TrueCreation
God Bless Peer Review
Like I said they are merely diagrams illustrating the fundamental processes. Nothing is to scale.Valkhorn said:
-Chris Grose
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Like I said they are merely diagrams illustrating the fundamental processes. Nothing is to scale.Valkhorn said:
By the way those graphs are completely useles... No units are shown, there is no legend, and basically I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
http://www.veracitystudios.com/other/fracture_isothermal_evolution.gif
And the hawaiian island is one of the formations that lays that dispute to rest because the 3 lines of evidence (erosion, dating, and movement of the plates) all correlate well under the mainstream model. Your model doesn't address this correlation across different radioisotropic dating techniques and the erosion and velocity of plate movement.TrueCreation said:Because radioisotopic dating is (inevitably) disputed as an (absolute) dating method I do not think it is wise to consider it an instance of disconfirmation or falsification.
Widely growing in popularity according to whom?Consider the alternative theories of island chain origins within general PT theory. You have the model of hot spot plumes and another hypothesis in development, the propogation of fractures in oceanic lithosphere. The ages of the hawaiian island chain and emperor seamounts actually do not indicate a steady-state rate of plate movement. This has lead geologists and geophysicists to consider models where the plume is not fixed but moves underneath the lithosphere or non-plume models for the origin of the volcanism. What is interesting about the non-plume models for the origin of this volcanism is that there is currently no reason to think that the rate of fracture propogation and the movement of volcanism over the surface of the crust would correlate with the rate of seafloor spreading. This means that in these theories--which are indeed widely considered and are growing in popularity--this correlation is not known to be anything but a coincidence. My hypothesis is in a similar state.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/volc_age.gif
The oldest islands by any of the age measurements have eroded to the sea level. The most resent (even the non active ones) have not. Why is this? Under the CPT model, were not all the islands rapidly built within a similar amount of time and during the same timespan? Why this difference in erosiion patterns? Why does this erosion pattern match the dating of the islands, and the distance from the current active spot. Why does this correlation exist at all in your model?This is what I was slightly confused about in your posts--I didn't know exactly what you were trying to argue. What you appear to be saying is that the quantity of erosion increases with age of the seamount. However this is essentially incorrect because once the island has subsided beneath sea level, the island will not be subject to wave action and, infact, may essentially 'grow' as it subsides due to atoll formation (although the volcanic basement of the seamount will continue to subside).
Wave erosion is thought to occur post-CPT where there are no terribly significant eustatic fluctuations.
I don't know why you would expect any. I think you are referring to what I like to call "the bathtub hypothesis", from which the logic of 'well lets just see what happens when we mix some dirt in a bathtub' is acceptable. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is immeasurably more sophisticated than this.
duordi said:If the islands down the chain, (which are now millions of years old by your theory notto) were eroded to sea level then why are they eroded to the sea level of today?
They should be eroded to the sea level at the peak of the ice ages which was at the continental shelf line with the rest of the continental structure erosion.
This would seem to indicate that the erosion and movement must have taken place in recent history at the present water line and not before the ice ages.
This would indicate that your dates determined for the islands are incorrect would it not?
Duane
I went a look'n through the Internet trying to find the levels of the sea mounts. It wasn't until I came across the term "Guyot" that I could find the right search sequence.notto said:The oldest islands are 60 million years old. The erosion taking place would be happening before, during, and after the ice ages which would just be a blip in the timeframe of the islands. The islands are not perfectly at the water line now.
notto said:The oldest islands are 60 million years old. The erosion taking place would be happening before, during, and after the ice ages which would just be a blip in the timeframe of the islands. The islands are not perfectly at the water line now.
notto said:It would not indicate that the dates determined for the islands was incorrect.
The erosion is just one of 3 independent lines of evidence that all correlate to show us the age of the islands.
notto said:My point about the water level is that we can tell that the islands eroded over time and then stopped. They were not eroded by a flood or eroded all at the same time and the oldest islands are more eroded than the youngest and we can see a gradual slope in the erosion patterns from the youngest to the oldes islands indicating this.
Your not taking into consideration the raise and fall of the ocean floor itself. For instance, as a sea floor ages it become more dense and sinks. New Ocean floor, like around the Hawaiian Islands is not only newer, it's raised higher by the very Hot Spot that created the islands. As the plate moves northwards the ocean floor cools and becomes less dense over time, sinks, making the ocean deeper pulling the Sea Mounts down deeper as well.duordi said:If the erosion took place before the ice ages then they should be at a sea level before the ice ages with melted ice caps which is about 220 feet higher then current levels.
This is of course all true.
Notto's time line is right in line with the hosts of evidence we have at hand.Only your time scale is impossible.
duordi said:If the current "blip" ocean level was enough to erode the islands to current elevations then the other "Blips" during periods of maximum ice an minimum water levels would have caused the islands to be 130-150 feet below current sea levels.
notto said:And the hawaiian island is one of the formations that lays that dispute to rest because the 3 lines of evidence (erosion, dating, and movement of the plates) all correlate well under the mainstream model. Your model doesn't address this correlation across different radioisotropic dating techniques and the erosion and velocity of plate movement.
duordi said:If the erosion took place before the ice ages then they should be at a sea level before the ice ages with melted ice caps which is about 220 feet higher then current levels.
Jet Black said:4 actually, genetic drift of the organisms on the island also confirms it.
This is exactly my point.notto said:They are not exactly at current elevations. The great source presented from another poster shows what the levels the islands are at. The evidence is the erosion itself, not the exact level related to past water levels. The older islands are further eroded then the newer ones indicating that they were not formed at the same time or eroding over the same amount of time. The gradient of erosion from the oldest to the youngest lines up with the other lines of evidence that show us that some of the islands are much older than the others. It also shows us that the erosion was not due to some type of flood, but by the same mechanisms we see in action today.
Very interesting idea.dlamberth said:Your not taking into consideration the raise and fall of the ocean floor itself. For instance, as a sea floor ages it become more dense and sinks. New Ocean floor, like around the Hawaiian Islands is not only newer, it's raised higher by the very Hot Spot that created the islands. As the plate moves northwards the ocean floor cools and becomes less dense over time, sinks, making the ocean deeper pulling the Sea Mounts down deeper as well.
We must keep in mind that there are a lot of different forces at work on this Planet. It is very active and alive with a multiple of forces at work sculpting it. One can't just go to one source, like the ice caps, and say that's the full answer.
Notto's time line is right in line with the hosts of evidence we have at hand.
.
Sounds logical, although one can't currently support it further than that, one can't dismiss it entirely out of hand either.duordi said:Very interesting idea.
Does the current tectonic movement agree with this assumption?
I have not found a lot of information regarding elevations and movement.
If you have a link please share it.
Duane
This is a faulty argument. The ocean floor itself changes in depth over time which changes the depth of the various sea mounts.duordi said:This is exactly my point.
If indeed the erosion occurred millions of years ago for several of the volcanos they should all be at the same elevation.
They would all have been eroded to the higher pre-ice-age water line (millions) of years before the ice ages started.
Variation in water elevations during the ice ages would have approximately the same erosion effect on volcanos which existed during the ice ages.
The result should be identical elevations for volcanos which exited for a millions years or more.
If a variation in elevation is evident then the conclusion must be that the volcanos have only existed a short time and there elevation reflects the differing time spent above the water line during the ice age water level fluctuation.
Variation in erosion elevations requires recent volcano dates during the ice ages and of course the radioactive date estimates to be incorrect.
The correlation between time and tectonic plate movement is only an assumption based on incorrect date estimates which does not qualify as scientific proof.
Unless you can propose a reasonable explanation defining the current variations in sequential guyot elevations of course.
Duane
Ocean levels without the ice caps is estimated at 220 feet above current levels.Jet Black said:what is the mean water level over the past 60 million years?
duordi said:If a variation in elevation is evident then the conclusion must be that the volcanos have only existed a short time and there elevation reflects the differing time spent above the water line during the ice age water level fluctuation.
My model can address the observed erosion, however it does not address the correlation between plate velocity and the implied ages of the islands. However, as noted, neither do other non-plume hypotheses which are taken seriously in the geological and geophysical literature. You should ask yourself why this is so.notto said:And the hawaiian island is one of the formations that lays that dispute to rest because the 3 lines of evidence (erosion, dating, and movement of the plates) all correlate well under the mainstream model. Your model doesn't address this correlation across different radioisotropic dating techniques and the erosion and velocity of plate movement.
According to the geological community. Furthermore such research for non-plume theories are often published. Ask any geologist/geophysicist and they can probably tell you that this is a hot topic in the field. Don Anderson is probably the most well known critic of plume theory.Widely growing in popularity according to whom?
Note the oldest islands. And their erosion to sea level is only approximate. Furthermore, there are many islands for which we do not know this becasue they have subsided below sea level and atoll growth is the only reason they are seen at around sea level. The graph that you provided in your link does not contain all the relevant data.The oldest islands by any of the age measurements have eroded to the sea level.
Because they have experienced various seamount building processes such as volcanism and atoll growth and/or their elevation is dictated simply by isostasy.The most resent (even the non active ones) have not. Why is this?
Yes and no. According to CPT (assuming a single year time-span. I am willing to consider much longer timespans), these islands were built quickly, yet they maintain relative age. They were not created simultaneously and they now exist on lithosphere of various relative ages and thickness.Under the CPT model, were not all the islands rapidly built within a similar amount of time and during the same timespan?
Why this difference in erosiion patterns? Why does this erosion pattern match the dating of the islands, and the distance from the current active spot. Why does this correlation exist at all in your model?
I don't think you have shown that erosion matches dating. To do this you would have to know the mass prior to erosion and the mass subsequent to having subsided below the point where erosion is an efficient process.
Of course the fact is that islands who are above sea level are considerably flat because lava flows are very inviscous and tend to flow to great distances. Furthermore volcanic basements of old islands are not entirely flat. Clearly they have been eroded by surface processes, however that guyots are largely flat is mostly due to atoll growth.
Anyways, my point is that you have not presented the relevant (good) data which clearly exhibits that quantitative erosion very noticably increases with age. This is not going to be suggested merely from topographic data, because of other processes which effect topography
Actually, CPT essentially replaces it.CPT is tied to the global flood model.
I never said that the water never got higher than the hawaiian islands or exceeded current sea level.Why the need for CPT if the water never got higher than the hawaiian islands? What value does the CPT model have to the flood needing creationist if the water level never got higher than current sea level?
The only dating method that has been established is the radioisotopic technique. However CPT does not directly address radioisotopic dating except by stating that it is useful as a relative dating method.I guess I still don't see how your model explains the correlation between all of the lines of evidence and methods of dating we find at the Hawaiian islands.
Avoiding evidence is hardly the case. There are many instances of disconfirming evidence for CPT. The problem is that hypotheses will always have instances of disconfirming evidence. However it is the goal of hypotheses to avoid falsification by those instances of disconfirmation by explaining them. CPT has continued development and now explains far more than it used to.The mainstream model seems to explain the evidence well, consists of mechanism that are all measurable today and are still occuring at rates consistent with what we would expect if it is these processes that formed the Hawaiian islands. Not sure why you need to pursue the CPT model with its issues related to explaining well understood (and undisputed dating techniques) and heat issues. Seems like you are trying to build a model based on nothing but your desire to do so while avoiding the evidence we already have that your model is incorrect.
What is 'evidence'? Do you know? In what way is it compatible with the assertion that CPT explains 'little evidence'? Im not sure you completely understand what is actually observed with the Hawaiian island chain and emperor seamounts.I don't see CPT in any way as a comprehensive model that can explain the correlation of data we have of the Hawaiian islands. It certainly doesn't have much support or evidence to support it other than miraculous happenings that apparently left little evidence.
-Chris Grose
TrueCreation said:What is 'evidence'? Do you know? In what way is it compatible with the assertion that CPT explains 'little evidence'? Im not sure you completely understand what is actually observed with the Hawaiian island chain and emperor seamounts.
-Chris Grose
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?