Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating in Hawaii
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (174532)
01-06-2005 8:35 PM


Has anyone seen a physical map of the Earth as it would look like if the water was removed? One of the striking features of such a map is Hawaii. First is the Biggest island (Hawaii), then some smaller big islands. Then some smaller islands. Then a series of rather small islands and many, many underwater mountains in a line going on for thousands of miles.
Pacific Basin
Source: The long trail of the Hawaiian hotspot
Now everyone should know that features on the earth are moving slowly with respect to each other. It used to be known for completely compelling theoretical considerations, but now these motions can be measured directly with GPS equipment. Plate tectonic theory tells us that there is a hot spot under the ocean floor. As the section of the crust of the earth (a plate) move with respect to this hot spot. Volcanoes form large islands over the hot spot. When island moves away from the hot spot, its volcano dies, and erosion starts to erode the island away. So behind Hawaii, there is a long string of long extinct volcanoes which for the most part no longer rise above the oceans surface.
If K-Ar dating is not full of beans (and can be properly applied to this case), we would expect that the farther away one gets from the big island, the older the volcanoes (and extinct volcanoes) will be according to K-Ar. Well here are the results (Kilauea is one of the volcanoes on the big island):
K-Ar dating of various Hawaiian islands
Source: The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands
Do note that the rate of motion of the plates implied by the above image is consistent with the measured rate of motion of Hawaii.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 11:59 PM Harlequin has not replied
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 01-07-2005 8:44 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 23 (174534)
01-06-2005 8:40 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 23 (174562)
01-06-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
01-06-2005 8:35 PM


Oops wrong kind of dates ...
Good post. I was worried that I would find advice on what kinds of lei to wear at different events ....
We will see if anyone bites, the QUESTION for the YEC crowd especially is to explain (1) the linear formation of the islands and (2) the correlation of distance with K-Ar dating.
Specifically the question is how does one {explain\conceive} any arrangement that produces both results with that degree of precision.
Good luck.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 01-06-2005 8:35 PM Harlequin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by roxrkool, posted 01-07-2005 1:03 AM RAZD has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 4 of 23 (174573)
01-07-2005 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
01-06-2005 11:59 PM


Re: Oops wrong kind of dates ...
RAZD writes:
Specifically the question is how does one {explain\conceive} any arrangement that produces both results with that degree of precision.
Migration of a plume?
Or eruption of magmatic material along a propagating fracture in the ocean crust??
Actually, those are not YEC theories, but mainstream theories. I figured some YEC would bring them up 'forgetting' the fact that they are not YEC theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2005 11:59 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by IrishRockhound, posted 01-10-2005 1:19 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 23 (174883)
01-07-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
01-06-2005 8:35 PM


Great post Harlequin. I also started a post on this very topic a while back (YEC Challenge: Hawaiian Islands).
In addition to the horizontal movement of the plate, the islands are also subsiding. In fact, seamounts thousands of kilometers away from the Big Island have submerged coral reefs. These reefs can be 50 meters underwater. Coral, if it is to survive, can only be in 1-2 meters of water. The depth of these dead coral reefs also correlates with the measured subsidence of the Hawaiian islands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 01-06-2005 8:35 PM Harlequin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2005 9:34 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 01-07-2005 9:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 01-09-2005 8:35 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 23 (174903)
01-07-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Loudmouth
01-07-2005 8:44 PM


google on {new deep coral reef}
http://www.ecology.com/...3/articles/6-2003/6-17-03/reef.htm
note that it is a different kind of coral, but ...
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-07-2005 21:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 01-07-2005 8:44 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 23 (174910)
01-07-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Loudmouth
01-07-2005 8:44 PM


quote:
Coral, if it is to survive, can only be in 1-2 meters of water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 01-07-2005 8:44 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2005 11:17 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 23 (175129)
01-08-2005 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by TrueCreation
01-07-2005 9:53 PM


reef corals (best known type) are a symbiotic relationship and need sunlight for the photosynthesis. too deep and no sunlight.
see http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/biology/biology.html
see also link to deep water corals.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TrueCreation, posted 01-07-2005 9:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 01-09-2005 8:11 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 01-09-2005 8:20 PM RAZD has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (175325)
01-09-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
01-08-2005 11:17 PM


RAZD,
Of course. However, my expression was due to Loudmouth's numbers (1-2 meters). It is my understanding that the survival of all reef building species of coral is dependent on the depth of light penetration because they are all hermatypic. The depth of significant light penetration is more along the lines of <90 1974]).
Barnes, Betty; Invertebrate Zoology; 1974, pg. 132

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2005 11:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 01-09-2005 8:18 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2005 8:27 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 23 (175328)
01-09-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
01-09-2005 8:11 PM


Would you say though that something on the order of 200 meters would be a reasonable limit?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 01-09-2005 8:11 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 23 (175330)
01-09-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
01-08-2005 11:17 PM


--Right. However it was my understanding that reef building corals are restricted to the depth of light penetration because they are hermatypic. While most species are restricted to 15m depths, some species can persist to depths of up to at least 90m depths where radient energy is ~1/50th that at the surface (Barnes, 1974).
--Not exactly the 1-2m value Loudmouth gave.
Barnes, Betty; Invertebrate Zoology; 1974, pg. 130-132

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2005 11:17 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 23 (175332)
01-09-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
01-09-2005 8:11 PM


yes. I thought that loudmouth was perhaps a little careless with the numbers, or the species specific relationships (some more some less susceptible?)
the point however is that structure is observed around the subsided sea mounts that was built by light using coral animals and which are now dead due to the depths of subsistence.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 01-09-2005 8:11 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-09-2005 8:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 23 (175333)
01-09-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Loudmouth
01-07-2005 8:44 PM


In fact, seamounts thousands of kilometers away from the Big Island have submerged coral reefs. These reefs can be 50 meters underwater.
They can be 1200 to 1500 meters below the surface. Google "guyot."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 01-07-2005 8:44 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 23 (175334)
01-09-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
01-09-2005 8:27 PM


quote:
yes. I thought that loudmouth was perhaps a little careless with the numbers, or the species specific relationships (some more some less susceptible?)
--Oh well. Happens to most of us.
quote:
the point however is that structure is observed around the subsided sea mounts that was built by light using coral animals and which are now dead due to the depths of subsistence.
--indeed. The existance and structure of guyots is more of a problem to YEC geology than arguments regarding the dating of island chains and seamounts such as the Hawaiian chain and Emperor seamounts, IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2005 8:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2005 9:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 23 (175506)
01-10-2005 12:55 PM


Thank you all for the corrections on coral depth. Marine biology is not my strong suit, so thanks for showing the errors of my ways.
What I should have said is that the SPECIES of coral skeletons found in deep water on these seamounts is consistent with gradual subsidence. In addition, U/Th dating of the coral correlates with this gradual subsidence (and against a young earth). Is that better?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024