Wibble: I will ask you again, if the whole chain was formed rapidly due to catastrophic plate tectonics how was there enough time for a reef to form (or even an opportunity to get started in such turbulent seas) and then be drowned as is the case with the northern seamounts ? Are you going to give me a straightforward, clear answer on this or not ?
I did, several times, I pointed out the critical thinking behind such things - that a reef doesn't prove the age of an island anymore than your socks prove your age. I also gave you this;
A coral reef is the mass of limestone created as the polyps build their skeletons. How long it takes these reefs to form is a matter of conjecture.
It is commonly believed the existence of thick coral reefs proves the Earth must be millions of years old, based on the assumption that coral growth was slow.
However, the discovery in 1992 of this substantial wad of coral growing firmly attached to a modern shoe (less than four years old at the time) in waters off the Philippines is just one indicator among many that this is not the case.1
Marine biologists have discovered that coral contains growth rings, like those of a tree. A study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science has found a connection between coral growth rates and seasonal freshwater run-off or floods from nearby land.2
From strongly correlated historical records of river run-off and flooding, the researchers determined that the coral colony in question had taken only 118 years to grow 1.8 m (6 ft). This gave them a new method for determining the age of all reefs that make up Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Based on this methodology, the outer barrier reefs (those furthest from the Australian coast and in the deepest water), which are about 55 m (180 ft) thick, would be less than 3,700 years old—not millions of years old as has been believed.
Wibble, in debate your style is to constantly repeat, repeat, repeat, question, question, question, but look at all the effort I put in to my posts. Did you answer my questions? No. Did you try to understand the critical thinking behind these issues? No.
This is the element that is missing in your thinking. I simply state that as a fact.
You aren't willing to do any logic.
What specifically, are we determining the age of, and how is this relevant to ideologies?
1. Will evidence of old rock, as an induction, even compelling, correlations etc...prove age when competing with competing inductions of youth? No, that is not how inductive reasoning works, unless you have a proof, which is decisive, but confirmation evidence is not decisive, no matter how impressive the induction, depending on the quality of the evidence.
- If the universe is old is the earth old? No - non sequitur. It can possibly be young.
- If we have evidence the earth continents are old is the earth therefore old? - non sequitur (affirmation, evidence can't be affirmed int that way, even science acknowledges it.)
- If we evidence some volcanic islands are old, does this mean the earth's continents as a whole are old? - non sequitur. Firstly the evidence volcanic islands are old can't be affirmed, secondly even if you have proof they are old which you don't, it doesn't follow that life is therefore old, and all of the non-volcanic rocks.
- If we have strong evidence the earth is old, does it follow that certain rocks are old? - non sequitur. The world can be old and the rocks young.
- If we have strong evidence that rocks are young, is the earth therefore young? - non sequitur. The world can be old and the rocks young.
What can we really conclude? We can conclude if we have evidence strong enough and of such quality that it is practically proof, that if we find youth in rocks that those rocks are young. That's all. If volcanic rocks are found to be old by such proof, this would only mean these particular volcanic islands formed by volcanic activity are that old, it is a non-sequitur to therefore conclude all life is the same age, as well as the continents.
Now I don't say this to be mean spirited, but it's clear to me from our discussions that you don't really understand how vital it is to understand these delineations. They are not technicalities, they are the difference between evaluating a matter intelligently, and stupidly. It's your choice, you can do it intelligently, or stupidly but your request for me to be stupid cannot be granted.
There is also the comparison of the two fallacies to consider, slothful induction, and the fallacy of exclusion.
Why do those two fallacies pertain so strongly to the issue of the age of things? It would take a lot of explaining, but with the latter, it depends how strong the evidence is when excluded from the matter in hand.
An analogy might help to highlight how important it is to understand this fallacy. Imagine we had a ship, and we had an argument that everything on that ship as evidence, indicated it was sunk in the 1970s. Imagine I found a style of clothing on the ship, which could have been from the 80s if that piece of clothing had been kept. Imagine there were some signs of age that might show that the person wearing them had worn them for a while, perhaps into the 1980s, but you had an induction of evidence, (a tally of confirmation evidence) that all of the styles, the type of ship, and other evidences, seemed to indicate it was sunk in the 1970s.
Now it doesn't matter how impressive an induction is, it is still only inductive reasoning if the gap in the data remains forever open, and our knowledge will never be complete. This is why historical hypotheses are inherently tenuous. So then you can make a better case perhaps for age, but if you were to say, "we shall not consider the coins found in the captain's safe, as we should concentrate on the majority of the evidence" then you commit the fallacy of exclusion, because there is one piece of evidence, that is right - only one piece of evidence, which can turn your whole induction on it's head, and what is that evidence? It is a coin sealed in the captain's safe that has the year 1983 inscribed on it.
Now Wibble, I say this with all due kindness - unless you can understand such shall we say, 'acute' matters of delineation, then you're not really in a position to even understand that this matter of a few volcanic islands is quite irrelevant to the age of life on this planet, for there are several powerful evidences of young tissue, unmistakably young, which are found in rocks they have said are 65 million years old, meaning that logically, both the tissue, and the rocks the tissue was found in, having been preserved at the same time, like the coin, prove them both young.
Now I admit it's perhaps not as strong as, "proof" as with the coin, but whether you fight it to the grave or accept it, no matter, for both actions will not change that logically that tissue is better inferred to be young, meaning that young tissue is germane to the issue of life's age, but volcanic islands, aren't. Which means even if you had a complete victory in this thread, it would not be consequential, for if you are saying the age of volcanic islands pertain to life on earth, and it's great age, then all of your topic is one big red herring anyway. For great age of volcanic rock would not mean giraffes or dinos had to exist millions of years ago.
So as much as you guys think you are superior and have the victory, right now I must say that I'm, "Laughing at the 'superior' intellect." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.
P.S. The forces and environmental conditions on earth at the time of the flood, equally affected all reefs, all rocks, all life, for it was worldwide. Remember this! That is why I can say, "all reefs could have aged quicker", or, "all continents would have moved faster", there would be no exceptions, unless there was some special circumstance, so it is reasonable to apply catastrophic pressures to all things on the earth, at that time.