Jump to content


Photo

Volcanic Island Chains


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#101 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,061 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:06 AM

Attached File  Hawaiian.jpg   40.71KB   0 downloads

 

Hi Tirian,

 

Quick question:  How do you explain the data set above?  And, what I mean is why do we see such a high-level of correlation....so much so that the chances of this happening randomly are astronomically low.  In other words, there has to be a reason or reasons.



#102 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:23 PM

attachicon.gifHawaiian.jpg

 

Hi Tirian,

 

Quick question:  How do you explain the data set above?  And, what I mean is why do we see such a high-level of correlation....so much so that the chances of this happening randomly are astronomically low.  In other words, there has to be a reason or reasons.

 

He thinks all the researchers involved delete all the data points that don't conform to the pattern that matches with the measured GPS rate of island movement. Or argon contamination randomly happens to produce that apparent correlation over time. Because that is the most likely scenario apparently.



#103 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

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

Posted 24 March 2017 - 09:35 PM

Hi Tirian,
 
Quick question:  How do you explain the data set above?  And, what I mean is why do we see such a high-level of correlation....so much so that the chances of this happening randomly are astronomically low.  In other words, there has to be a reason or reasons.

 

I don't know if I've tried to do that really. I've rather tried to falsify the diagram shown, you don't need to explain something in order to falsify data, methods or reasoning. And that has been mainly by pointing out that:

1 - The facts underlying the y-axis (millions of years) doesn't say anything about ages, the ages are an interpretation. The facts only says things about ratios. And if the interpretation is false the diagram is also false.

2 - The diagram only shows 'good' ratios. And this might be a problem depending on how much 'bad' ratios there are and what they say.

If the interpretation is wrong and you mostly have 'good' ratios, then I guess one explanation could be that the amount of initial argon when the rock was formed differs with the distance from Kilauea. But I really can't say with the data at hand.

 

(Changed from dates to ratios just to be clearer)



#104 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,708 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 March 2017 - 02:54 AM

Tirian, I have also deduced a logical proof that a coincidence is guaranteed, and a remarkable one, like the lottery.

 

What do I mean? I mean that StormanNorman basically asked this question; "are you suggesting a remarkable coincidence, of astronomical odds?" BUT, we have a situation here, were a remarkable coincidence MUST have taken place whether you believe in a young age or an old age.

 

If you look at message at message two in this thread, you will see a correlation on a picture/diagram, for a 6,000 year old earth, and look how the temperature and diffusivity of zircons correlates perfectly with a young earth.

http://evolutionfair...hains/?p=136422

 

So if you are tempted to think, "Norman must be right, this kind of matching data set is impossible by chance", in fact under both circumstances we have a data set, and one of them MUST have happened by chance.

 

If the earth is old, the data for zircons matching with youth is a coincidence.

If the earth is young, the data for the distance and age of the islands is a coincidence.

 

So there are only two possibilities, 1. A coincidence. 2. A coincidence.

 

Someone has to be wrong. So my answer to Norman is this; why choose the young earth model as wrong, and the perfectly matching, correlating data, a coincidence? So then Norm', if you accept old age, you also have to accept a coincidence. You're in the same boat - you can't accuse us of something you have to also believe yourself! :P

 

(Just thought I would make this post as I don't want you to be tricked into chasing a red herring. Do you notice that the data set I given was completely ignored in this thread, yet they want to continue to repeat this data to us, ad nauseam. That seems to be the debate tactic - to endlessly repeat the claim even when the claim is addressed. )


  • Tirian likes this

#105 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:43 PM

If the interpretation is wrong and you mostly have 'good' ratios, then I guess one explanation could be that the amount of initial argon when the rock was formed differs with the distance from Kilauea. But I really can't say with the data at hand.


What could possibly be the cause of this systematically changing amount of initial argon over time ? Why create this perplexing problem when the blatantly most parsimonious explanation for the correlation is that the K-Ar dates are accurate and the distances simply reflect the drift that we can actually observe and measure.

Why go to the trouble of looking for unexplained solutions when we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the correlation ?



#106 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 March 2017 - 03:52 PM

If you look at message at message two in this thread, you will see a correlation on a picture/diagram, for a 6,000 year old earth, and look how the temperature and diffusivity of zircons correlates perfectly with a young earth.

http://evolutionfair...hains/?p=136422

....

(Just thought I would make this post as I don't want you to be tricked into chasing a red herring. Do you notice that the data set I given was completely ignored in this thread, yet they want to continue to repeat this data to us, ad nauseam. That seems to be the debate tactic - to endlessly repeat the claim even when the claim is addressed. )

That is not true.

 

I addressed that in post #6

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.

 

 

Dr snelling: .... Another crucial, unverifiable assumption made by evolutionary scientists is that the decay rate has been constant throughout time—that is, the radioactive “clocks” have always ticked at the same rate. But creation research has demonstrated that all the decay rates were grossly accelerated in the recent past, during the global Flood cataclysm.9

.....

https://answersingen...stant-paradise/

Same problem.  The proposed accelerated decay would melt the planet ..... as stated by the leader, and a majority of the R.A.T.E. project team.



#107 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 25 March 2017 - 04:11 PM

Tirian, I have also deduced a logical proof that a coincidence is guaranteed, and a remarkable one, like the lottery.

 

What do I mean? I mean that StormanNorman basically asked this question; "are you suggesting a remarkable coincidence, of astronomical odds?" BUT, we have a situation here, were a remarkable coincidence MUST have taken place whether you believe in a young age or an old age.

 

If you look at message at message two in this thread, you will see a correlation on a picture/diagram, for a 6,000 year old earth, and look how the temperature and diffusivity of zircons correlates perfectly with a young earth.

http://evolutionfair...hains/?p=136422

 

So if you are tempted to think, "Norman must be right, this kind of matching data set is impossible by chance", in fact under both circumstances we have a data set, and one of them MUST have happened by chance.

 

If the earth is old, the data for zircons matching with youth is a coincidence.

If the earth is young, the data for the distance and age of the islands is a coincidence.

 

So there are only two possibilities, 1. A coincidence. 2. A coincidence.

 

Someone has to be wrong. So my answer to Norman is this; why choose the young earth model as wrong, and the perfectly matching, correlating data, a coincidence? So then Norm', if you accept old age, you also have to accept a coincidence. You're in the same boat - you can't accuse us of something you have to also believe yourself! :P

 

(Just thought I would make this post as I don't want you to be tricked into chasing a red herring. Do you notice that the data set I given was completely ignored in this thread, yet they want to continue to repeat this data to us, ad nauseam. That seems to be the debate tactic - to endlessly repeat the claim even when the claim is addressed. )

 

The helium diffusion graph you presented was not relevant to the Hawaiian island chain so there was no requirement to discuss it. Besides that there isn't only the possibility of coincidence for it apparently fitting 6000 yrs. Humphrey's claims have been roundly demolished by experts in the field, here are two sources if you are interested (you won't be)

 

http://www.reasons.o...ent-part-1-of-2

 

http://www.csun.edu/...eo005/henke.pdf

 

If you can't be bothered reading the articles then realise that of the two alternative viewpoints, only your one requires unexplained accelerated radioactive decay that would melt the Earth's crust. Which in so doing, by the way, would drive off all the helium out of the zircons, your model isn't even internally consistent.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users