From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 06:31:32 EDT
"Duff,Robert Joel" wrote:
>Alan,[ALLEN]
>Regarding Hawaiian Island geology, ... It may seem that one can get around
some aspects of the seeming age distribution 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.
I was responding to Glenn, and he talk only of erosion of the islands and
apparent age distribution. I have not yet heard of sinking of the islands.
>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 continuous
rate of sinking over the last 50,000 years.
A Creationary Cataclysmic Flood model includes a post-Flood global ice-age.
During this "warm" ice-age, that lasted some 800 years, the ocean surface level
likely fell to nearly 300 feet below current level. The post-flood oceans are
thought to have averaged 30 degrees Celsius, and so would have been very
conducive to rapid reef growth. So one would expect to find reefs at low
levels. I guess the question is, are the islands sinking or did the oceans rise
after the ice-age? I don't know if this can explain the evidence or not.
Obviously, this would take much more research and thought than I can give at
this moment.
>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 gradually that sinking should have slowed.
Perhaps. On the other hand, the older islands would start sinking sooner than
the later one because the hotspot had moved on. Where ever the hotspot was, the
crust would be higher. Where it wasn't, the crust would sink. So the modern
islands should be sinking faster then the older ones now because the older ones
have already begun the slow down. This would work whether on a fast schedule or
a slow schedule. One would also need to take into consideration the post-flood
water levels due to the ice-age mentioned above.
>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.
Considering that there are very few creationary Cataclysmist geologists, it
should not be surprising that they have not gotten around to every apparent
challenge.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 06:32:25 EDT