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.
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.
link
link
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
Maybe somebody can help Leakey date his fossil I mentioned then since most previous K/Ar tests haven't help much. I never said the K/Ar dating of the islands worked because all I've seen are the "best date" numbers that the author gave us which I feel are bogus. Somebody show me what ALL the results were before I make up my mind.
Maybe somebody can help Leakey date his fossil I mentioned then since most previous K/Ar tests haven't help much. I never said the K/Ar dating of the islands worked because all I've seen are the "best date" numbers that the author gave us which I feel are bogus. Somebody show me what ALL the results were before I make up my mind.
Did you notice the error bars in the data?
Do you understand statistics?
1) You obviously did not read the link. Please read or re read it, and learn about how K/Ar actually works. and why its important to cross check data.
So, some questions for you,
Can you tell me why K/Ar is not supposed to be used on young samples?
Can you tell me how you could check the accuracy of K/Ar dating?
2) I know it will probably be waved away but I went through the list,
out of the 18 biologists i found,
•8 were creationists for religious reasons and not because of evidence.
•9 I could not find information about, Often the only thing that poped up was the list you posted (which is from AIG)
•1 says he follows the evidence, however since some have said ID is a stepping stone to god, its questionable how far he will follow the evidence, but I did want to seperate him out.
The distance between the oldest island and the youngest is approx 4,860 KM.
What mechansism would allow for movement of the plate at an average rate of over .5 KM per year (assuming they are only 7000 years old)?
--I would have said Runaway subduction, but your velocity is too slow .
Based on the K/AR dating and the erosion pattern, there is no evidence of a change in this rate. Why isn't this the measured rate today?
--As far as I can see, accelerated decay is the only possibile explanation of what we see in radiogenic isotope geology. What would you expect to find if accelerated decay has occured? I havent found any direct potential falsification for such a variable decay rate as catastrophic geology would presume.
--I would have said Runaway subduction, but your velocity is too slow .
--As far as I can see, accelerated decay is the only possibile explanation of what we see in radiogenic isotope geology. What would you expect to find if accelerated decay has occured? I havent found any direct potential falsification for such a variable decay rate as catastrophic geology would presume.
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).
--Well if I am desciphering your comment here correctly, the 'problem' is a bit more complex than you may presume. Nevertheless, the only possible explanation for the relative concentrations of radiogenic daughter and stable parent isotopes in the geological record is the acceleration of the nuclear decay rate. I presume that if CPT has occured and is responsible for the Cambrian+ geological record than accelerated decay must have also occured. Without accelerated decay, there is no tenable way of producing the earths geology with the radioisotopic signatures that they have.
2) Your islands were formed progressively over thousands of years...not millions.
--I completely agree with notto's initial post which stated in his point #2 that "the islands were not all formed at the same time and that the chain was formed over time".
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.
--Well this doesn't help you, the erosion that occured over the emperor seamounts a lot more extensive than a "nice hole". I presume that the erosion (assuming that it was an erosional process that produced the flat tops of old guyots and progressively eroded seamounts from such island chains: I havent done any extensive study on this but it is probably accurate) occured during the time of the formation of the whole chain during CPT.
Originally Posted by Apathe
4) Of course not...the islands were created and eroded AFTER the cataclysm.
--I doubt it, such erosion would be a cataclysm.
[quote]
Originally Posted by notto
5) The erosion of the volcanic islands would take longer than YEC permits
Originally Posted by Apathe
5) Prove it.
--Notto, as I understand it, the process of erosion is thought to be wave erosion, therefore occuring at the level of local eustasy on the island. Can it be confirmed that this is indeed the only possible process that could have eroded the islands. I'm looking for some physical evidence from the seamounts themselves, not whether this type of erosional model is the best or not.
Originally Posted by notto
6) There are no sediments or deposits on the islands that would show that they have been submerged in water which shows that they have not been underwater in their history.
Originally Posted by Apathe
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.
--I think notto's point would be much more difficult to explain in a uniformitarian scenario since as the emperor seamounts move with the pacific plate when they reach a certain depth, they are no longer subject to the rapid (for geologic time) wave erosion that formed them. Is this really what we see?? And again, these seamounts must have been created during CPT which formed the oceanic lithosphere on which they stand.
Originally Posted by Apathe
1) rapid decay is not necessary because you are ASSUMING the K level to have been 0 at creation.
--Accelerated decay is necessary for a young earth and/or catastrophic geology.
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.
--DNAUnion's critique of young earth creationism from the geomagnetic data (post #6) is not convincing to me at all. The geomagnetic reversals exhibited in the seafloor and on the continents represent reversals of the Earth's geomagnetic field during CPT.
1) A plausible mechanism to start it.
2) Death to many living things due to radiation and heat.
3) A plausible mechanism to stop it.
--Well you can look under all the rocks you want and will never find your #1 and #3. I presume that accelerated decay was not a natural process. Though I also suspect that it is the reason CPT and runaway subduction occured and hence, much of the geologic record.---As for #2, theres plenty of dead things in the ground.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 21st October 2003 at 05:44 PM.
.
Linear Mode
