Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
--CPT started when decay started to accelerate because of radiogenic heat. At least thats what I think is the most plausible. Baumgardner thinks otherwise though. See his recent ICC paper, "What initiated the flood cataclysm?"
I will try to do that, but I don't expect much from it. As to your mechanism, I think that has been handled by the bandersnatch. Basically, if you accelerated radioactive decay, you would also sterilize the planet and simply restart all radiometric clocks.
--I don't know of any specific line of evidence that completely argues for CPT and only CPT.
This should be a red flag to you. There is something wrong with your approach. It all reminds me of nearly finishing a crossword and not being able to make any more headway. Usually, it means you have made a mistake. If you don't fix it you'll get nowhere.
However, I think there are many research inquiries that could potentially increase the plausibility of CPT. Certain things like island arc volcanism and the amount of heat required is something I am currently reseaching along side of my continued research on the thermal evolution of the ocean lithosphere.
Good luck. The problem is that CPT is completely implausible right now. It appears to me that you are simply dogmatically clinging to an obsolete idea and allowing it to run your life.
How did radiogenic heat production accelerate decay? I think the only way to speed up decay with heat is to convert atoms to plasma and strip off the electrons. Converting the earth to plasma would be even harder on Noah that boiling away the oceans. Of course elements that decay be electron capture would have their decay slowed down or stopped by stripping off electrons so converting the earth to plasma with radiogenic heat won't work to speed up all decay rates. I don't think there is anything the least bit plausible about CPT.
--Radiogenic heat production did not accelerate decay, it is a mere by-product of nuclear decay. I believe Woodmorape published a paper on the acceleration of decay in a high temperature plasma phase, but I think that the implications of his 'findings' are void and futile by this simple fact you just illustrated.
--Yes, other than the fact that we see this process occuring elsewhere. So, do you have any emperical reason to believe that this is the process which eroded the emperor seamounts and the Hawaiian Island chain?
Originally Posted by edgeo
Yes. We can see the effects of erosion on the tops of seamounts and we can see it actually occurring a short distance away. Is this so hard to understand?
--Um... I said besides the fact that we see this process occuring elsewhere(or to be more accurate, to be occuring today). And well I must say yes, given that seamounts by definition are submarine (hence, erosion is no longer occuring by the same efficient mechanism that is thought to have formed the bulk of their structure; wave erosion). What you need to do is supply an emperical reason (ie, give me some data and interpretation of that data) to believe that this is the process which eroded the long extinct emperor seamounts, guyots, and the rest of the volcanic remnants of the Hawaiian hot spot.
The premise of this thread is that YECism has no good explanation of this, along with other empirical data.
--We will see. In the mean-time, please supply this data in order to support your assertion that catastrophic geology cannot explain what is seen in this regard.
So, then. You are starting off with the assumption that the earth is young. What do you base this on?
--As I said, on the fact that if it is (and in order for us to even begin to consider its veracty), accelerated decay isn't just a necessity, it is a fundamental, inexcapable, unavoidable, utterly and completely inevitable requirement.
--I don't know of any specific line of evidence that completely argues for CPT and only CPT.
Originally Posted by edgeo
This should be a red flag to you. There is something wrong with your approach. It all reminds me of nearly finishing a crossword and not being able to make any more headway. Usually, it means you have made a mistake. If you don't fix it you'll get nowhere.
--Do you even know or understand my "approach"? That there is no specific line of evidence that completely argues for CPT and only CPT is not 'a red flag' to me. If I could go back to the 1800's, I'm sure that plate tectonics itself would be no more plausible than CPT is now.
Good luck. The problem is that CPT is completely implausible right now.
--How many times will I have to allude to agreement with statements such as this?
It appears to me that you are simply dogmatically clinging to an obsolete idea and allowing it to run your life.
--Who said I am "clinging" per se to this idea at all? And who said that I am allowing it to run my life? If these are mere inferences of my writting, it certainly holds no credibility and could never have been logically and tenably inferred without some pre-concieved assumption(s)!
--Um... I said besides the fact that we see this process occuring elsewhere(or to be more accurate, to be occuring today). And well I must say yes, given that seamounts by definition are submarine (hence, erosion is no longer occuring by the same efficient mechanism that is thought to have formed the bulk of their structure; wave erosion). What you need to do is supply an emperical reason (ie, give me some data and interpretation of that data) to believe that this is the process which eroded the long extinct emperor seamounts, guyots, and the rest of the volcanic remnants of the Hawaiian hot spot.
Sorry, Chris, but this is as close as you get to actually seeing the process in full. I classify this as virtually empirical evidence. How close do you need the frames before you agree that 2 follows 1? Besides, on some seamounts, not the Emperor Seamounts, as I remember, dead coral reefs have been dredged at depths greater than they could have formed.
--We will see. In the mean-time, please supply this data in order to support your assertion that catastrophic geology cannot explain what is seen in this regard.
Because we see all the elements necessary at work today. None of them are catastrophic except for the actual volcanic basement. I do not understand why you must call upon unseen, unsupported and unnecessary processes to form the existing Hawaii-Emperor chain, when there are sufficient and adequate means visible and proven to form the effects that we see. Add to that geomorphological evidence and radiometric ages and your CPT scenario is dead in the water.
--As I said, on the fact that if it is (and in order for us to even begin to consider its veracty), accelerated decay isn't just a necessity, it is a fundamental, inexcapable, unavoidable, utterly and completely inevitable requirement.
But why would you assume that it is? What is the compelling data that says "Aha! CPT happened here?"
--Do you even know or understand my "approach"? That there is no specific line of evidence that completely argues for CPT and only CPT ...
Well, there is something that we agree upon.
... is not 'a red flag' to me. If I could go back to the 1800's, I'm sure that plate tectonics itself would be no more plausible than CPT is now.
Sorry, can't do that. We live in the 21st century. We have a bit more data now. We also know that the model supporting CPT is based on unrealistic assumptions.
--Who said I am "clinging" per se to this idea at all?
Umm, then who wrote this:
And again, these seamounts must have been created during CPT which formed the oceanic lithosphere on which they stand.
Doesn't sound like this person has much doubt about CPT.
And who said that I am allowing it to run my life?
If these notions are driving your research, then it is directing you away from fruitful studies.
If these are mere inferences of my writting, it certainly holds no credibility and could never have been logically and tenably inferred without some pre-concieved assumption(s)!
Maybe then you should be a bit more clear in your writing. We shouldn't have to assume so many things about what you think.
Sorry, Chris, but this is as close as you get to actually seeing the process in full. I classify this as virtually empirical evidence. How close do you need the frames before you agree that 2 follows 1?
--I am asking you whether you do or do not have direct evidence that wave erosion was the only possible process by which the old Hawaiian-Emperor chain was fashioned. I'm not asking you to make some simple-minded inference from what is currently taking place and extrapolating backwords. I am questioning the uniformitarian principle and so you cannot support it with something that follows that premise. You need data, not a story.
Besides, on some seamounts, not the Emperor Seamounts, as I remember, dead coral reefs have been dredged at depths greater than they could have formed.
--Data please.
Because we see all the elements necessary at work today. None of them are catastrophic except for the actual volcanic basement.
--Well if they were we would still be in the midst of CPT (according to the framework of catastrophic geology) now wouldn't we? Of course they are not currently catastrophic.
I do not understand why you must call upon unseen, unsupported and unnecessary processes to form the existing Hawaii-Emperor chain, when there are sufficient and adequate means visible and proven to form the effects that we see.
--Because, when you have millions of years and uniformitarianism, who cares? Well, in order for us to begin to consider catastrophic geology, that whole premise is automatically disregarded and so you can't do a simple extrapolation backwords with what is currently happening today and think your "conclusion" is really conclusive.
Add to that geomorphological evidence and radiometric ages and your CPT scenario is dead in the water.
But why would you assume that it is? What is the compelling data that says "Aha! CPT happened here?"
--You took me out of context, I didn't say that I have data that says "Aha! CPT happened here". I do, however, have very compelling data that says "Aha! Accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology!". You can see it on every page of any book on radiogenic isotope geology. Superposing rocks (with the exception of cases where the rock has not been over-thrusted, folded, or subjected to significant horizontal strain/strain) are younger than that which is below (except in cases of intrusive igneous rocks). Since all that is Cambrian+ is inferred to have been the product of the catastrophe, decay must have been accelerated because of the radiometric dates we get when we study rocks of such ages. There is no way around it, accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology and a young earth.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 3rd November 2003 at 09:13 PM.
Sorry, can't do that. We live in the 21st century. We have a bit more data now.
--My point EXACTLY
We also know that the model supporting CPT is based on unrealistic assumptions.
--You mean like unrealistic viscosities? An unreaslistic thermal diffusivity? What is so unrealistic?
Umm, then who wrote this:
Originally Posted by TrueCreation
And again, these seamounts must have been created during CPT which formed the oceanic lithosphere on which they stand.
Doesn't sound like this person has much doubt about CPT.
--I am working within the framework, edgeo. If every time I made a statement like this I had to explain my POV or something like that it would get ridiculously tedious. All I'm asking you is to realize where I'm coming from which is not Hovinds video's.
--For similar reason's I refer to YEC's as 'we' and 'us' because it is merely easier to say, despite the fact that I am not a YEC.
If these notions are driving your research, then it is directing you away from fruitful studies.
--There was no need to even make this statement.
Maybe then you should be a bit more clear in your writing. We shouldn't have to assume so many things about what you think.
--Exactly, you shouldn't, so why are you? You apparently assume that I agree with the general consensuses among the many elementary YEC's that run around on these boards, when in fact there is very little for me to agree with them on. And again, it is tedious to be completely clear in this regard. You are a human and are not infallible, but you have a brain and can remember the fact that I doubt the young earth, I doubt CPT and the genesis global flood as a whole, and I completely agree that catastrophic geology is not a viable alternative to uniformitarian(mainstream) geology--at least not yet. You are safe assuming this until otherwise noted.
--You mean like unrealistic viscosities? An unreaslistic thermal diffusivity? What is so unrealistic?
The viscosities that you need the ad hoc theory of accelerated decay in order to achieve.
--I am working within the framework, edgeo. If every time I made a statement like this I had to explain my POV or something like that it would get ridiculously tedious. All I'm asking you is to realize where I'm coming from which is not Hovinds video's.
This is not clear. The statement showed that you accept CPT. You cannot blame everyone else for not understanding your position.
--There was no need to even make this statement.
I was only concerned about your education.
-
--Exactly, you shouldn't, so why are you?
You will note that I said 'shouldn't have to'. If your position is different from what you are saying then you should probably reevaluate your posts.
You apparently assume that I agree with the general consensuses among the many elementary YEC's that run around on these boards, when in fact there is very little for me to agree with them on. And again, it is tedious to be completely clear in this regard.
Then you must expect some misunderstandings.
You are a human and are not infallible, but you have a brain and can remember the fact that I doubt the young earth, I doubt CPT ...
Then you shouldn't say that something must have come about due to CPT.
...and the genesis global flood as a whole, and I completely agree that catastrophic geology is not a viable alternative to uniformitarian(mainstream) geology--at least not yet. You are safe assuming this until otherwise noted.
Actually, I believe in catastrophes. Just not the ones that YECs adhere to. In fact, I would prefer to be known as a catastrophist. The problem is that the whole concept is perverted by YEC reasoning.
--I am asking you whether you do or do not have direct evidence that wave erosion was the only possible process by which the old Hawaiian-Emperor chain was fashioned. I'm not asking you to make some simple-minded inference from what is currently taking place and extrapolating backwords. I am questioning the uniformitarian principle and so you cannot support it with something that follows that premise. You need data, not a story.
I have given you data. They are observations from the Hawaii-Emperor chain. How do you explain them?
--Data please.
The model for coral atolls is well known.
--Well if they were we would still be in the midst of CPT (according to the framework of catastrophic geology) now wouldn't we? Of course they are not currently catastrophic.
I am. I believe in catastrophism.
--Because, when you have millions of years and uniformitarianism, who cares? Well, in order for us to begin to consider catastrophic geology, that whole premise is automatically disregarded and so you can't do a simple extrapolation backwords with what is currently happening today and think your "conclusion" is really conclusive.
Perhaps it is only reasonable. That is more than what you seem to propose.
--You took me out of context, I didn't say that I have data that says "Aha! CPT happened here". I do, however, have very compelling data that says "Aha! Accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology!". [/quote]
LOL!!! A fantastic mechanism is necessary for an unsupported theory to be true! That's rich.
You can see it on every page of any book on radiogenic isotope geology. Superposing rocks (with the exception of cases where the rock has not been over-thrusted, folded, or subjected to significant horizontal strain/strain) are younger than that which is below (except in cases of intrusive igneous rocks). Since all that is Cambrian+ is inferred to have been the product of the catastrophe, decay must have been accelerated because of the radiometric dates we get when we study rocks of such ages. There is no way around it, accelerated decay is a requisite to catastrophic geology and a young earth.
Linear Mode
