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.
Why are the assigned K/AR dates consistent with the age as extrapolated from the distance the islands are from the hotspot related to the currently measured speed of movement?
I think this is one of the significant points here that has gone unaddressed. This is what I was trying to expand upon quantitatively in the other Hawaiian Islands thread. The fact is, we can essentially predict the K-Ar dates of the islands using the known average velocity of the Pacific Plate and the distance of the islands relative to either each other or the hot spot. If K-Ar dating is so fatally flawed, and if the chain is so young, then we should not be able to make such predictions at all.
Here's a question...a little off topic, but are most of you guys Atheist or do you fall under the category of religious people who believe that you can't take the book of Genesis literally or that exegesis of the book suggests that the earth wasn't created in a literal 6 days? Just curious.
I think this is one of the significant points here that has gone unaddressed. This is what I was trying to expand upon quantitatively in the other Hawaiian Islands thread. The fact is, we can essentially predict the K-Ar dates of the islands using the known average velocity of the Pacific Plate and the distance of the islands relative to either each other or the hot spot. If K-Ar dating is so fatally flawed, and if the chain is so young, then we should not be able to make such predictions at all.
--Not if accelerated nuclear decay occured during CPT. But anyways, I know how everyone loves to discuss this issue, but can we discuss something else too, like the geology of the Hawaiian island chain and the emperor seamounts? I addressed several points in post #59. Even the geomagnetic data would be fine. Certainly whether or not accelerated decay has occured or not isn't the only paradigm of young earth creationism?
Here's a question...a little off topic, but are most of you guys Atheist or do you fall under the category of religious people who believe that you can't take the book of Genesis literally or that exegesis of the book suggests that the earth wasn't created in a literal 6 days? Just curious.
--I am a theist and a Christian. I am not, however, a YEC. But I am also not an OEC. I am an agnostic as to the processes which are responsible for fashioning the earths surface and deep interior. In other words, I have not come to the point where I can conclude that the earth is old, young, or that a global flood has occured 5000 years ago. I made this transition from YECism about 6-12 months ago(it was a bit gradual). Nevertheless, I take the young earth and its catastrophic geology as a serious possibility. I often work on problems of catastrophic geology, pointing them out and in some cases, solving them. I recommend that you read some of my posts. I also recommend you take in the things that these people on this forum have to say with an open mind. Of course, don't believe what they or I have to say credulously, question everything and decide for yourself (and realize that scientific research is finite quantitatively and qualitatively, so conclusions regarding various data may be incorrect). If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me via e-mail, pm, or this forum.
Many here are atheists, however, there are quite a few christians as well.
There are a good number of scientists as well, one of the most notable (especially for the forum topic), is Lucaspa, a Christian Biologist.
A majority of christians in the world accept evolution, just like I would assume you accept that the earth and planets revolve around the sun.
Although I dont agree with it, I think its ok for people to take the bible literally, as long as they dont try to push it as something that it isnt is. Trying to pretend YE Creationism is a valid theory based on scientific evidence is Not something many should do, as often their evidence turns out to be false.
But like I said, most christians have accepted genesis as non literal.
Originally Posted by Apathe
Here's a question...a little off topic, but are most of you guys Atheist or do you fall under the category of religious people who believe that you can't take the book of Genesis literally or that exegesis of the book suggests that the earth wasn't created in a literal 6 days? Just curious.
Arikay - Well put. Though I am attempting to defend a YEC position, I have to admit that I do believe it is significantly easier to leave room in Genesis for an old earth than it is to prove a young one with science. I haven't ruled out the possibility of a YE (or I wouldn't have bothered igniting up this thread :^) ) and I believe that their (YEC's) intentions are noble (though doubtful they will ever prove anything), but it's certainly easier to go with an OE concept. I appreciate the spirited debate, but I'll let this thread go back to Hawaii.
TrueCreationist - Thanks for the input. I followed one of your threads on another board and your transformation from YEC to where you are now. I didn't realize you posted here, also. I'll certainly take your advice to heart. Good luck in your search. Since the only Science I enjoy is the movement of bits and bytes from machine to machine (I'm a network/security engineer...data, compression, encryption, protection), I'll leave the debating to you science dabblers for now ;^).
Yes, I figure we can let it go back to hawaii (everyone should visit )
I would want to mention though that I dont see many Young Earth organizations being too nobel,
here is a thread I posted awhile back about AIG and some false evidence that they still use as fact, http://www.christianforums.com/t60635
--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.
You mean other than the fact that we see this process in action elsewhere? If you have another process, let us know.
--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??
Yes. What do you see?
And again, these seamounts must have been created during CPT which formed the oceanic lithosphere on which they stand.
Must'a been!
--Accelerated decay is necessary for a young earth and/or catastrophic geology.
You don't see any circular reasoning here do you? CPT requires accelerated decay and accelerated decay supports CPT... Therefor it's all very plausible!
So, what is your explanation for the heat problem now, Chris? Or are you still ignoring it?
1) Which Hawaiian islands where formed during CPT and which ones have been formed after this event and after radioactive decay came back down to its normal levels.
There are 3 lines of evidence that under the standard model fit well, show a linear pattern, and do not show any deviation or need for deviation from what we observe to be happening today to explain what we find in the Hawaiian Islands.
2) Why don't we see any changes in any 3 of these linearly related data sets if CPT and Radioactive decay happened (unless you are suggesting that they happended at just the right ratio with each other to show just the right amount of movement, decay, and erosion)
3) How long do you think the CPT episode lasted? How long did it take the islands to form as this plate rapidly moved almost 5000 KM over the hotspot?
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.
You have made this charge repeatedly. Please provide evidence that there is some conspiracy or dishonesty to cover up discordant dates. I can think of several reasons why a date might a 'best date', other than 'it fits the model'. Can you?
)
Linear Mode
