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.
This is a work in progress. Please comment and provide additional thoughts that support this hypothesis or tear it to pieces.
judge:
Hi notto! I'll add my thoughts if you like.
The geology of the Hawaiian Islands give us several independent lines of evidence that falsify young earth (and global flood) theories.
These include:
1) Progressively older K-Ar dating results the further away from the current volcanic activity (a problem with dating would not show the consistent older ages as we move away from current activity).
judge:
If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.
I don't think creationism would preclude this necessarily.
I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.
Today at 05:42 PM judge said this in Post #12
judge:
If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.
I don't think creationism would preclude this necessarily.
I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.
There are several problems with this. First is that if the decay rate of K-40 has been compressed over time, the age of the seamount and the relative distance of the seamount from the hot spot position under the plate at present would not be linearly related. Second, there is no evidence that either decay constants or plate movements have changed during the entire record of oceanic crust. And third, back to the first problem, two questions can be raised: (1) why is there a linear relationship between age and distance? and (2) why have we not observed any changes in decay constants or plate motions at present or have any evidence of such changes in the Earth's history?
It would seem clear that, in light of the Hawaiian Island chain situation, that Creationists cannot be right about slowed decay rates.
Today at 03:42 PM judge said this in Post #12
judge:
If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.
Actually, one of the current creationist fads is to call upon a temporary increase in C-decay during the flood year. This causes catastrophic plate tectonics and a whole bunch of other unhappy consequences, such as sterilization of the earth.
In any case, if there were such drastic alterations in radiodecay constants, the pattern of dates and distances we would see in the Hawaiian Islands would be dramatically non-linear and, considering the different methods used, probably random. As I remember this is simply not the case. There is a very good linear correlation of ages with distance from the big island.
I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.
If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.
I don't think creationism would preclude this necessarily.
I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.
The trick here is that there are 3-4 processes which would all need to be accelerated. These include radioactive decay, techtonic plate movement, mountain building due to lava output, and erosion due to rain to wittle the older islands down to sea level.
We know how these happen now (and they all take awhile) and they explain the evidence we see with a fair amount of consistancy and independence.
Unless the creationist explanation can explain all of these (and show evidence of these being accelerated elsewhere as well), these independent lines of evidence converge to show us that the hawaiian islands are indee old. Also, the acceleration of each of these independent processes would need to happen in just the right proporation to fool us into thinking that the chain is old.
Last edited by notto; 20th February 2003 at 03:18 AM.
Well let's see if I can take a swing at all you evolutionists since you've been having so much fun bashing YEC's.
Notto:
1) The progressive linear dating is NOT a problem for a YEC because we can assume that the Hawaiian islands were created during the cataclysm (great flood for all you non-bible readers) and therefore ALL volcanic activity happened linearly since then. The problem is your K-Ar dating assumes that volcanic lava has 0 levels of K in it at birth. This is why the Mt. St. Helens readings as well as the Mt. Rangitoto (1700's) or The Sunset Crater lava flows (1065 AD) or The Kaupelehu Flow (1800-1801AD) mean so much. These are examples of recent eruptions where K levels should have been extremely low yet all of them give off measurements ranging from 210,000 years old to 3 billion years old. It's proof that to assume that K level are 0 is folly. Your volcano is probably no more than 7000 years old, but you're assuming it's older because you're assuming that the original K level was 0 (which current volcanic evidence suggests it wasn't).
2) Your islands were formed progressively over thousands of years...not millions.
3) It doesn't take long for water to erode...ever seen water from a roof erode concrete or asfault when no gutters were installed? Takes only 2 or 3 years to have a nice hole started.
4) Of course not...the islands were created and eroded AFTER the cataclysm.
5) Prove it.
6) Island was created after cataclysm so no sediment would be found. Before cataclysm YEC's believe earth to be one continent and one body of water (as description in Genesis). Cataclysm exploded apart the contenents (water spewed from underground) and volcanoes spewed forth. Your islands were created during the Cataclysm.
again at notto:
1) rapid decay is not necessary because you are ASSUMING the K level to have been 0 at creation.
To DNAUnion:
1) You are again assuming your dating is accurate of the rock that was "reversing" which I an prove below that it is not. It could be that the cataclysm caused the field reversal you speak of and the striping patterns were caused the months of the cataclysm duration. Just as a stab since I haven't read up on this one.
Judge -
1) Creationists don't challenge the decay rate of K-Ar necessarily. We challenge the baseline levels present in "new" rock. We challenge decay rate of C-14 which I'll discuss below.
All -
The most damning evidence against all the current radioactive dating methods is the C-14 dating method itself. Recent advances in C-14 testing (specifically the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer) allows for testing of very small levels of C-14. Ironically enough, almost all fossil, coal, marble, etc. samples that have been submitted for testing show significant amounts of C-14 "contamination." Even with decontamination methods the C-14 levels remain unchanged and AMS radiologists have gone so far as to call this unexplainable inert C-14 levels. Now you ask...what in the world does this have to do with anything. Well...these samples were found in rock that radioactive dating methods show to be millions of years old! If this were indeed true, then the C-14 samples would be C-14 dead. In a nutshell, if a diamond (which is supposedly millions of years old) is found in rock (supposedly millions of years old) yet tests to be less than 60,000 years old via C-14, then the radioactive dating methods are obviously flawed. Fossil Skull KNM-ER 1470 found by Richard Leakey is another example. Leakey hoped it would date 2.9 million years old (making him the discoverer of the oldest human fossil) but insted the lab showed the ash to date 212 to 230 million years old. Since this is far to old for the fossil the results were thrown out. A chart of all the varied readings over the last few decades of the same spot make for pretty humorous reading for a YEC. I would bet that if a AMS C-14 test was done on KNM-ER 1470, then it would show the fossil to be less than 60,000 years old. The C-14 test of specimens from "old rock" alone proves that the earth is less than 250,000 years old.
There you go...you guys chew on that for a little while.
Well, I think ill let others chew on it for a bit, however, a comment or two,
1) So you assume it was formed during the flood, based on what evidence?
2) K-Ar dating is not ment to test such young samples, as small bits of contamination are expected, and The decay rate is very slow. To assume you could get correct dates on these young samples is to not understand how to use the method. Tell me, did they cross check their K-Ar dates with anything else?
as far as c-14, can you provide citations for each of the samples?
Greets! I thought this thread was dead, but decided to give a post anyway. Glad to see it's still active. I'll see if I can answer your questions:
1) Unfortunately, my theory is only as good as the evolutionists. I don't have any solid proof (and I don't consider K-Ar solid proof either). The majority of the earth contains sediment layers (including the tops of all non-volcanic mountians) that creationists attribute to a great flood and a cataclysm that caused all the known coal, oil, gas, fossils, sediment layers at once. Assuming that none of these fossils or layers can be found in Hawaii and it's obviously a volcanic island then it would have to be created post-cataclysm or there would be some remnants of fossil remains and sediment layers. The Jewish Bible also suggests that the world only contained one land mass pre-cataclysm so that would rule out islands also. The only evidence I'm aware of to the contrary would be estimated erosion rates (which really are not predictable nor is the original amount that has been eroded away), Plate movements (which creations offer their hydroplate theory which is equally as plausable), and K-Ar dating which I've already suggested as being ridiculous.
2) Let's be realistic...to say that something is too young to test is ridiculous. If I have a yardstick, I can still measure the width of a human hair if I have a big enough magnifying glass. The only way you can convince me that K-Ar dating is accurate is to take a volcano that is 6000 years old and give me both a K-Ar date of 6000 years and a C-14 date of 6000 years from some organic debris. If Hawaii is truly only 6000 or 7000 years old (like I believe it is) then wouldn't you get the same K-Ar dates that you see right now or would that be "too young to test acurately." The fact that volcanic ash that is 1000 years old is getting millions of years old readings suggests that your 6000 year old volcano would also get similar readings. It's not that the volcanos are too young to date...it's that evolutionists who are blinded by their own dogmas and they tend to throw away any reading or evidence that they think is unreasonable without trying to find out why they get the false readings or anomalies. If you find me 4 samples from volcanos 1) Hawaii, 2) 4000 yr/old 3) 2000 yr/old 4) 1000 yr old I would bet you'd get a nice linear correlation between all 4. K-Ar doesn't work because the sample never truly had a 0 K to AR ratio...it was always contaminated and will always artificially read older than it really is. Not that any of us will be around, but I bet in 6000 years if they do a K-Ar test on Mt. St. Helens it will be exactly the same as your Hawaiian volcano. As for whether they did any other tests on Fossil Skull KNM-ER 1470, I'm not aware, but there are other theories on why all the other dating methods are flawed too (specifically, there is no way to know what the original ratios ever were...we at least ASSUME K-Ar was zero...evolutions pulled the baseline for the other methods to fit into their dating schemes). For evolutionists, dating is a circular scheme of deceit. We assume that something found in a layer is millions of years old so we set a baseline for our dating methods so that our test results fit our theories. We assume our layers are millions of years old because we date them with our flawed tests. Worse yet, fossils are not found uniformly throughout sediment layers. In many cases, fossils of neanderthal has been found mixed with fossils of modern man or fossils of "early life forms" mixed with animals or marine life of "later" eras. Oddly enough I bet if they were C-14 dated they would all seem to have the same C-14 dates suggestly that they lived and died together but what evolutionist in his right mind would C-14 date something millions of years old, right ;^).
Here's the link to the study on C-14. I had to submit it with zzz instead because I'm not allowed to post links yet so substitue accordingly.
There are others, but that was the only one I bookmarked at the time...sorry. It's pretty detailed anyway and has footnotes to other original articles.
Linear Mode
