The Hawaiian Islands: A falsification of a young earth

Because if you use diffferent methods, making different assumptions about different starting ratios and get the same answer, you're left with two possibilities:

1) The answer is correct

2) Both measurements just happen to be wrong by exactly the same amount

Keep making measurements, and 2) becomes indefensible.

Frumious Bandersnatch:

Nice try, but I was simply trying to give evidence that refutes the acceptance of ANY K/Ar samples as the earth is simply too young to date with this method (from a creationist standpoint). All K/Ar measurements are "noise."

As for all the links to all the wonderful discussions, it doesn't matter. For every theory that you think "falsifies" the flood there is a creationist theory saying otherwise. Both sides are nothing but theories and interpretations of "evidence" with no hard facts. There is no evolutionist magic bullet that "falsifies" the great flood theory (or vice-versa for that matter). Both sides are theoretical and both worth following up on regardless of what camp you fall into. Both sides have REPUTABLE scientists working for them with PHD's in various fields. Evolutionists just love to bash YEC's as stupid or pseudo-science because they know they have holes in their own theories, too (like the BIG GAPING HOLE OF DATING!!!!!).

No one side (creationism) has a hanfull of religious fundamentalists who have signed an oath never to interpret any data in any way that is not consistent with their interpretation of scripture and the other side (science) has thousands of scientists of every religious faith who do understand that the worldwide flood and young earth were falsified by Christian geologists more than 150 years ago and that a vast collection of data further falsifying the worldwide flood has accumulated since then.

The frumious Bandersnatch

*Shrug* Whatever buddy. You believe what you want. I would encourage everyone else who is NOT overwhelmed by evolutionist dogma and staunch anti-religious biases to do research on creationist scientists and you will indeed find dozens upon dozens of PHD's...not religious fanatics like Frumious would have you believe. Besides...didn't all the "scientists" of Galileo's era think the universe revolved around the sun. Science has had a nice track record of being wrong often throughout history and any evolutionist who thinks they know it all is only kidding themselves. It's all theory...BOTH sides and both sides are worthy of research.

Any examples of non-volcanic mountains that formed that have no sediment layers? (You can't include any that are non-explored...it has to be a mountain that a scientific crew scaled and specifically found an absense of sediment)?

Prove it. There are dozens of PHD creationists (from acredited mainstream universities)who have lined up on their side just as dozens of PHD evolutionists each saying they are right. The Departement of Defense even has people working on "theoretical plate movements" at Los Alamos giving credance that they don't completely buy the evolutionist solution. Their are holes in both sides and just because you believe your side is right, you can't call the other side implausible.

I have already refuted all K-Ar dates above. I consider all K-Ar dates eroneous and therefore not submissible as proof of any evolutionist theory.

Agains see above. You are correct that anything 1000, 2000, 3000 years old is too young to use K-Ar. I'm supplying as a theory that the reason you cannot EVER get reliable and consistant K-Ar readings from anywhere on the planet is that the earth is < 10,000 years old and therefore all K-Ar readings are showing "noise." You can't prove me wrong on this one :^).

Blah blah blah

...again read above. You can't throw out the data of a 1000 year old volcano because it's "too young" and then take the data as proof of a volcano that COULD BE only 6000 years old.

The thread was to provide a theory of how Hawaii falls into the YEC thoeries. I gave one.

It doesn't matter if it has holes in it because I still submit that the erroneous data from K-Ar in the original example as well as current findings in the C-14 world prove that Hawaii is < 10,000 years old regardless of what YEC theories I come up with to explain how it got there. It's not propaganda...it's facts pulled from evolutionist data that is thrown away because it doesn't fit in their nice little world.

What data tampering? I'm theorizing that if the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then the K-Ar samples you guys are quoting is simply noise ...

...and that if you take sample 6000 years from now from St. Helens, then you would get similar readings to the Hawaii volcanos because you are measuring noise. K-Ar is worthless if the earth is < 10000 years old as Creationist believe. As for KNM-ER 1470, I DARE any evolutionist to submit a sample for AMS C-14 dating. I would almost bet the farm it will have traces of C-14 far above what contamination can account for and prove the layer it was found in is < 60,000 years old.

If you don't see how rationalizing the readings from Hawaii as being accurate and throwing away the readings from other KNOWN volcanic material because it's "too young" is circular reasoning, then you are blind as a bat.

You have to PROVE that Hawaii is older than 6 or 7 thousand years old before you can ASSUME the K-Ar readings are accurate and the fact that they are not uniform (i.e. the author of the given website shows the figures as "best date" as opposed to average and doesn't list the standard deviation) puts a lot of doubt on the validity of the dating.

fossils of progressively older fossils should be found in their proper layers...not mixed with newer fossils.

I'm not your secretary...do web searches and you will find the examples.

YEC's are beginning to embrace parts of dating because of the obvious holes in it. There is no way any evolutionist can prove me wrong on the K-Ar thing because you have to prove the earth is old FIRST to be able to use it which cannot be done.

It's circular logic.

Also the recent discoveries of C-14 in "C-14 dead" material suggests that the earth is at least < 250,000 years old and all other dating methods are flawed.

I am not going to argue each and every YEC theory.

Do a web search and you'll find someone somewhere that has refuted this or that.

I am simply saying the thread's author is incorrect to assume that you can't fit Hawaii into a young earth model and I am also saying that K-Ar dating is bogus.

*Shrug* Whatever buddy. You believe what you want. I would encourage everyone else who is NOT overwhelmed by evolutionist dogma and staunch anti-religious biases to do research on creationist scientists and you will indeed find dozens upon dozens of PHD's...not religious fanatics like Frumious would have you believe. Besides...didn't all the "scientists" of Galileo's era think the universe revolved around the sun. Science has had a nice track record of being wrong often throughout history and any evolutionist who thinks they know it all is only kidding themselves. It's all theory...BOTH sides and both sides are worthy of research.

*Shrug* Whatever buddy. You believe what you want. I would encourage everyone else who is NOT overwhelmed by evolutionist dogma and staunch anti-religious biases to do research on creationist scientists and you will indeed find dozens upon dozens of PHD's...not religious fanatics like Frumious would have you believe. Besides...didn't all the "scientists" of Galileo's era think the universe revolved around the sun. Science has had a nice track record of being wrong often throughout history and any evolutionist who thinks they know it all is only kidding themselves. It's all theory...BOTH sides and both sides are worthy of research.

Apathe,

At what point in the 'recent' creation of the Hawaiian islands did the techtonic movement slow down to its current measured state? (be specific) You left this part out of your ad-hoc explainations of the geology we see there.

There are 3 pieces to the puzzle, you only explained two with your cataclysmic (ad-hoc) model.

1) Radio dating of the different islands that show a linear progression away from the hotspots.
2) Erosion to sea level and more erosion as islands move away from the hotspot.
3) A rate of movement of the plates over a hotspot that can be physically measured today with a speed that correlates to current understanding of 1) and 2)

Why do all 3 of these (if we use measured rates from current day) all point to the formation of the hawaiian islands over a long amount of time?

There is no data point in either of the measured data for 1) or 2) that show that the rate of movement has changed during their formation. If it is measured to be slow today, why can't we see a slow down in measurements of 1) or 2)?

Any explaination why the rate at which the chain is moving over the hotspot now correlates well to the island building we see in the past based on the dates obtained by accurately dating the rock AND the time it takes to erode volcanic rock (which is not analgous to cement - which is a conglomeration of rocks which don't erode and water soluble elements).

...accurately dating the rock with what...say K/Ar dating? I don't think so. Can you provide me with ALL of the dates that were obtained by every test of your volcanic rock and not just the "best date" that the author of your website gave. Can you give the standard deviations of each set? If K/Ar is so accurate, why are their STILL disputes over the age of different sites by evolutionists because K/Ar tests keep yielding different results.