The Hawaiian Islands: A falsification of a young earth

By the way, evolutionists study biology, geologists study rocks.

Showed my ignorance on dating methods, eh? This is pretty simple, if K/Ar can't effectively date rock that is "young" and yields wild ranges that others have coined "noise" then it seems pretty simple for me to say that the reason you can't consistantly K/Ar date any surface on the earth without huge ranges in the standard deviation of any one set is because the entire earth is too "young" to date with K/Ar. Evolutionists just happily throw out all the ugly numbers and keep the one that makes them happy. It's the same circular logic you keep trying to use...Hawaii is millions of years old so we can use K/Ar dating and we know Hawaii is millions of years old because it dates that way with K/Ar. I'm theorizing that Hawaii is really < 10000 years old and you're getting wide ranges of bogus numbers because it is simply to "young" to date with K/Ar.

As for PHD's...here's a list. You'll have to ask each one why they are a creationist, and yes there's a bunch of biologists in the list:

Present Creationist Scientists — Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Organic Chemistry
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers
Dr André Eggen, geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne , Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker , Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist:
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D.,
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

You assume the rates for 2 of your trifecta have always been constant (erosion and movement) and never affected by any kind of cataclysm. You therefore ignore all the K/Ar dates that yielded different times than what you were looking for and only accepted what the author coins the "best date" because it fits in your bogus trifecta. You ignored all the dating evidence that suggested otherwise as bad results.

We can also assume that the Hawaiian Islands are old because we know that they have formed slowly because we understand how volcanoes build islands (there is a log of island under the water) and we know that the plate is moving slowly over the hotspot that causes the volcanic activity that has created the long chain of islands.

Unless
1) The rate at which the plate moves
2) Radioactive decay
3) The rate at which volcanic rock erodes

have all slowed down by orders of magnitude,

We can be fairly certain that the islands have been there for quite a while.

To suggest that these islands were all built at relatively the same time over a short period ignores ALL of the evidence to the contrary.

The islands farthest away from the hot spot show drastically more erosion than newer islands (and this erosion shows us that the sea level was the same when it happened).

We know that it takes considerable time to build an island in the middle of a deep ocean through volcanic activity (To suggest that lava output was also speeded up only increases the absurdity of these ad-hoc explainations).

We can measure the erosion and plate movement now and without any data to suggest otherwise, it is a valid assumption to assume that it hasn't changed (unless you need to try to fit it to a preconceived notion - i.e. young earth - which is not how science is done)

I'll take a look at this when I have time. I'd like to see myself if any creationist has tried to explain that. Thanks for the info.

Not sure where you were going with this one...I only used Baumgardner's study on C-14 anomalies in "C-14 dead" samples which has yet to be refuted (successfully) by anyone.

LOL...my qualifications is that I have a brain and can smell bad circular logic when I see it. It's not silly. Give me one example where an evolutionist has taken say 50 samples from the same area and got consistent results without a high deviation between the set. The reason it can't be done is the ENTIRE EARTH is to young to date with K/Ar. You assume the land is old so you justify the use of K/Ar and then say the K/Ar results were accurate because you proves the land was old....

You guys are looking silly by ducking the obvious here. True or false...if Hawaii is truly only 6-7 years old, then the ENTIRE SET (not just the "best number") of K/Ar tests done there would be impossible. The answer of course is false because we know from other newer volcanos that wide ranges of bogus numbers are to be predicted from "young" samples.

Actually my whole K/Ar line of logic is pretty much my own. I don't have any favorite creationist or evolutionist web sites...I just read whatever I can find and make my own decisions.

True or false...It is possible to get accurate results from K/Ar testing of a rock 6-7 years old. False. True or false...if we got a wide range in tests of rock (in this case Hawaii) using K/Ar dating then it could be theorized that the rock was too "young" to date. True.

Ahhhh...my favorite. The paper says they subtracted out in most cases the "background noise" values from the samples. The logic drawn from the paper is that you could probably test all fossil samples and get young-earth dates using C-14 which should theoretically be impossible. I have yet to see an explanation for this anomaly other than a half-attempt by talkorigins.com to explain the coal side of it (though it doesn't explain marble, bone, diamond, etc.).

Show me the entire set of tests (not just the author's favorite ones to make his linear number) and then we'll discuss the progression of ages. If the true numbers show wide deviances, then your progression of ages by dating is bogus.

Show me something other than an explanation of coal. You may want to email them to all the AMS labs because they can't seem to figure it out and they are the experts at dating C-14.

Show me consistent results. Go out there and do 20 tests each at various distances and give me consisten K/Ar readings. It won't happen.

Aptha,

Like I said a handfull compared to the thousands of scientists who accept the old earth and the multiple falsifications of the worldwide flood and all of them are religious fundamentalists. If they belong to creation "science" organizations they have signed oaths of faith that prevent them from ever questioning YEC. Notice how few of them are geologists. Few YEC geologists have been able to study the world's geology and keep their faith in Young Earth Dogma intact. It was the fact that YEC geologist kept going out to see the rocks and realizing that YEC is false that led Creation "science" organization to demand oaths of faith in the young earth(See The Creationists by Ronald Numbers). Davis Young is one example and there are others, the most recent being Glenn Morton.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

We have already established that no geologist accepts YEC because of evidence and all who do, do so for religious reasons.

http://christianforums.com/t43741&hi...logy+challenge

The frumious Bandersnatch

Again you are assuming the current volcanic activity and lava output has always been the same. You're trying to use 2 piece of circumstantial evidence to justify the use of a 3rd (K/Ar dating) even though the 3rd has had numerous examples of being wildly inaccurate.

No we know that YEC "geologists" know how to go to volcanoes and find unmelted inclusions to date so that they can falsly claim that radioactive dating does not work.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

And since K/Ar dating of the Hawii islands has worked by your own logic it is impossible that the earth is only 6-7 thousand years old.

The frumious Bandersnatch

Why would we assume any different? There is no evidence that the islands formed any differently in the past or any faster in the past. There is no mechanism to speed up or slow down the plate movement. There is no mechansism to speed up the mountain building. There is no mechanism to speed up the erosion.

There is no reason to not come to the conclusions that mainstream geology has about the age of these islands unless you are trying to prove a pre-conceived notion.

The evidence is not 'circumstantial', it is measured, statistical, and repeatable. What evidence or mechanisms can you provide that affect all of the phenomena here in just the right ratios (and only apparently in Hawaii) to give us what we find in the geology of the islands.