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.
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?
I might add:
Why did CPT start when it did, and what stopped it?
What is your independent line of evidence that CPT occurred?
Why did CPT start when it did, and what stopped it?
What is your independent line of evidence that CPT occurred?
My guess is that if looked at closely enough, the Hawaiian Island geology actually could provide a fairly good falsification of CPT.
CPT does not provide a mechanism to explain the erosion patterns from one end to the other, differences in dating, constant sea level during their formation and erosion, or valid explaination for the structure of the islands as they were built up over time from one end to the other as the plate moved over the hotspot. The geology screams anything by catastrophism.
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?
I (personally) think this is the part that makes a YEC theory improbable. Even if you could cast doubt on the dating (like I tried to do by saying the earth is too young to date with K/Ar or other YEC's have said that the decay ratio was different for a period of time) or if you could cast doubt on the erosion (by suggesting say that the water after the supposed cataclysm contained a high suspension of mineral material that would have accelerated erosion or whatever) or even if you can come up with an alternative explanation of the movement over the hotspot, how could you possible get all 3 to possibly correlate linearly into a 6-7K year period? They certainly correlate quite nicely in an OE theory. I'm very interested to see if any YEC can propose a solution.
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
--I completely agree, I have yet to see a notable YECist organization as a whole. This is why I tend to judge the prestige of creationist research by their content which reflects on the authors credibility.
You mean other than the fact that we see this process in action elsewhere? If you have another process, let us know.
--Yes, other than the fact that we see this process occuring elsewhere. So, do you have any emperical reason to believe that this is the process which eroded the emperor seamounts and the Hawaiian Island chain?
Yes. What do you see?
--Disregard my response. I interpreted notto's assertion incorrectly by assuming that he was talking about all of the Hawaiian Island chian and the Emperor seamounts (which are very much submerged). But of course, notto's original assertion is a bit ambiguous. I know that if were to bore holes in even the newest Hawaiian islands we would find pillow basalts all over the place. Also, if I am now interpreting his accusation correctly, it is flawed because it assumes that all the volcanism currently above sea-level on the island was formed subsequent to the subsidence of the ocean floor and the fall of sea-level to relatively current values.
Must'a been!
--yup.
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!
--Didn't say that "accelerated decay supports CPT". I did say that in order for us to even begin to consider a young earth or recent global flood, you are required to assume accelerated decay.
So, what is your explanation for the heat problem now, Chris? Or are you still ignoring it?
--Not ignoring it. I admit I am being lazy on the calculations, I will try to get to them soon. But that is in another thread, here we are discussing the Hawaiian island chain, the Emperor seamounts and its implications for CPT and runaway subduction.
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.
--I have no definite research I can extrapolate from, though I believe that accelerated decay that occured subsequent to the subsidence of the ocean basins and the fall of eustasy to about current values would be no more than a few My. Why?
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)
--Beats me. Decay may have been relatively proportionate with the rate of seafloor spreading, but I don't know completely why. And you say it is proportionate with erosion how?
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?
--Genesis says approximately a year. But according to the scientific evidence, I don't know exactly how we could determine that. The only definite dating system is radiometric, and that is presumed to have varied immensely during the event so how would you determine it?
--is there anything else in the Hawaiian chain and emperor seamounts that contradicts that predicted by CPT besides the mere inference of age through radiometric methods? Certainly there are..?
Why did CPT start when it did, and what stopped it?
--CPT started when decay started to accelerate because of radiogenic heat. At least thats what I think is the most plausible. Baumgardner thinks otherwise though. See his recent ICC paper, "What initiated the flood cataclysm?"
What is your independent line of evidence that CPT occurred?
--I don't know of any specific line of evidence that completely argues for CPT and only CPT. However, I think there are many research inquiries that could potentially increase the plausibility of CPT. Certain things like island arc volcanism and the amount of heat required is something I am currently reseaching along side of my continued research on the thermal evolution of the ocean lithosphere.
My guess is that if looked at closely enough, the Hawaiian Island geology actually could provide a fairly good falsification of CPT.
--Well lets discuss it then, I'm as willing to go as deep as you will. At least you suspect that radiometric dating isn't the only source of potential falsification for CPT. So, have you looked closely? What have you found?
CPT does not provide a mechanism to explain the erosion patterns from one end to the other,
--So what is the erosion patturn? Do you have a bathymetry chart? Preferebly with corrections for sediment load? If you can get this data, we could do some pretty good analysis going on here.
differences in dating,
--Currently being discussed. The dates themselves arent necessarily the problem; it is the correlation with spreading rate. I presented my thoughts on this earlier.
constant sea level during their formation and erosion, or valid explaination for the structure of the islands as they were built up over time from one end to the other as the plate moved over the hotspot. The geology screams anything by catastrophism.
--So was there constant sea level during their formation and erosion? Do you have the data that indicate this. What emperical data do you have that screams uniformitarianism?
--CPT started when decay started to accelerate because of radiogenic heat. At least thats what I think is the most plausible.
How did radiogenic heat production accelerate decay? I think the only way to speed up decay with heat is to convert atoms to plasma and strip off the electrons. Converting the earth to plasma would be even harder on Noah that boiling away the oceans. Of course elements that decay be electron capture would have their decay slowed down or stopped by stripping off electrons so converting the earth to plasma with radiogenic heat won't work to speed up all decay rates. I don't think there is anything the least bit plausible about CPT.
--Yes, other than the fact that we see this process occuring elsewhere. So, do you have any emperical reason to believe that this is the process which eroded the emperor seamounts and the Hawaiian Island chain?
Yes. We can see the effects of erosion on the tops of seamounts and we can see it actually occurring a short distance away. Is this so hard to understand? The premise of this thread is that YECism has no good explanation of this, along with other empirical data.
--Didn't say that "accelerated decay supports CPT". I did say that in order for us to even begin to consider a young earth or recent global flood, you are required to assume accelerated decay.
So, then. You are starting off with the assumption that the earth is young. What do you base this on?
)
Linear Mode
