The Hawaiian Islands: A falsification of a young earth

TrueCreation · #**111** 8th November 2003, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by edgeo

Then you should learn to swim. Try these:
http://geoclio.st.usm.edu/darwin.html
http://coralreefs.wr.usgs.gov/facts4.html

http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/nwhi/geology.shtml

<a href="http://www.lifelineaquarium.com/charles_darwin/Introduction.htm">http://www.lifelineaquarium.com/char...troduction.htm</a>

--I thought you said you werent going to do 'my research'? So you think you can just post a couple links and leave it at that? How do I even know you read them? Please go through them and present your argument in detail here. I have enough of a work-load and I'm not about to do your research.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

TrueCreation · #**112** 8th November 2003, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Black

did this accelerated decay happen everywhere at once, or just on the earth.... why?.. why did the decay accelerate and where is the evidence? Why aren't we all hideously deformed mutants of superhuman size and strength?

--I presume it was universal. It may have been the fact that water was widespread. I'll let the bio people handle the implications of this potential "problem".

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

edgeo · #**113** 8th November 2003, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by TrueCreation

--Um, sorry you need to do the work. It is YOU who thinks that the Hawaiian seamount chain falsifies CPT without mercy.

Actually, to me it is just another cut among thousands of them.

I don't care if you do or don't do your own research; what bothers me is you not withdrawing your conclusion that it does falsify CPT. When your the one making the assertions, you do the research. BTW, there is a name for this logical fallacy..

You have been given an explanation of the Hawaiian-Emperor chain. You rejected it. I am simply asking what your explanation is.

--Can you please just shut up with my 'acceptence' of Baumgardner's model!!! I thought I pounded this statment into the ground just a couple days ago??!! What is going on here! Cool it with the incessant misrepresentation.

Then you have no problem with the refutation of Baumgardner's model?

--And yes I do want the data relevant to the seamounts, it isn't just a necessity, it is a requirement in order to substantiate your very confident statements regarding their implications for CPT.

The mainstream information on seamounts, etc. is readily available.

--My story? Your the one who needs the story to support your statements.

No. You have been given the data and the mainstream explanation of them. You have rejected this explanation. Why?

--I have explained the rational quite clearly if accelerated decay is required for any model of catastrophic geology including CPT, you are working so far out of the box you can't even focus on the box anymore.

Yes, I try to work outside the intellectual box of dogmatism. The problem I have is that I hardly see your statement as a meaningful one. I have not disagreed with it, other than that it means nothing. It's like saying, 'if there was a superman, there must have been kryptonite...'

Besides, I believe in catastrophic geology and I don't have any need for accelerated decay at all...

edgeo · #**114** 8th November 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by TrueCreation

--I thought you said you werent going to do 'my research'? So you think you can just post a couple links and leave it at that? How do I even know you read them? Please go through them and present your argument in detail here. I have enough of a work-load and I'm not about to do your research.

Yeah, well, I guess I was feeling charitable. You read them by looking at the graphics and reading the descriptions. THere is a logical sequence of events represented by different islands and seamounts on the chain. The radiometric data confirm the relative timescale on these 'snapshots' of seamount development, even to the point of the most recent volcanic events occuring in the subsurface off the SE coast of Hawaii. The argument is widely available, though I no longer have the textbook from which I learned it many years ago, even before Loihi was discovered, in fact (a little predictive power here, eh?).

fungle · #**115** 9th November 2003, 09:01 AM

Playing games! Step outside your comfort zone

fungle · #**116** 9th November 2003, 09:27 AM

The post on Broken Hill should have unleashed a hundred questions regarding,age ,dating methods, mineralization processes, shear faulting, the relationship to south africa, which denied the existence of any flood. The second on buried forests dated at 31 000 should have been questioned in terms of the interminable talk of lahars. Stumps of trees all dated at the same age?
Or perhaps the use of unusual dates and terms stymied the experts where they had all the answers at their fingertips and did not realise that the tennessean? period of the carboniferous is not used in most other nations of the world.
The Russians , germans, scandinavian countries are developing new strategies which will hopefully see greater advances in geology
I still have not got any feedback on gneissic crenulation in terms of altered mineralisation. It is not a simple matter of mica foliation