Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 25 February 2017 - 03:15 PM

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)

*source

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.



#22 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 26 February 2017 - 12:56 AM

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.

 

Mike mentions quite a few other errors as well. But if CMI does mention some of the above (like the coral evidence) then what you are saying is simple false and it is you who is dishonest rather than CMI. And CMI does just that, for example they mention that the cyclone Bebe in 1972 ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours (J.E. Maragos, G.B.K. Baines, and P.J. Beveridge, ‘Tropical Cyclone Bebe Creates a New Land Formation on Funafuti Atoll’, Science 181:1161–1164, 1973.). And if those things could happen, how do we know that large coral reef is just due to an annual growth of 0.8 - 80 millimetres per year?
 
The big question I think is whether correlation necessarily implies causation. You have a lot of correlations, but it might be something else entirely that causes these correlations. It does not need to be long ages and slow continuous processes that are the cause. Why not read about it on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia...imply_causation) for example.

  • mike the wiz likes this

#23 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 February 2017 - 04:01 AM

 

Wibble: 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.

 

An ad hominem is when the person argues the person instead of the argument.

 

For example you are trying to place the focus of debate on my "ignorance", of science but the chances are I probably know a fair but more about science in some areas than you do. So unless you have some qualifications, amateur qualifications in radiometric dating or better qualifications, really it is a rhetorical trick you're playing to put the focus on me, but in a debate you have to prove my reasoning is wrong and I have provided many reasonings in this thread which count as part of the science that deals with critical thinking. That is to say, I can take the information I do read, and come to correct conclusions. You yourself have read very little more into this topic than me, unless you can show us your scientific qualifications.

 

So stop using the most common diversionary-fallacy as a way of ignoring all of my unrefuted explanations.

 

Not pretending I have more scientific knowledge that I do have, doesn't mean you are scientific and I am not, for I don't believe you would count as even having an amateur knowledge of this issue. Reading a few articles doesn't make you a scientists and me an ignoramus.

 

 

 

Wibble: 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. 

 

No, I haven't fallen on my "logical sword" because as proven hundreds of times over at this forum, I know a lot more than you do about such things. Your simplistic comparison, is genuinely ignorant. (not as an insult, but genuinely you lack knowledge by making such a simplistic comparison.)

 

In this example you have confused a percentage-sample with an induction. But even so you have made a mistake because there are no examples at all of long age corals, since we have never sampled any. We can logically sample a living coral, we can provably, scientifically, show they can happen quickly, but we can't show they happen slowly, as we don't have the time to, so there is no reason to assume the whole coral can't grow fast if there are no physical causes you know of that could stop that from happening. For example, are there any special evidences you have as to why a smaller portion can grow fast but a large one can't?

 

That is to say, if we have presented to us a car, and we don't know what cars can do (we shall pretend), then that percentage sample of data, may represent all data. So for example if a car can steer, brake, go relatively fast, etc..from this sample, because the sample represents the characteristics of all cars, it is reasonable to infer that all cars may be able to do these things by design, if the one can.

 

In the same way if one coral can grow, unless there is some special reason why others can't then it's safe to assume they all can grow fast if subjected to environmental change, and a flood would wreak all types of environmental post-changes on earth for some time, one of them being faster rates for continental drift, etc.. causing that pattern of island sizes, otherwise you are special pleading. It may cause corals to grow faster to. From a flood-model perspective, it makes sense that the rates of change post flood after the violence, may happen quicker. For example if you cut yourself at first the clotting may be fast, but the scab and the full healing will happen more slowly. After a violent process effecting the whole earth, to assume all things would remain stable is MOST ABSURD. There could be all manner of strange effects, and highly likely it is too. Like Tirian said, if a cyclone can make it happen, what about a mega cyclone? 

 

But with an isolated piece of exclusive evidence where it is the induction of evidence which supports a notion, it's not the same thing because there are many types of evidence for an isolated event, which will not rely on the type of evidence which is a sample which can apply to the whole.

 

So with my example of exclusive evidence, that is an entirely different type of case.

 

I am satisfied at this stage of debate, that basically you are ignoring all of my salient points in order to bolster an attack mainly directed at me and CMI, which are personal attacks because you can't refute the arguments. The fact is if something can happen quickly, provably, this counts much more than mere evidence it might happen slowly. Deductive proof is much more powerful than an inference of circumstantial evidence taken from dodgy uniform rates. Another factor is how much argon is boosted in the sample rate from that type of rock which is volcanic. 

 

I am now bored with your rhetoric and vitriol, all you do is DODGE the main points. It's good bye to you.



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 February 2017 - 04:32 AM

 

 

Wibble: Have a read through my posts on this thread and see if you can work out how this explanation falls apart

 

Oh this assertion certainly addresses the two immensely long posts I posted, and clearly refutes them. :rolleyes:

 

It's DEFINITELY goodbye to you, all you have is vitriol and assertions. You might as well have just put as the opening message, "I will argue the long age of islands add nauseam and if anyone disagrees they are ignorant crystal healers, and any science they offer that doesn't agree is dishonest and cursory."

 

The fact is is pretty easy to come up with several good reasons why these islands weren't necessarily caused by eons of time.

 

1. Catastrophe happens quickly, makes sense of the smaller islands.

2. The dating methods are atrociously poor, and essentially useless for this type of rock, and have already been PROVEN to be millions of years off the mark.

3. The same pattern the data shows, for inflated dates, would fit a young model anyway, which would correlate to the size of the islands, and I could say this correlation is "undisputably" proving young age. But I don't because I don't create false non-sequiturs like atheists do when they predictably affirm the consequent because they don't know the function of science isn't proof. Like Einstein said; "100 experiments won't prove me right but one can prove me wrong."

4. Minutia arguments taken in isolation, where you ignore compelling cases to the contrary, can't allow you to infer a valid conclusion as shown from this  faulty syllogism;

 

- This apple is rotten, we aim to show all apples are.

- Here in this isolated case,  we can see many rotten apples, and why they are rotten, and our case is indisputable. (but notice this DOESN'T MATTER)

- Therefore all apples are rotten.

 

(but this doesn't show the examples to the contrary)

 

In the same way to argue islands are old is to argue rock of similar age is old, in which there was found fresh dino meat, indisputably young.

 

We aim to show these islands are old, meaning all rock is.

These islands are a indisputable case, (but as with the apples, it doesn't matter, if dinosaur tissue is an indisputable example of youth, which is certainly is).

therefore all rock is old. 

 

Therefore one case, must be a sample of "ALL" cases.

 

EXAMPLE:

 

One human if shown to be X, can allow us to infer X of all humans if that human is representative of all humans.

 

So here is the faulty type of case;

 

This human man has a male organ therefore all people do.

 

Here is the correct case;

 

This human will stop breathing if we asphyxiate him, therefore all people will if we asphyxiate them.

 

That's essentially the error of minutia arguments taken in isolation. If you can make a case why islands are old and make a case that dino meat is fresh, (and there are many other examples too), then how can the same rocks be both young and old?

 

Therefore minutia-cases can't be taken in isolation except as evidence a notion MAY be true, because you are trying to show one isolated case is indisputably old but if there are other cases which are equally indisputable examples of youth then logically this proves that NEITHER can be proof. For if both strong cases are proof, then each would rule out the other, meaning it isn't possible they are proof. That is why affirmation of the consequent is acknowledged by the likes of Einstein, but not by the likes of Wibble.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users