From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 15:10:58 EDT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of allenroy
>Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 11:55 AM
>To: Michael Roberts
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: RATE
>
>Morton's consist of comparing evolutionary interpretation with
>Woodmorappe's
>interpretation and claiming that the evolutionary interpretation
>is the only
>valid interpretation.
>
>> Schimmerich,
>
>Schimmerich does the same thing as morton.
At last, I have a follower!!!! Yippee.
>I simply asked for the evidence you said you had found and all I get is
>assertions and pontification.
I am not sure what evidence you want, but I can provide evidence that YECs
pay no attention to data and cannot explain the data coherently within the
young-earth/global framework. By coherent explanation I mean an explanation
takes into account all the data and doesn't ignore any and doesn't
contradict the data or deny its existence. The evidence consistes of a test
I will put out here. If YEC is so good scientifically then you will
immediately post a reply explaining how this occurs in a global flood.
This is what I posted this morning on theologyweb:
The two models of the world, young-earth and old earth have differing
predictions when it comes to the Hawaiian islands. The young-earth view has
the islands forming about the same time--in the global flood. This model
would predict that the islands should all look about the same.
The old-earth view has the islands forming slowly over millions of years
from a hotspot on the ocean floor. As drift moves the seafloor crust past
the volcanic hotspot, the Hawaiian islands are carried northward. This model
would predict that as one goes north, the radioactive dates should get
older, the islands should be more highly eroded and thus topographically
lower eventually disappearing beneath the waves as one goes north.
What do we see? The table below shows a list of islands, their distance from
Kilauea (the present site of the volcanic hotspot(Kilauea has been erupting
nearly continuously from 1983). Kilauea is the tallest of the islands and
the heights drop as one goes north. Volcanism also decreases as one goes
north along the chain. Here is the table.
Ages of some of the Hawaiian Islands and outer seamounts
(see note at table bottom)
Volcano Volcano Distance from Best K-Ar Data Source
Number Name Kilauea along age (Ma) (tabulated below)
trend of chain
(km)
1 Kilauea 0 0-0.4 --
3 Mauna Kea 54 0.375 + 0.05 1
5 Kohala 100 0.43 + 0.02 2
6 Haleakala 182 0.75 + 0.04 3
7 Kahoolawe 185 > 1.03 + 0.18 3
8 West Maui 221 1.32 + 0.04 4
9 Lanai 226 1.28 + 0.04 5
10 East Molokai 256 1.76 + 0.04 3
11 West Molokai 280 1.90 + 0.06 3
12 Koolau 339 2.6 + 0.1 4,6
13 Waianae 374 3.7 + 0.1 6
14 Kauai 519 5.1 + 0.20 7
15 Niihau 565 4.89 + 0.11 8
15A Kaula 600 4.0 + 0.2 21
17 Nihoa 780 7.2 + 0.3 9
20 Unnamed 913 9.2 + 0.8
Unnamed 930 9.6 + 0.8 22
23 Necker 1,058 10.3 + 0.4 9
26 La Perouse
Pinnacles 1,209 12.0 + 0.4 9
27 Brooks Bank 1,256 13.0 + 0.6 20
1,330 13.0 + 0.6 22
30 Gardner
Pinnacles 1,435 12.3 + 1.0 20
1,460 12.3 + 1.0 22
36 Laysan 1,818 19.9 + 0.3 10
37 Northampton
Bank 1,841 26.6 + 2.7 10
50 Pearl and
Hermes Reef 2,281 20.6 + 2.7 11
52 Midway 2,432 27.7 + 0.6 12
57 Unnamed 2,600 28.0 + 0.4 11
63 Unnamed 2,825 27.4 + 0.5 11
65 Colohan 3,128 38.6 + 0.3 13
65A Abbott 3,280 38.7 + 0.9 13
67 Daikakuji 3,493 42.4 + 2.3 14
69 Yuryaku 3,520 43.4 + 1.6 11
72 Kimmei 3,668 39.9 + 1.2 14
74 Koko
southern) 3,758 48.1 + 0.8 14,15
81 Ojin 4,102 55.2 + 0.7 16
83 Jingu 4,175 55.4 + 0.9 17
86 Nintoku 4,452 56.2 + 0.6 16
90 Suiko
(southern) 4,794 59.6 + 0.6 18,19
91 Suiko
(central) 4,860 64.7 + 1.1 16
Data Sources:
1. Porter and others (1977) 12. Dalrymple and others (1977)
2. McDougall and Swanson (1972) 13. Duncan and Clague (1984)
3. Naughton and others (1980) 14. Dalrymple and Clague (1976)
4. Mcdougall (1964) 15. Clague and Dalrymple (1973)
5. Bonhommet and others (1977) 16. Dalrymple and others (1980a)
6. Doel and Dalrymple (1973) 17. Dalrymple and Garcia (1980)
7. McDougall (1979) 18. Saito and Ozima (1975)
8. G.B. Dalrymple 19. Saito and Ozima (1977)
(unpub. Data, 1982)
9. Dalrymple and others (1974) 20. Garcia and others (1986b)
10. Dalrymple and others(1981) 21.Garcia and others (1986a)
11. Clague and others (1975) 22. Garcia and Others (1987)
Other Notes:
"Volcano Number" refers to the number in sequence along the Hawaiian Chain.
Loihi, the youngest expression of the Hawaiian hot spot is number 0, Kilauea
is number 1, etc.. Note that not all volcanoes are listed in the table
(e.g., number 2 = Mauna Loa and number 4 = Hualalai); also note that further
up the chain, the numbering scheme becomes more subjective.
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
accessed 10-3-03
The other thing is that as one goes further from Kilauea the elevation of
the volcanoes gets lower and there is more evidence of erosion. All
indicators agree that the farther north one goes along the chain the older
are the volcanic islands.
This is inconsistent with a global flood which would expect all the islands
to have been created about the same time. Why is there a systematic increase
in age in the direction that continental drift is moving the ocean floor?
Why are the northern islands topographically lower if they were created at
the same time as Kilauea?
Can anyone, without discussing my spiritual condition, explain this data
within a global flood perspective?
**
[note] On theology web everytime I post scientific data, they cluck their
tongues about my spiritual condition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 15:11:21 EDT