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.
Is that your only example of an “error” I have made ? It wasn’t an ad hominem anyway, the dishonesty I refer to isn’t principally the vague mention of erroneous dates, it is the failure to mention anything about the age gradient graph, the measured GPS rate, the coral evidence, the sediment, the erosional evidence. Quite a lot there that they’ve “forgotten” to mention.
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.
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;
No it is you that constantly argues from ignorance. An example of the branches of a specific coral species growing more rapidly than all other corals does not mean that the mass of the reef as a whole can grow vertically that fast. This is an example of you falling on your own logical sword again, you are guilty here of isolated induction because a reef is comprised of many different corals and you haven’t even shown that any examples are relevant to Hawaiian reefs. Trawling through the literature looking for extreme cases purely to bolster an a priori belief is pretty lame. Like in the case of the claimed 414mm/year growth rate in an obscure 1932 paper referenced in that AiG article to explain away the 1400m drilled depth of solid reef for the Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands, they take the most extreme maximum per annum value listed in the paper and posit this figure as the average rate every year for thousands of years since the flood. Is that logical ?
Anyway I digress somewhat because the main significance of the atoll is that it forms as the island subsides (more of that below)
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?"
This is a non answer. If you think there is contamination, you need to explain how the contamination occurs in such an exactly prescribed way in increasing doses that results in that straight line gradient which just so happens to match the GPS rate.
So stop attacking me and creationists personally, and relying on insults.
I’m doing no such thing. How exactly am I relying on insults ?
as plates accelerated during the Flood and then decelerated, so radioactive decay rates accelerated, apparently in lockstep, and then decelerated. Thus the volcanic rocks that formed earlier as the Pacific plate moved over the “hot spot” yield exaggerated radioactive dates due to quickly ticking radioactive clocks. As the Flood ended, both plate motions and radioactive decay rates slowed. These are not true absolute dates because the “clock” was ticking faster than it does today
Apart from the obvious problems that this arbitrary decay rate increase melts the planet, this is just an ad hoc argument because there is no reason to invent this idea of rapid plate movement except to shoehorn the known amount of drift into a biblical timescale. Why did the totally separate physics of plate movement and radioactive decay vary in lockstep with each other to give the illusion of millions of years ?
So Wibble - I've "done the science", seems the size of the island favours the catastrophic plate tectonics, because as the snail's pace of movement kicked in, the lava would have more time to knife through.
If it happened over millions of years of uniformity then we would expect the size of the islands to be similar, meaning that is one correlation which does not correlate to old age.
No, as I’ve mentioned several times the islands reduce in size due to subsidence (the weight of the island pressing down on the mantle) and erosion. We know these volcanic islands have subsided due to the presence of coral atolls, which you don’t seem to have considered, even though I showed you the graphic of how they form. The ring of the atoll can only form as a fringing reef grows upwards while the central island sinks. Plus subsidence is directly measured, using tide gauges, the Big Island of Hawaii is subsiding at 3mm a year, 30 cm a century. Radiometric dating* (234U/238U isotopes) of drowned reef terraces off north western Hawaii indicate that subsidence has been occurring at a roughly uniform rate of 2.6/mm a year for the last 475 thousand years. (yet more convergence of data)
I will also point out that these reefs, being associated with the youngest end of the island chain would (according to the YEC model) have formed well after the Flood had ended, therefore you can’t arbitrarily invoke accelerated decay.
The older seamounts have drowned coral reefs and atolls at the inky black depths of more than a kilometre. This by itself falsifies the catastrophic plate story for the formation of seamounts, as it states that they are low and didn’t break the surface because the plate moved too quickly during or shortly after the Flood despite large volumes of lava. Please explain the presence of these drowned reefs considering reefs need sunlight to form and considering that atolls can only progress from reefs fringing islands.
CONCLUSION: This is why I don't "do" the details of the science any more, and argue minutia Wibble, because guess what happens every time I do that? I find the creationist explanation is better than the long age one to the point where I basically predict to myself that the evolutionist is either deceived into thinking the evidence can only mean long ages, or has basically lied or omitted information or is just plain ignorant of the creationist explanations which at the very least, make more sense than the long age ones.
A good smattering of insults in that paragraph Mike, careful you are not accused of hypocrisy.
As you can see, I haven’t omitted any information (unlike CMI, and indeed AiG) and I read both those sites before I started this thread.
You don’t do the details of science because you prefer to remain in ignorance so that you are then able to uncritically lap up the powder puff explanations on CMI that omit to mention swathes of relevant information.