From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:44:14 EDT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: allenroy [mailto:allenroy@peoplepc.com]
>Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 2:46 PM
>
>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.
I will agree with you that anyone who makes such an assertion ought to go to
the trouble to back it up. You are correct that I would ask that of you and
while I didn't read the note in which Michael claimed what you say, if he
did, I would think the same thing goes both ways. I would expect people to
hold me to that standard as well.
However, I can understand Michael's frustration with dealing with people
who simply don't or won't pay attention to data no matter what one places in
front of them. It is usually better to do the work prior to the time of the
claim. If I were a betting man, I would bet with Michael on this due to past
experience with Woody.
>
>> 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.
Great, do you know what the frictional coefficient is of mantle to the
crust? You have no coherent theory until you explain what the motive force
was. runaway subduction won't work in my mind because the tensile strength
of the oceanic crust appears to be too small to allow such accelerations
required by Baumgardner's theory. Got another one?
I asked
>> 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.
Given that we don't see any change in chemical composition among the islands
and given that we don't see any change of chemical composition in the mantle
underlying the pacific (this would be seen by velocity variations in the
speed of sound) what evidence you you have to support this claim?
What is the mechanism of this isotopic depletion? Coherent theories have to
dig deeper than merely a surficial explanation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 18:44:34 EDT