation, and ignoring all of the other evidence which does not fit your notion.

 

Remember, you have been given 4 lines of evidence that the Hawaiian Island chain is millions of years old.



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:40 AM

 

 

Wibble: Indirect correlations which are assumption based ? What do you mean by that ? Treated in isolation you could say it is an assumption that today’s measured plate drift has remained about the same for millions of years. However, any significant change is ruled out by the radiometric data.

 

No that doesn't work. You don't understand logic very well, Wibble, even when I try to explain it. I don't say that to insult you, it's just that most people struggle to grapple with it. There's no real point in me trying to explain it because when I do you tend to just ignore me. I myself struggle with some trickier logic, and I know it is a tricky subject, so I am not putting you down, but you must try to understand what I mean.

 

I'll give you one example to try and help you understand, but don't attack the analogy because it is only there to help you understand;

 

You basically here have offered two lines of inductive evidence. A date of something, and a uniform assumption of a rate of movement. So two rates, one rate of time and one rate of motion.

 

So for motion, imagine you have a car travelling at 30mph. You conclude that had the speed not changed, the car would have roughly been at baba town, one hour ago. For time, you have someone call you an hour ago and they say they, "saw a car of that description with about the same amount of people in it, the same colour, and so forth".

 

These two independent lines of evidence, though compelling, are ultimately inductive. So then it is possible that the car turned onto that main road elsewhere, and had not headed from that town, and it was not that car that witness saw, but a similar one.

 

Now - what is my point in telling you this? ONLY THAT A RATE OF MOTION AND A RATE OF TIME IF SHOWN TO BE POTENTIALLY INCORRECT, CAN'T BE REGARDED AS EXAMPLES OF PROOF, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS MERELY "POSSIBLE" THAT THE RATES ARE WRONG. (note this had nothing to do with if they really are wrong. It is just the possibility is there if the rates can change. So then, if you understand this difference, you basically have now grasped a logical thing.)

 

You must understand this now. Understand this now, and you will turn a corner - the only point in telling you this, IS NOT to attack your example of long ages, the only point in giving this example, is to show that it is logically possible, that if you have an inductive case which seems compelling and even VERY strong, with several lines of confirmation evidence, technically it is possible your case is wrong.

 

Now you may say, "I don't care, I am convinced of this case, it is strong."

 

That's fine. But for me personally, I value what I am able to understand and it's unfair for you to ask me to dismiss what I know I have figured out correctly. I cannot commit intellectual suicide because you are determined to prove long age.

 

Like I said before, if I say to you, "I can accept long age" and you are still trying to convince me of long age, we have to ask what the motive would be for you now trying to get me to accept the long age of a particular thing, like an island.

 

If your motive was only that I should accept long age, the matter would be settled. So why must I accept that islands in particular, are of long age? The only answer is that you must have a motive for why you want me to accept a particular thing is a long age, and the only motive is that if I accept rocks are old, that will make macro evolution possible.

 

Attached File  sherlock.jpg   2.44KB   0 downloads

 

:gotcha:






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    piasan