From: Duff,Robert Joel (rjduff@uakron.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 11:59:34 EDT
Alan,
Regarding Hawaiian Island geology, I suspect you may be responding to
Glenn without haveing looked at the primary literature on this one. The
evidence is quite difficult to jive with the YEC model that is typically
put forth of which yours is very similar. It may seem that one can get
around some aspects of the seeming age distibution of the islands but it
isn't just the age of the volcanic rock that one needs to deal with.
Each island is sinking into the ocean at a different rate. The newest
islands are sinking the fastest and the older ones are sinking very
slowly. The rates of sinking have been measured by real historical data.
If one goes below the water one can find a series of "drowned" reefs
below the surface that can be aged by various radiometric methods. No
matter what you think of the methods there is an amazing correlation
between the depth of these reefs and the sinking rate. There is a
strong correlation between the age of a reef and its depth below the
surface such that the dates fall on a line that matches the current rate
of sinking of the island. This suggest a relatively continous rate of
sinking over the last 50,000 years. In a YEC model the islands should
not be sinking at relatively constant rates but rather should have sunk
very very quickly soon after the flood as the floor subsided do to
cooling and then gradualloy that sinking should have slowed. I have
always found it interesting that many YEC models completely avoid
talking about the Hawaiian Islands when they represent one of the
clearest challenges to the YEC model.
Regards,
Joel
A.Roy wrote:
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.
GRM responded
> 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 0-0.4
-- > 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 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 11:59:51 EDT