From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 17:52:53 EDT
As McEnroe said on the tennis courts in Wimbledon, every time he did not
like the umpire's decision, "You can't be serious!"
Glenn's sound argument is simply met with made up nonsense and fairy tales
to evade the force of his argument of a progression in age away from
Kilaeua. Change in chemical composition my foot.
I simply do not have the time to spend hours or days producing the argument
needed when we all know that Allen simply will deny it, on some totally
incoherent argument.
Please Allen God gave you a brain, it ought to be used to his glory and not
defending a fairy tale of plates whizzing round the earth like lumps of
sodium in water. This is no better than von Danniken.
I suppose someone will tell me how horrible I am and that my attitudes are
not Christian!
Michael.
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: RATE
> Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> > >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,
>
> In the case being discussed, Roberts claimed that he had found 100
misquotes by
> Woodmorappe. I simply asked him to back up his claim. And he cannot or
will
> not supply it.
>
> You know, as well as I, that if I had made any such claim as Roberts made,
that
> you, and over a half-a-dozen others on this list, would jump on me with
both
> feet demanding my evidence. Yet, Roberts makes an unsupported assertion
and no
> one but me asks for his evidence. And when I do, I'm treated like I'm
> questioning the Almighty.
>
> > 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.
>
> A Flood Cataclysmist view is that the Pacific plate moved NW across the
volcanic
> source/hot spot (or vice verse) during the Flood Cataclysm creating the
islands.
>
> > 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.
>
> The oldest islands would would be the ones to the North. They would also
be the
> most eroded because they would have come up during the cataclysm, where as
those
> to the south came up during the latter, less catastrophic, stages of the
flood
> and finally the Hawaiian Islands may have come up afterward.
>
> > Why is there a systematic increase in age in the direction that
continental
> > drift is moving the ocean floor?
>
> The "increase in age" simply reflects the change in the chemical
composition of
> the volcanic source/hot spot as the Pacific plate moved across it (or vice
> verse). There may have been a depletion of certain elements from the
source
> over a short time which gives the false impression of long time when
interpreted
> within isometric dating methodology.
>
> Allen
>
> >
> >
> > 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
-0.4 --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > Why is there a systematic increase
> > in age in the direction that continental drift is moving the ocean
floor?
> >
> >
> > 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 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 17:49:55 EDT