YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands

NOTE TO ADMIN: I couldn't find the codes for shrinking down imbedded images. The fourth and final image is a little to large, so I would appreciate it if you could either reference the html codes or edit it yourself. {Done - See "Raw Text" to see my method. There are also other methods - Adminnemooseus} And of course, your criticisms are always welcome. Thanks in advance.*************************************This thread deals with evidence that falsifies young earth creationism (YEC) and supports the old age of the eart. Specifically, this thread deals with the formation of the Hawaiian Islands and the Emporer Seamounts. In doing so, only objective measurements of the earth are used, and in doing so it will be shown that an old earth is indeed supported in a way that refutes a young earth.The Hawaiian islands and the Emporer seamounts are the direct cause of volcanic activity. It has been theorized that these formations all originated from one mantle plume. This same mantle plume is now responsible for the eruptions at Kilauea. Also, the Pacific plate, on which the seamounts and islands are part of, is moving northwest at about 8-10 cm/year as measured by GPS. So, as the Pacific plate moves over the hotspot, new islands will crop up in a line. The picture below shows the Hawaiian chain and the Emporer chain, with Kilauea being the last island on the right hand side: Conventional geology, through the theory of tectonics, puts forth the following predictions:1. The measured age of the seamounts will increase, in a linear fashion, as the distance from Kilauea increases.2. The amount of subsidence (ie sinking) will also increase, in a linear fashion, from Kilauea.YEC theories, saying that these seamounts and islands were created within a short geologic time frame, put foth the following predictions:1. There should be no linear correlation between the distance from Kilauea and the age of the islands or seamounts. This is because YEC's believe that such islands were made quickly, and not over millions of years. Also, they believe that K/Ar dating is not accurate. Therefore, no realtionship should be found between a faulty dating methodology and real life islands.2. The amount of subsidence should not correlate with the distance from Kilauea. Since these islands were created around the same time geologically, it makes sense that all of the seamounts should have sunk at the same rate, and therefore all of the seamounts should have sunk by the same amount.AGE:The age of the islands was measured using K/Ar dating. Now, if either the plate movement, radioactive decay rates, or the precision of the dating method were not reliable, then we should not see a linear relationship between the measured age of the islands/seamounts and their distance from the hotspot (ie Kilauea). However, there is a linear relationship as seen in this graph: You can find the actual numbers for the graph here if you want to construct your own graph.Going with the data, we can see that the Pacific plate moved about 5,000 km over a 65 million year span. If at any time the decay rates changed, then we should not see a linear relationship. Instead, there should be an abrupt change in the age/distance ratio. Also, if there was a great shift in the plate movement, this relationship also should not be linear.SUBSIDENCE:As islands move away from the supporting lava, they tend to sink down back into the plate. In fact, direct observations of Hawaii have shown that the island is falling about 2.2 mm/year. This is also supported by the fact that the farther you move from Kilauea, the smaller and shorter the islands become. Most of this is due to erosion, however the overall subsidence of the island can be measured by the coral that surrounds it. Coral only forms within meters of the surface of the water. Therefore, when coral is found deeper below sea level, and also in combination with rocks that could only have been formed by lava exposed to air, it is strong evidence that these structures used to be closer to the surface. Therefore, there should be a linear realationship between the distance from Kiauea and the amount of subsidence as measured by the coral's distance from sea level. And indeed, there is: from http://www.geocities.com/pgspears/age.htmlAlso, the height above sea level for the actual islands is quite amazing as well, with only the newest islands above sea level.
{Image rescaled to "100%", to restore page width to mormal - Adminnemooseus}
Go to http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/archipel.gif for full sized image.Conclusion:The argument that YEC theories "make more sense" when looking at geologic age make absolutely no sense when looking at this example. However, a constant and slow moving tectonic plate over a mantle plume does make sense when considering the actual data. How can this data be reconciled with a 6,000 year old earth, or even a 100,000 year old earth? It would require that the present day movement of the plate, radioactive decay, and subsidence all change by orders of magnitudes (by thousands of percent in some cases). Constancy in the past is not a foolhardy assumption, but rather a conclusion arising from the evidence found within and on the earth. If constancy was not the rule, then the above realationships would not exist. If the plates moved around as Walt Brown hypothesizes, then why do we find evidence for slowly moving plates over millions of years? If all of these islands and seamounts were formed at once, then why do we have these linear realtionships?These are questions that are either ignored by YEC's, or are dealt with by using untestable ad hoc hypotheses, such as Oomphalos arguments or by referencing dating studies that used faulty methodology to arive at faulty dates (the Mt. St. Helens and Grand Canyon studies to name two). If, in fact, scientists are lying about the ratios of potassium and argon in these rocks, then ICR or AiG should hurry over and measure these ratios themselves. If the rate of tectonic movement is wrong, or the rate of subsidence is incorrectly measured, then they are free to measure these as well. In other words, if there is a conspiracy it would be child's play to uncover it.So the question for YEC's is how do you explain these relationships in a way that "makes sense"?Is there any reason that these observations are faulty?How should we date these islands and seamounts using objective criteria and data?This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-13-2004 02:36 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Would the Yellowstone Caldera sequence also support your assertion?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is nice to have such a well defined topic now and then. Please don't confuse things. Thanks.

Point taken.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Would the Yellowstone Caldera sequence also support your assertion?

---

Let's save this for later. However, other mantle plumes are evidence that the Hawaiian islands and Emporer seamounts are not an anomoly but instead a consistent phenomena within nature. I would prefer that other hotspots fill this role for now.

This is reasonably straight forward. I'm unclear as to whether we have any YECs in here any more.If we do I wonder why they haven't shown us the errors here?

I can not get to a discussion of YEC geology only because I am uncertain how to think of the "track" of Croizat and the Sphere of Kant so as long as I have to do most if not much of the work that I am able to do it may be quite some time before I will comment in this kind of thing. Croizat made some "funky" maps that had TWO NEW-WORLD(NandS America)s and and he introduced the term "world continent" biogeographically &so with twice the amount of land I can easily think of the flood of waters at any time. I am still too busy with lower levels of organization to figure out how logic fits into the undefined width of this all.

You're not the only one... Mark

In a previous thread Nosyned was going to provide proof that the Islands are actually moving, and not rooted beneath the techtonic plates. It makes one think the plates are but floating in that general direction, from when the hydroplates movement happening possibly up to 5,848 years ago when the biblical flood occurred, that may in fact moved the plates upon which the older seamounts are resting, however are the Hawaiian Islands themselves actually moving. If I remember correctly all Ned and company could offer is a phone number, but no proof that the islands themselves are moving in this direction, we kinda agreed that the plates themselves are equalizing in that direction, not sure if the Hawaiian Island themselves are moving, though I'm sure Geo satellight topography should answer this question, it was interesting that it still has not been answered, making one wonder if the roots of the Hawaiian Islands rest deeper than the techtonic plates surrounding these islands, if so then the plates might actually be moving around the islands, and the ancient seamounts themselves floating upon the tectonic plates, etc...P.S. It would be interesting if Satellight Geo topography could answer this question, are the Present Hawaiian Islands rooted beneath the shifting tecthonic plates, or not, etc...If the present Hawaiian Islands are rooted then are the ancient seamounts moving, or rooted in place. I think we all agreed the techtonic plates themselves appear to be floating a bit in said direction, as the earth techtonic plates are still equalizing a bit since the believed biblical deluge hydroplate theory reshaped the earth, happening perhaps as long ago as 5,848 years ago, etc...The evidence of coral on these ancient seamounts actually support they were above water or near the surface, so the question is did they sink, or can this be interpreted as evidence supporting the biblical deluge, when the waters rushed off the earth to the oceans, etc...

--I start classes, many of which are geo course, so I might as well see if I still understand this stuff, my scouring the literature has been lacking in the past few months.

quote:

---

If the present Hawaiian Islands are rooted then are the ancient seamounts moving, or rooted in place. I think we all agreed the techtonic plates themselves appear to be floating a bit in said direction, as the earth techtonic plates are still equalizing a bit since the believed biblical deluge hydroplate theory reshaped the earth, happening perhaps as long ago as 5,848 years ago, etc...The evidence of coral on these ancient seamounts actually support they were above water or near the surface, so the question is did they sink, or can this be interpreted as evidence supporting the biblical deluge, when the waters rushed off the earth to the oceans, etc...

---

--I don't think that bathymetric mapping alone is going to diagnose the situation here. I think it is very well substantiated in the research which has been carried in the Hawaiian island and Emperor seamount chain that it is a result of a mantle plume impinging on the pacific oceanic lithosphere above. A few months ago the first high resolution seismic images were published in the journal Science which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that buoyant mantle plumes were the cause of many hotspots worldwide. Geomagnetic and geochronologic analysis of the islands also indicate that they are much younger than the crust on which they stand.--Also, I think that the biggest problem for any YECist explanation of the Emperor seamounts is the topography and lithology of their summits. This is more of a problem for the Hydroplate theory than, say, catastrophic plate tectonics, but it is still a problem for both. The lithology of guyots in the Emperer chain consists of a volcanic basement with superposing layered lagoonal facies and a pelagic cover. Many of them also have reef facies adjacent to the layered lagoonal facies. What this points to is that they are subsided volcanic islands.

quote:

---

If the present Hawaiian Islands are rooted then are the ancient seamounts moving, or rooted in place.

---

From this site using satellite imaging techniques the movement of three sites in the hawaiian islands have been measured.Kauai = 8.3 cm/year
Kokee = 6.5 cm/year
Mauna Kea = 6.7 cm/yearSo yes, they are moving along with the rest of the pacific plate. Now, if the seamounts were not moving what do you think would be happening? There should be mountains piling up on the lee side of the seamounts, but there aren't. So, the seamounts must be moving as well. Also, the measured speed of the plate also matches with the ages of each of the islands and seamounts. Again, why is there a correlation that matches up with the current measured speed of the pacific plate? Also, why does this same speed and age also match up with the rate of subsidence?

quote:

---

The evidence of coral on these ancient seamounts actually support they were above water or near the surface, so the question is did they sink, or can this be interpreted as evidence supporting the biblical deluge, when the waters rushed off the earth to the oceans, etc...

---

If you will notice on the y axis of the supplied graph, the amount of subsidence is gradual over the island and seamount chain, and it reaches a maximum of 1.2 km. If this was a sudden deluge, then you would expect all of the seamounts to exhibit coral at the same depth from current sea levels. In other words, the line of best fit should be parallel with the x axis. Instead, the line fits the current measured subsidence of the hawaiian islands. Again, the data matches present day rates, not a sudden cataclysmic event. Also, you would have to find evidence that sea levels were 1.2 km lower than they are now.Again, why does these independent measurements (K/Ar ratios, distance from Kilauea, and subsidence) match current day observations and not conform to an earth that is 6,000 years old or a cataclysmic event such as a global flood?

The 2.2 mm a year is a that a standard sinking rate for the entire chain as well?Is the whole floor of the ocean sinking or just the island. Does it stop sinking after it goes below sea level?Is this sinking rate effected in anyway with the rising ocean?edited to add a question.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 08-16-2004 06:46 AM

I once came across a sci fi sorta story on this geological feature; it suggested that the stationary hot-spot was itself a bit unusual. Is that true? Just wondering.

Hey Brad, you might want to go to this site for a start. Instead of plates moving away from each other we see islands being split into smaller islands as they sink and shrink due to subsidence and erosion.