The Hawaiian Islands: A falsification of a young earth

[notto]

This is a work in progress. Please comment and provide additional thoughts that support this hypothesis or tear it to pieces.

The geology of the Hawaiian Islands give us several independent lines of evidence that falsify young earth (and global flood) theories.

These include:
1) Progressively older K-Ar dating results the further away from the current volcanic activity (a problem with dating would not show the consistent older ages as we move away from current activity).

2) The progressively older dating is evidence of the uniformity of the movement of the "Hot Spot" of volcanic activity that formed the chain and clearly shows that the islands were not all formed at the same time and that the chain was formed over time.

3) The K-Ar ages and the uniformity of the movement is further supported by the erosion patters shown. The further away from the current volcanic activity, the more eroded the islands are.

4) There are several submerged islands in the chain that are the furthest away from the current volcanic activity. The erosion of the islands and their current near surface submersion shows that the water level has not changed recently during the period of erosion

5) The erosion of the volcanic islands would take longer than YEC permits

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.

This line of evidence falsifies a young earth (< 10,000 years) because it confirms the uniformity of plate techtonics, shows that the islands were not eroded by a flood but instead have eroded by rain and standard, accepted, current processes.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I agree; the Emperor Seamount Chain and the recent Hawaiian Islands are excellent evidence that the Earth is much older than 6-12 thousand years. I've brought up this argument before, so expect responses like:

1. K-Ar dating is false (although the opposition tends to not understand how the dating process works or why it should be considered false)

2. Plate motions have not been relatively constant over time and were much faster in the past (although this is not substantiated by the evidence, nor is it geophysically possible)

The Emperor Seamount Chain even indicates how the Pacific plate has changed the direction of its movement throughout its history. The most convincing evidence comes from sedimentation, subsidence of these islands over time as the lithosphere cools, and of course the theory of plate tectonics itself which, when you consider the evidence from the movement of the plate over the hot spot, combined with other evidence of plate motions (paleomagnetics, for example and dating methods as you mentioned), the data match up when cross-referenced.

You brought up a very good argument.

 

[notto]

Today at 04:24 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=652193#post652193)

I agree; the Emperor Seamount Chain and the recent Hawaiian Islands are excellent evidence that the Earth is much older than 6-12 thousand years. I've brought up this argument before, so expect responses like:

1. K-Ar dating is false (although the opposition tends to not understand how the dating process works or why it should be considered false)

This is one of the reasons why I find this line of evidence particularly damaging to YEC. Most YEC arguments try to show a flaw in the dating by showing wildly disparaging dates. The island chain show great consistence from young to old that conforms to the geology of plate techtonics and slow erosion of the volcanic island formations.

Also, if there was a "rapid" decay, I don't think that this progression of ages can be described by it unless the rate is still "rapid". The ages shown here can't be explained by a burst in decay rates or by a declining decay rate. Either of these arguments would still not upset the fact that the evidence show that the islands were not created at the same time and were layed out in progression, and eroded over time (slowly) without the help of a flood. The age dating and erosion and creation process of the islands would be hard to explain with anything other than the uniformitarian principle.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:05 PM notto said this in Post #1

The geology of the Hawaiian Islands give us several independent lines of evidence that falsify young earth (and global flood) theories.

These include:
1) Progressively older K-Ar dating results the further away from the current volcanic activity (a problem with dating would not show the consistent older ages as we move away from current activity).&nbsp;

This one is particularly good.&nbsp; IF &nbsp;K-Ar dating were unreliable, the deduction is that we would see no consistent pattern of age with distance from the current volcanic activity.&nbsp; A point closer to the current volcanic activity would be oder than one farther away.

Since the observation is exactly opposite, it supports the reliability of K-Ar and falsifies the hypothesis of unreliability.

A note here.&nbsp; The papers by Austin and others trying to discredit K-Ar try to use K-Ar on contemporary events.&nbsp; However, K-Ar is not reliable under 100,000 years due to the slow rate of decay of K40. Therefore the papers are incorrectly using the technique.&nbsp;

 

[DNAunion]

Notto: This is a work in progress. Please comment and provide additional thoughts that support this hypothesis or tear it to pieces.

...

2) The progressively older dating is evidence of the uniformity of the movement of the "Hot Spot" of volcanic activity that formed the chain and clearly shows that the islands were not all formed at the same time and that the chain was formed over time.

DNAunion: Here's a constructive criticism.

It is not the Hot Spot that moves: it remains stationary and the plates, which lie above, move across it.


PS: Let's not get relativistic here. Yes, one could consider this from the point of view of the plate in which case it would be the hot spot that moves. But that is not the common way of expressing what happens: the typical frame of reference for such phenomena is the Earth as a whole.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: Notto, the Hot Spot thing is convincing, but I consider the strongest evidence against YEC to be sea floor spreading (of course, in the context of plate tectonics). The following is off the top of my head.

1) It explains the current jigsaw-puzzle fit that would occur if we could bring together the continental shelves (which would be more precise than if we just look at the shape of the continents on a map). And if we measure the rate at which the continents are currently receding from each other (here I am referring to North America and Europe), it averages out to being something like 2 to 4 inches per year. Extrapolation indicates that it would require millions of years for the the continents to have "drifted" that far apart (Pangaea supposedly began breaking up about 200 MYa, IIRC).

2) The magnetic flux reversals on the ocean floor that resulted during sea floor spreading show that the Earth's magnetic poles have reversed many times during the formation of the current sea floor (as the molten rock that comes out of the midoceanic ridge solidifies, it aligns according to the magnetic polarity of Earth at that time: the striping patterns observed in the rock indicates the polarity of Earth's magnetic field has reversed numerous times). Since humans have not yet experienced a reversal in the Earth's poles, we can conclude that it takes a long time for it to occur (even without looking to science for a time frame, but doing so would give us a much better estimate of the time period involved). For the many reversals needed to create the striping on the sea floor to occur, the Earth must be more than 10,000 years old (IIRC, each magnetic reversal is on the order of 10,000 or more years).

And there are others.

If these did not occur naturally, then did God plant misleading evidence to lead us away from a belief in Him? That just wouldn't jibe with religious beliefs, so we should conclude that the jigsaw-puzzle fit is a result of continental drift (caused by sea floor spreading), that alternating stripes of magnetic polarity in the sea floor are the result of reversals of the Earth's magnetic poles, and so on.

The theory of plate tectonics is just too convincing to dismiss: too much fits together too perfectly and too many observations confirm it. I hope YECs don't argue against the theory itself, but rather direct their assaults on the time frames that would be involved (though I see even that attempt as leading nowhere really fast, considering how much other evidence there is for an "old Earth").

 

[Orihalcon]

but doesn't the standard argument of YEC say that the earth was created with all those things already there?

 

[Zadok001]

Orihalcon:

It can't. Not if it expect to be considered scientific. That idea is non-falsifiable, as is the concept that the world was created last Thursday by an invisible pink cat with the appearance of age and our memories intact.

 

[Orihalcon]

well, it's not like i've been presented with any non-refuted arguments for YEC anyway... =P

 

[ardipithecus]

In case someone has not followed the link here is the image that is worth a thousand words:

Image Source/More Info

People might also be interested in this article.

&nbsp;

 

[Arikay]

Why do I get the feeling that it will just be ignored by creationists.

 

[judge]

This is a work in progress. Please comment and provide additional thoughts that support this hypothesis or tear it to pieces.

judge:

Hi notto! I'll add my thoughts if you like.

&nbsp;

The geology of the Hawaiian Islands give us several independent lines of evidence that falsify young earth (and global flood) theories.

These include:

1) Progressively older K-Ar dating results the further away from the current volcanic activity (a problem with dating would not show the consistent older ages as we move away from current activity).

judge:

If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.

I don't think creationism would preclude this necessarily.

I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 05:42 PM judge said this in Post #12
judge:

If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.

I don't think creationism would preclude this necessarily.

I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.

There are several problems with this. First is that if the decay rate of K-40 has been compressed over time, the age of the seamount and the relative distance of the seamount from the hot spot position under the plate at present would not be linearly related. Second, there is no evidence that either decay constants or plate movements have changed during the entire record of oceanic crust. And third, back to the first problem, two questions can be raised: (1) why is there a linear relationship between age and distance? and (2) why have we not observed any changes in decay constants&nbsp;or plate motions at present&nbsp;or have any evidence of such changes in the Earth's history?

It would seem clear that, in light of the Hawaiian Island chain situation, that Creationists cannot be right about slowed decay rates.

 

[edgeo]

Today at 03:42 PM judge said this in Post #12
judge:

If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.

Actually, one of the current creationist fads is to call upon a temporary increase in C-decay during the flood year.&nbsp; This causes catastrophic plate tectonics and a whole bunch of other unhappy consequences, such as sterilization of the earth.&nbsp;

In any case, if there were such drastic alterations in radiodecay constants, the pattern of dates and distances we would see in the Hawaiian Islands would be dramatically non-linear and, considering the different methods used, probably random.&nbsp; As I remember this is simply not the case.&nbsp; There is a very good linear correlation of ages with distance from the big island.&nbsp;

I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.&nbsp;

Geologically speaking, 6ky IS the 'same time.'

 

[notto]

16th February 2003 at 10:42 PM judge said this in Post #12 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=657031#post657031)


If creationists are correct that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed down then progressively older dates would be in accord with this as well. The time would be "compressed" but there would still be a progression if the islands came into being over a period of time.

I don't think creationism would preclude this necessarily.

I am not familiar with YEC arguments in this area, but I do not see anything in the bible that says all these islands must have come into being at the same time.

The trick here is that there are 3-4 processes which would all need to be accelerated. These include radioactive decay, techtonic plate movement, mountain building due to lava output, and erosion due to rain to wittle the older islands down to sea level.

We know how these happen now (and they all take awhile) and they explain the evidence we see with a fair amount of consistancy and independence.

Unless the creationist explanation can explain all of these (and show evidence of these being accelerated elsewhere as well), these independent lines of evidence converge to show us that the hawaiian islands are indee old. Also, the acceleration of each of these independent processes would need to happen in just the right proporation to fool us into thinking that the chain is old.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Apparently this is quite a problem for those who cling to the unsubstantiated belief that the Earth is young.

I just wanted to make sure this excellent point notto brought up didn't get lost just yet. *bump*

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Bumped for the recent influx of YECs to the forum.

 

[Apathe]

Well let's see if I can take a swing at all you evolutionists since you've been having so much fun bashing YEC's.

Notto:

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).

2) Your islands were formed progressively over thousands of years...not millions.

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.

4) Of course not...the islands were created and eroded AFTER the cataclysm.

5) Prove it.

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.

again at notto:

1) rapid decay is not necessary because you are ASSUMING the K level to have been 0 at creation.


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.

Judge -

1) Creationists don't challenge the decay rate of K-Ar necessarily. We challenge the baseline levels present in "new" rock. We challenge decay rate of C-14 which I'll discuss below.

All -

The most damning evidence against all the current radioactive dating methods is the C-14 dating method itself. Recent advances in C-14 testing (specifically the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer) allows for testing of very small levels of C-14. Ironically enough, almost all fossil, coal, marble, etc. samples that have been submitted for testing show significant amounts of C-14 "contamination." Even with decontamination methods the C-14 levels remain unchanged and AMS radiologists have gone so far as to call this unexplainable inert C-14 levels. Now you ask...what in the world does this have to do with anything. Well...these samples were found in rock that radioactive dating methods show to be millions of years old! If this were indeed true, then the C-14 samples would be C-14 dead. In a nutshell, if a diamond (which is supposedly millions of years old) is found in rock (supposedly millions of years old) yet tests to be less than 60,000 years old via C-14, then the radioactive dating methods are obviously flawed. Fossil Skull KNM-ER 1470 found by Richard Leakey is another example. Leakey hoped it would date 2.9 million years old (making him the discoverer of the oldest human fossil) but insted the lab showed the ash to date 212 to 230 million years old. Since this is far to old for the fossil the results were thrown out. A chart of all the varied readings over the last few decades of the same spot make for pretty humorous reading for a YEC. I would bet that if a AMS C-14 test was done on KNM-ER 1470, then it would show the fossil to be less than 60,000 years old. The C-14 test of specimens from "old rock" alone proves that the earth is less than 250,000 years old.

There you go...you guys chew on that for a little while.

 

[Arikay]

Well, I think ill let others chew on it for a bit, however, a comment or two,

1) So you assume it was formed during the flood, based on what evidence?

2) K-Ar dating is not ment to test such young samples, as small bits of contamination are expected, and The decay rate is very slow. To assume you could get correct dates on these young samples is to not understand how to use the method. Tell me, did they cross check their K-Ar dates with anything else?

as far as c-14, can you provide citations for each of the samples?

 

[Apathe]

Arikay -

Greets! I thought this thread was dead, but decided to give a post anyway. Glad to see it's still active. I'll see if I can answer your questions:

1) Unfortunately, my theory is only as good as the evolutionists. I don't have any solid proof (and I don't consider K-Ar solid proof either). The majority of the earth contains sediment layers (including the tops of all non-volcanic mountians) that creationists attribute to a great flood and a cataclysm that caused all the known coal, oil, gas, fossils, sediment layers at once. Assuming that none of these fossils or layers can be found in Hawaii and it's obviously a volcanic island then it would have to be created post-cataclysm or there would be some remnants of fossil remains and sediment layers. The Jewish Bible also suggests that the world only contained one land mass pre-cataclysm so that would rule out islands also. The only evidence I'm aware of to the contrary would be estimated erosion rates (which really are not predictable nor is the original amount that has been eroded away), Plate movements (which creations offer their hydroplate theory which is equally as plausable), and K-Ar dating which I've already suggested as being ridiculous.

2) Let's be realistic...to say that something is too young to test is ridiculous. If I have a yardstick, I can still measure the width of a human hair if I have a big enough magnifying glass. The only way you can convince me that K-Ar dating is accurate is to take a volcano that is 6000 years old and give me both a K-Ar date of 6000 years and a C-14 date of 6000 years from some organic debris. If Hawaii is truly only 6000 or 7000 years old (like I believe it is) then wouldn't you get the same K-Ar dates that you see right now or would that be "too young to test acurately." The fact that volcanic ash that is 1000 years old is getting millions of years old readings suggests that your 6000 year old volcano would also get similar readings. It's not that the volcanos are too young to date...it's that evolutionists who are blinded by their own dogmas and they tend to throw away any reading or evidence that they think is unreasonable without trying to find out why they get the false readings or anomalies. If you find me 4 samples from volcanos 1) Hawaii, 2) 4000 yr/old 3) 2000 yr/old 4) 1000 yr old I would bet you'd get a nice linear correlation between all 4. K-Ar doesn't work because the sample never truly had a 0 K to AR ratio...it was always contaminated and will always artificially read older than it really is. Not that any of us will be around, but I bet in 6000 years if they do a K-Ar test on Mt. St. Helens it will be exactly the same as your Hawaiian volcano. As for whether they did any other tests on Fossil Skull KNM-ER 1470, I'm not aware, but there are other theories on why all the other dating methods are flawed too (specifically, there is no way to know what the original ratios ever were...we at least ASSUME K-Ar was zero...evolutions pulled the baseline for the other methods to fit into their dating schemes). For evolutionists, dating is a circular scheme of deceit. We assume that something found in a layer is millions of years old so we set a baseline for our dating methods so that our test results fit our theories. We assume our layers are millions of years old because we date them with our flawed tests. Worse yet, fossils are not found uniformly throughout sediment layers. In many cases, fossils of neanderthal has been found mixed with fossils of modern man or fossils of "early life forms" mixed with animals or marine life of "later" eras. Oddly enough I bet if they were C-14 dated they would all seem to have the same C-14 dates suggestly that they lived and died together but what evolutionist in his right mind would C-14 date something millions of years old, right ;^).

Here's the link to the study on C-14. I had to submit it with zzz instead because I'm not allowed to post links yet so substitue accordingly.

zzz.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

There are others, but that was the only one I bookmarked at the time...sorry. It's pretty detailed anyway and has footnotes to other original articles.