From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 22:44:44 EDT
Glenn Morton wrote:
> >> 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?
I suspect it is quite high (i.e. whichever way means they will not move past
each other easily) however, the model does not require the crust the slide over
the mantle like a ski over snow. Rather the athenesphere, which is the most
plastic layer of the mantle, flows due to the sinking of the oceanic crust into
the mantle. As it circulates, it pushes (drags) the plates around.
> 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?
With the athenesphere pushing (dragging) the oceanic crust around, the tensile
strength of the crust is not a major factor. The subduction is due to the
weight of the crust sinking into the athenesphere mantle because of a change in
viscosity of the mantle. That sinking sets up a current which moves the crust
over to the subduction zone like an escalator. Tensile strength of the crust
would likely slow the process down.
>
>
> 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?
You, yourself, listed 40 different measurements of chemical changes from island
to island. It would be impossible to have different computed ages, if each
island had exactly the same chemical mixture.
> 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
The difference between you and I is that you believe that these measured
differences in isotopes from island to island are the result of long ages of
time. I believe that these differences are simply due to changes in the make up
of the source material over a short time.
> What is the mechanism of this isotopic depletion? Coherent theories have to
> dig deeper than merely a surficial explanation.
Whatever theory one has, it must deal with just what is the "hot spot" and what
causes/d it. the concept of homogeneity is not very likely.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 22:45:12 EDT