Scientific proof of flood.

[TrueCreation]

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

Like I said they are merely diagrams illustrating the fundamental processes. Nothing is to scale.

-Chris Grose

 

[notto]

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.

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.

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

Widely growing in popularity according to whom?

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.

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?

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.

CPT is tied to the global flood model. 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?

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. 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.

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.

 

[duordi]

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

 

[notto]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[dlamberth]

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.

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.
Guyot: A guyot is a flat-topped vulcano seamount. Named after a Swiss geologist, most guyots occur in the mid-Pacific Ocean, especially to the southwest of Hawaii. They have an average depth of 1,200 metres (3,937 feet) at their flat summits. Geological evidence, especially coral and wave-eroded sand, indicates that many guyots were once in shallow water. It is theorized that these seamounts rose above or to sea level, were planed off by erosion, and later submerged as the seafloor aged and became more dense.

So I googled "emperor seamounts Guyot" and found some papers describing some dredgeing and drilling done in the area. At http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/197_IR/chap_06/c6_.htm is a paper describing Koko Seamount whose flat top is at ~500m. below sea level.

.

 

[duordi]

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.

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.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm
"The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)."

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.

Lest you chastise me for not providing proof.
http://www.mesa.edu.au/conf98/bowler_j.htm

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.

This is of course false unless a satisfactory explaination of the erosion line can be given.

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.

This is of course all true.
Only your time scale is impossible.
Duane

 

[dlamberth]

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.

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.

Only your time scale is impossible.

Notto's time line is right in line with the hosts of evidence we have at hand.

.

 

[notto]

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.

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.

 

[Jet Black]

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.

4 actually, genetic drift of the organisms on the island also confirms it.

 

[Jet Black]

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.

what is the mean water level over the past 60 million years?

 

[Tenshu]

Interesting how, when creationists use the term 'scientific proof/evidence', it's never scientific, so ultimately not proof either.

 

[notto]

4 actually, genetic drift of the organisms on the island also confirms it.

Link please Not that I doubt you, just want to read up.

 

[duordi]

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.

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

 

[duordi]

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.

.

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

 

[Blackmarch]

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

Sounds logical, although one can't currently support it further than that, one can't dismiss it entirely out of hand either.

 

[dlamberth]

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

This is a faulty argument. The ocean floor itself changes in depth over time which changes the depth of the various sea mounts.

For instance, look at Indonesia. Indonesia is a submerged continent whose mountains which are still above sea level are what we know of as Indonesia. And than there’s Australia, which has sunk at least 2 times.

In the case of the Hawaiian Island chain, as the ocean ages it becomes more dense and sinks lower, pulling the sea mounts down, deeper with it.

.

 

[duordi]

what is the mean water level over the past 60 million years?

Ocean levels without the ice caps is estimated at 220 feet above current levels.

Ocean levels at the peak of the ice ages is estimated at 150 feet below current levels.

Commonly accepted dates place the ice ages in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years

which would have caused sea water levels 220 feet higher.

So if you average a few million years at 220 feet higher and a few thousand years at other elevations you end up with a number close to 220 feet higher.

This makes it impossible for the volcanos to erode to current elevations until the ice ages.

This of course causes many problems for the currently accepted theories.

It will be interesting to see what modifications must be implemented to account for the data.

Duane

 

[notto]

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.

The point of the erosion is that the newer islands have not eroded to the current water level or below. There has not been enough time for them to do so after they became dormant. The same cannot be said for the rest of the chain of islands.

If the volcanoes have only existed for a short time or they were created within the same short time frame we would either see
a) all of the islands above water because the erosion was too slow to erode them to sea level
b) all of the islands eroded below sea level because the erosion was fast enough.

We don't see this. We see some islands (the oldest by two other independent dating methods) eroded more than the youngest.

The erosion pattern we see correlates with 2 other independent lines of evidence that shows the islands are old.

If the islands were young, the rate of erosion that would be required to erode the islands that are now at sea level would be noticable on the islands that are currently above water. It is not. The erosion of these volcanic islands is a slow process.

The profile of erosion we see correlates with what we would expect if the islands are very old and the erosion is due to the same erosion causing phenomena we currently see.

To suggest that these islands are young, the model would need to explain
1) how the mountain building process was accellerated from what we see today to build the islands in the first place
2) how the plate movement was accelerated to show the island spread we currently see
3) how the decay rates of the dating isotopes was changed
4) how the erosion rate was accellerated to show the profile we see

The best model we have for the formation of the hawaiian islands that explains the evidence we see is that they are indeed old, that physics hasn't changed, and that the process of erosion and island building we see going on today building and eroding is the same process that has been going on to give us the evidence we find in the chain today.

Suggesting that these islands were formed after the last ice age (which would require a lot of volcanic activity in a short amount of time) is as silly as suggesting that all the meteorites in Europe came from a simultaneous event. Neither model explains the independent methods we have that date these things.

 

[TrueCreation]

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.

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.

Widely growing in popularity according to whom?

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.

http://www.mantleplumes.org/

The oldest islands by any of the age measurements have eroded to the sea level.

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 most resent (even the non active ones) have not. Why is this?

Because they have experienced various seamount building processes such as volcanism and atoll growth and/or their elevation is dictated simply by isostasy.

Under the CPT model, were not all the islands rapidly built within a similar amount of time and during the same timespan?

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.

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

CPT is tied to the global flood model.

Actually, CPT essentially replaces it.

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?

I never said that the water never got higher than the hawaiian islands or exceeded current sea level.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[notto]

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

What mechanism started CPT movement? What mechanism stopped it? Where is the evidence of this? Where is the evidence of the heat it produced? How did steep and narrow volcanic mountains build during this process? How did they erode so quickly? And, as always, why the differences in dating?

Evidence would point us to the CPT model, it has not (and does not). You need to start your rewrite of science much further back and throw out much of what we know about geology and physics before your model explains the evidence better than the mainstream explanation (or even the no plume model). You are now borrowing from another model. If you take that model as valid, it does not support CPT unless you again, throw out the evidence and data that was used to build that model. What time frames does the Non-Plume model support? Plume or No plume, you still have a millions of years model. Can you find a mainstream (plume or no plume) geologist who would agree with your timeframes and dismissal of dating methods based on the evidence from either model?