Scientific proof of flood.

[duordi]

First you have to show that what we find at the Hawaiian islands isn't exactly what we would expect to find.

Its not my theory its yours.

You have to tell me how your 60 million year old islands escaped the conditions which caused the continental shelf.

If you can't then I will assume you have no satisfactory explanation.

If you haven't thought about this item then just say so, Its not meant as a personal attack.

Where would you expect the continental shelf to be? How do you know it isn't there? On what data do you make this claim? What features would a continental shelf around a small island have? How do you know it isn't there? On what data do you make this claim?

Take it easy Notto, I just asked a simple question how do you account for the fact that continents have continental shelves but your ( old ) islands have do not have this feature.

You claim that the erosion profile of the Hawaiian islands isn't what we would expect with long ages. You haven't presented any specific data to back up this point.

We would expect????

The data matches what I would expect but I consider the islands much younger then you do.

How would I know what you would expect?

If I knew that I wouldn't have asked you.

Duane

 

[notto]

Take it easy Notto, I just asked a simple question how do you account for the fact that continents have continental shelves but your ( old ) islands have do not have this feature.

You claim that the islands do not have a continental shelf.

1) What type of shelf would you expect around a small volcanic island?
2) What evidence do you have that what you would expect is not there?

You are claiming that what we find there isn't what we would expect. You have not supported this claim. First, tell me what you would expect to find and on what basis you expect to find it and second, show me evidence that it is not there.

You have to first show us that your expectations are valid and second you have to show us that they are not met. You have done neither of these so your claims really don't mean much until you do.

You are making the claims that what we find at the islands is not what we would expect to see. Can you back them up with real data?

Where are you getting the data you are using to support your claim? I must have missed that.

 

[USincognito]

You have to tell me how your 60 million year old islands escaped the conditions which caused the continental shelf.

I just asked a simple question how do you account for the fact that continents have continental shelves but your ( old ) islands have do not have this feature.

Is this post a joke?

Hawaii is the result of a crustal hot spot where fresh magma is rising from Earth's interior. The actual tectonic plates are miles below the island surface expressions that constitute the evidentiary outflow. Can't you use Google?

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

If you don't even understand the basics of geology, how can you feel so compelled to comment on the issue?

 

[duordi]

Early maps are often just totally wrong. They are based on incomplete data and often on lots of imagination.

So how do you explain that the coast line and even an unexpected condition that Antarctica is really two individual land masses is correctly displayed before Antarctica was discovered?

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the evidence of multiple ice ages over earth's history is overwhelming.

I have documented evidence of a map that shows Antarctica without an ice cover.

Are you saying that people lived at that time with technical abilities capable of creating the map or are you saying the 10,000 year date is incorrect?

No. The most impacts are found in the geologically stable Baltic Shield. More geologically active areas have lost the evidence of strikes that may have occurred there. This has been explained to you many times.

And I responded by narrowing the area of consideration to the Baltic Shield only and the pattern is still clearly not random. See attached image.

It is my opinion that your "logic" is totally wrong.

A bold statement indeed.

And which step in my logical argument do you consider faulty?

That is why isochron dating was developed. The validity of these assumptions can be tested.

Oh can they? ( I must admit that I am curious as to how this would be done.)

Except that multiple methods based on different isotopes give the same results.

Allow me to provide the amount of assumed trace elements for each isotope at inception and I can create any date you wish, and they will all match.

I am wondering if you ever did read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. You are still repeating creationist misperceptions of dating methodology. I also doubt if you ever studied isochron methods.

I prefer technical journals.

Did your program take into account the different geological stability of regions of Europe? I rather doubt it.

How sad that you are so untrusting.

As stated above the image attached was narrowed to just the Baltic Shield to show the results in a common geological condition.

Tell me do you consider your self as accepting the evidence without biased?

They can't be accepted because they start a false underlying assumption. The assumption that meteor strikes that have occurred in all areas over the past are equally likely to have left evidence that has been found today.

You assign a false assumption to me.

The indication of a non-random condition was first proven in a restricted area of similar geological strata, ( the Baltic Shield ) similar population density, in a technologically advanced region with topographical maps for the entire area, and occupied by a government which allowed free access.

Only craters 1 KM in diameter or grater were considered to eliminate the possibility that the craters were somehow missed.

Of course we still must consider the possibility of chance and unaccounted for influences but can you actually look at the image attached and say it is not apparent that the strike has a spherical symmetry and density pattern?

Surely your thinking can not be so conditioned towards a single idea that it is allowed no freedoms.

Duane

P.S You have some very interesting comments and so I copied this to the main thread.

 

[duordi]

You claim that the islands do not have a continental shelf.

1) What type of shelf would you expect around a small volcanic island?
2) What evidence do you have that what you would expect is not there?

You are claiming that what we find there isn't what we would expect. You have not supported this claim. First, tell me what you would expect to find and on what basis you expect to find it and second, show me evidence that it is not there.

You have to first show us that your expectations are valid and second you have to show us that they are not met. You have done neither of these so your claims really don't mean much until you do.

You are making the claims that what we find at the islands is not what we would expect to see. Can you back them up with real data?

Where are you getting the data you are using to support your claim? I must have missed that.

I would expect to find the island eroded to the continental shelf line if the islands were 60 million years old.

But the point is what would you expect?

Duane

 

[duordi]

Early maps are often just totally wrong. They are based on incomplete data and often on lots of imagination.

So how do you explain that the coast line and even an unexpected condition that Antarctica is really two individual land masses is correctly displayed before Antarctica was discovered?

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the evidence of multiple ice ages over earth's history is overwhelming.

I have documented evidence of a map that shows Antarctica without an ice cover.

Are you saying that people lived at that time with technical abilities capable of creating the map or are you saying the 10,000 year date is incorrect?

No. The most impacts are found in the geologically stable Baltic Shield. More geologically active areas have lost the evidence of strikes that may have occurred there. This has been explained to you many times.

And I responded by narrowing the area of consideration to the Baltic Shield only and the pattern is still clearly not random. See attached image.

It is my opinion that your "logic" is totally wrong.

A bold statement indeed.

And which step in my logical argument do you consider faulty?

That is why isochron dating was developed. The validity of these assumptions can be tested.

Oh can they? ( I must admit that I am curious as to how this would be done.)

Except that multiple methods based on different isotopes give the same results.

Allow me to provide the amount of assumed trace elements for each isotope at inception and I can create any date you wish, and they will all match.

I am wondering if you ever did read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. You are still repeating creationist misperceptions of dating methodology. I also doubt if you ever studied isochron methods.

I prefer technical journals.

Did your program take into account the different geological stability of regions of Europe? I rather doubt it.

How sad that you are so untrusting.

As stated above the image attached was narrowed to just the Baltic Shield to show the results in a common geological condition.

Tell me do you consider your self as accepting the evidence without biased?

They can't be accepted because they start a false underlying assumption. The assumption that meteor strikes that have occurred in all areas over the past are equally likely to have left evidence that has been found today.

You assign a false assumption to me.

The indication of a non-random condition was first proven in a restricted area of similar geological strata, ( the Baltic Shield ) similar population density, in a technologically advanced region with topographical maps for the entire area, and occupied by a government which allowed free access.

Only craters 1 KM in diameter or grater were considered to eliminate the possibility that the craters were somehow missed.

Of course we still must consider the possibility of chance and unaccounted for influences but can you actually look at the image attached and say it is not apparent that the strike has a spherical symmetry and density pattern?

Surely your thinking can not be so conditioned towards a single idea that it is allowed no freedoms.

Duane

P.S You have some very interesting comments and so I copied this to the main thread.

 

[duordi]

Is this post a joke?

Hawaii is the result of a crustal hot spot where fresh magma is rising from Earth's interior. The actual tectonic plates are miles below the island surface expressions that constitute the evidentiary outflow. Can't you use Google?

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

If you don't even understand the basics of geology, how can you feel so compelled to comment on the issue?

No, not a joke.

Notto stated that the islands can be dated by an assumption of constant tectonic plane movement.

He suggested that some ( he did not say which ones ) of the islands are 60 million years old.

If that is true I was curious as to how this assumption coexisted with the expected ocean levels.

I am somewhat disappointed that I can not get a straight answer on this.

I was expecting something like...

During the age from .... to .... The ocean level was ..... and it caused the island ..... to have this geological evidence.

For pre-ice-age, during the ice ages and relatively current conditions.

In the image you show it seems to indicate that the ocean level remained at current levels for 60 million years because that is the level all the islands were eroded to.

Considering the ice ages should have varied that level and that the continental shelf is submerged indicating a past lower water level the islands should also give evidence of the water level of the past not current water levels.

If no other explanation can be given then that the islands were more recent then commonly accepted then the radioactive dating assumptions used to date geological formations are incorrect and an independent method must be found calibrate the radioactive dating systems.

Duane

 

[dlamberth]

If no other explanation can be given then that the islands were more recent then commonly accepted then the radioactive dating assumptions used to date geological formations are incorrect and an independent method must be found calibrate the radioactive dating systems.

Duane

Duane, other scientific explanations were given to you. I watched as I and other gave it to you. But it is you who has elected to not accept the scientific knowledge that has accumulated on the Hawaiian island chain. I suspect because none of it backs up, as you say, your "opinion".
You have also been given up to date information on radiometric dating that you seem to have chosen to throw out the door as well.

Personally, I don't know where to go from here. I could just as well believe that the moon is made of green cheese, because it's my opinion and in backing up my opinion deny all scientific knowledge that says otherwise.


.

 

[notto]

Considering the ice ages should have varied that level and that the continental shelf is submerged indicating a past lower water level the islands should also give evidence of the water level of the past not current water levels.

And they do as indicated in the data that dlamberth graciously added to the discussion.

You are making a claim that this evidence isn't consistent with what we would expect to find there. You have yet to show us where in the data you find the inconsistencies. If you look at the picture of the island profile, each mark represents 1500 Meters. Thats 4500 feet. There is not enough resolution in that picture to make the claims you are making.

As with your meteor argument, you need to go beyond the pictures and look at the data.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

[/u]

So how do you explain that the coast line and even an unexpected condition that Antarctica is really two individual land masses is correctly displayed before Antarctica was discovered?

Antarctica is not two indvidual land masses. The maps you talk about don't even come close to the actual shape of Antarctica, especially what Antarctica looked like before the 300,000,000 cubic km of ice depressed the Antarctic continent. The idea that ice with an average thickness of about 2000 meters formed since people were making maps is absurd.

I have documented evidence of a map that shows Antarctica without an ice cover.

Are you saying that people lived at that time with technical abilities capable of creating the map or are you saying the 10,000 year date is incorrect?

No the maps were incorrect. Aristotle predicted that there would be a continents at the both poles in about 350 BC. Early map makers often drew fanciful things without having actually seen them. It is also possible the Porteguese sailors had at least spotted the Antarctic coast line.

And I responded by narrowing the area of consideration to the Baltic Shield only and the pattern is still clearly not random. See attached image.

A bold statement indeed.

And which step in my logical argument do you consider faulty?

You are still claiming that the northern part of the Baltic Shield is as well explored as the southern and you have not done an actual statistical analysis to prove that the distribution is not random.

Oh can they? ( I must admit that I am curious as to how this would be done.)

I have given you references. You just won't read them.

Allow me to provide the amount of assumed trace elements for each isotope at inception and I can create any date you wish, and they will all match.

Only if you provide the exact right amount for each isotope to get a match. Again, read the references.

I prefer technical journals.

[/u]

Somehow I doubt that you have read any technical journals on radiometric dating, particularly isochron dating or you wouldn't keep repeating the same assertions. I have given you references to web pages but of course you don't dare to actually read and think about them. I could give you a hundred or so references to technical journals if you want but I think I would just be wasting my time.

How sad that you are so untrusting.

As stated above the image attached was narrowed to just the Baltic Shield to show the results in a common geological condition.

Tell me do you consider your self as accepting the evidence without biased?

You assign a false assumption to me.

The indication of a non-random condition was first proven in a restricted area of similar geological strata, ( the Baltic Shield ) similar population density, in a technologically advanced region with topographical maps for the entire area, and occupied by a government which allowed free access.

Only craters 1 KM in diameter or grater were considered to eliminate the possibility that the craters were somehow missed.

Of course we still must consider the possibility of chance and unaccounted for influences but can you actually look at the image attached and say it is not apparent that the strike has a spherical symmetry and density pattern?

Do you really think the population density is the same in the far northern portion of the map? Come on. BTW the northern portion is far smaller than it looks on a flat map. I suggest you look at a globe to see what I mean. Then please tell us exactly what statistical criteria you used to prove that the distribution could not be the result of chance and what the p for rejecting the null hypothesis of chance distribution was.

Surely your thinking can not be so conditioned towards a single idea that it is allowed no freedoms.

Another irony meter bits the dust.

FB

 

[Valkhorn]

Antarctica is not two indvidual land masses. The maps you talk about don't even come close to the actual shape of Antarctica, especially what Antarctica looked like before the 300,000,000 cubic km of ice depressed the Antarctic continent. The idea that ice with an average thickness of about 2000 meters formed since people were making maps is absurd.

Agreed. I wonder how Duane can account for the missing continent of North America to most map makers of the time as well...

 

[Valkhorn]

You assign a false assumption to me.

I don't see that being the case.

However I do see all of the false assumptions you continually make. In fact, you could write the book on false assumptions.

 

[Jet Black]

........ a student suggested that fusion occured in the core of the earth........

I thought fusion was one of the suggested mechanisms by which heat was generated.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I thought fusion was one of the suggested mechanisms by which heat was generated.

Not in the core of the earth AFAIK. There is heating of the core and mantle by radioactive decay.
FB

 

[Jet Black]

Not in the core of the earth AFAIK. There is heating of the core and mantle by radioactive decay.
FB

but what about the latent heat released if or when the liquid outer core crystallizes? (note I wasn't talking about Nuclear Fusion)

 

[duordi]

Duane, other scientific explanations were given to you. I watched as I and other gave it to you. But it is you who has elected to not accept the scientific knowledge that has accumulated on the Hawaiian island chain. I suspect because none of it backs up, as you say, your "opinion".
You have also been given up to date information on radiometric dating that you seem to have chosen to throw out the door as well.

Personally, I don't know where to go from here. I could just as well believe that the moon is made of green cheese, because it's my opinion and in backing up my opinion deny all scientific knowledge that says otherwise.


.

Where to go from hear is easy.

Please tell me how you know the quantity of trace elements that exist at the inception of a strata fromation.

There are some logical answers to this question, but if you don't know why your believing a theory then you need to find out for yourself.

Just giving me answers without an understanding of how they were created, indicates you are following by blind faith.

You would not accept answers from me unless I also including how the answers were conceived.

Likewise I will also require the method of determination before I accept an answer.

You may also of couse address acient ocean levels and how they corispond to erosion of the hawiian islands, but this in my estimation would be the most dificcult of the two topics currently under consideration.


Have a nice day.

Duane

 

[duordi]

I have been trying to follow this. Now I'm confused. Are you saying that the dating methods used today with impact sites are invalid?

.

If the meteor strikes are not random,
then the meteror strikes are the result of a common event.

If the meteor strikes are a common event then they must have been created within a days time.

If the current dating methods show a variation in meteor crater dates which occured during a common event then amount of error the current dating method has can be determined.

This logical progression does not indicate what the common age is.
The age of the common event may be millions or thousands of years ago.

Does this help?

Duane

 

[dlamberth]

If the meteor strikes are not random,
then the meteror strikes are the result of a common event.

If the meteor strikes are a common event then they must have been created within a days time.

If the current dating methods show a variation in meteor crater dates which occured during a common event then amount of error the current dating method has can be determined.

This logical progression does not indicate what the common age is.
The age of the common event may be millions or thousands of years ago.

Does this help?

Duane

To get anywhere with your argument, you are the one who has to first prove that this is a single common event...which you have not done and can not prove because it's all based upon your opinion, not on what can be demonstrated.

What tells me that it is not a single event are two things...The first is that if it were a single event, the craters would be scattered all over the earth, not just at a single compact location. And second, the dating of the craters from the geology of the areas show that they are not from a single event but from events over a long period of time.


.

 

[dlamberth]

You have to tell me how your 60 million year old islands escaped the conditions which caused the continental shelf.

I want to come back to this. My initial response when I read it was a dizzy feeling that comes from a wonderment of "what in the world is he talking about?!?" The reason why is because suddenly apples and oranges were being combined and acted upon like they were one.

Just so we get something on the board here, the continents were created from a completely different process and geological stresses than that which created the Hawaiian-Emperor island chain.


.

 

[duordi]

To get anywhere with your argument, you are the one who has to first prove that this is a single common event...

Agreed

which you have not done and can not prove because it's all based upon your opinion, not on what can be demonstrated.

We seem to have opposing opinions.

What tells me that it is not a single event are two things...The first is that if it were a single event, the craters would be scattered all over the earth, not just at a single compact location.

You have this backwards.

A single object which breaks up before impact would have a high density of impact craters at a "compact location".

If you did not understand this it is no wonder that you were confused.

And second, the dating of the craters from the geology of the areas show that they are not from a single event but from events over a long period of time.

Yes, and this is the true reason this theory is opposed.

It suggests the current assumptions of trace element concentrations used for radioactive dating is incorrect.

If the general population realized that the radioactive dating system can be corrected to any time scale desired they may be upset with the way the current scientific community has presented the radioactive dating theory to them as having only one possible interpertation.

In short the catastrophic theory, if true undermines the slow steady evolutionary theory as they are opposites.

Once you realize this, if you are a staunch supporter of evolution, then you must opposed catastrophic theory fervently of course.

It is my opinion however that whoever is wrong will drown is a sea of data produced in this information age we live in.

The only plausible argument that can be made against the multiple meteor strike is that the data is not complete for one reason or another.

This position will not be maintainable as the "exit poles" have shown such a one sided race that the conclusion is already evident.

Duane