Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 4:36 PM
384 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,135 Year: 16,741/21,208 Month: 2,630/3,593 Week: 97/646 Day: 37/60 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Mid-ocean Ridges and Age of Formation
Faith
Member
Posts: 25317
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 45 (714487)
12-23-2013 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Pollux
12-23-2013 8:13 AM


Re: Sea mounts: Question for Faith
Did I say I personally can interpret anything you throw at me?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Pollux, posted 12-23-2013 8:13 AM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Pollux, posted 12-23-2013 8:30 AM Faith has responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 32 of 45 (714488)
12-23-2013 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
12-23-2013 8:19 AM


Re: Sea mounts: Question for Faith
A straightforward interpretation of the data would be that the seamounts formed over a long time, the given dates match the rate of movement of the Pacific plate, and this is good confirmation of the accuracy of RM dating. Why should I not accept that? How would you interpret it?
Data like this are significant for accepting long age for geologic features such as the GC, which is why I would like your opinion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 12-23-2013 8:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 12-23-2013 9:09 AM Pollux has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25317
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 45 (714496)
12-23-2013 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Pollux
12-23-2013 8:30 AM


Re: Sea mounts: Question for Faith
If you just want a shot at it off the top of my head, I'd say of course there's a difference in age, just not millions of years difference, just as there's a difference in age between lower and upper layers of sediments, just not millions of years. Same as with the separation of the continents, it takes time, just not millions of years.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Pollux, posted 12-23-2013 8:30 AM Pollux has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Pollux, posted 12-23-2013 6:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13197
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 34 of 45 (714528)
12-23-2013 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
12-21-2013 4:11 AM


Re: Sea mounts
Faith writes:

I've watched all the animations, I know the basics about tectonics.


The Flintstones is not a documentary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 4:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 35 of 45 (714558)
12-23-2013 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
12-23-2013 9:09 AM


Re: Sea mounts: Question for Faith
The seamounts are volcanic, not sedimentary.

The H-E chain extends roughly N-W from Hawaii, having been formed from a hot spot which is currently S-E of Hawaii feeding the currently active volcanoes on the island and making a new seamount off-shore. The extinct volcanoes on Hawaii are in the N-W and show increasing evidence of age as you go N-W. The chain extends for more than 2000 miles with undersea mountains, exposed islands, and coral atolls. More than forty have been dated and the dates correspond pretty well with what would be expected for current rates of movement of the Pacific plate.

Possible interpretations of the data :

1. This is good confirmation of RM dating and the Earth is at least tens of millions of years old.

2.(a) The mounts were formed at a fantastic rate as the plate zipped over a furious hot spot at many feet per day for a thousand years (or faster rates for a shorter time)
(b) Something happened to RA decay rates simultaneously so that the dates appear to coincide with distance.

3. As for 2(a) but those reporting RM dates are lying or deluded or devil-led or something.

4. It was made that way with attendant artificial appearance of age.

#1 is the most reasonable interpretation and is supported by a mountain (or FLOOD!) of other evidence.

#2 or #3 is necessary for a YEC interpretation but still has a lot of problems associated with it, among which is the
submerged coral reefs on some of the undersea mountains.

#4 means God is a trickster.

IMHO nailing the dates is relevant to debating how the GC was formed, or in fact for most discussion about YEC
So what is your interpretation?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 12-23-2013 9:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 45 (714812)
12-28-2013 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
12-20-2013 8:22 PM


Re: Sea mounts
quote:
Is 20 feet per day such an outlandishly fast rate? That's ten feet of separation on either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge being generated daily or less than 6 inches hourly. Again, at the beginning of the movement.

See message 25 here: http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16769&mpp=1...

Such rates will generate enough heat to boil more than a hundred oceans. The state of oceanic lithosphere (temperature, density, buoyancy, surface heat flow) is as expected from spreading over timescales on the order of 10^8 years, not less.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 8:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 6:46 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25317
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 45 (714813)
12-28-2013 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by TrueCreation
12-28-2013 6:37 AM


Re: Sea mounts
Yeah, so you all say and of course you MUST be right because you were there and witnessed it. No, there has to have been a cooling factor you aren't taking into account. In any case, it would be nice to have it acknowledged that twenty feet a day is not the miles a day the anti-Floodists impute to creationists. And as I've been fiddling with the numbers recently it comes out to less than that anyway. Well, I'm no mathematician. Get four and a half feet one time and ten feet another. Oh well.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 12-28-2013 6:37 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by TrueCreation, posted 12-28-2013 6:53 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 12-28-2013 7:59 AM Faith has responded
 Message 44 by shalamabobbi, posted 12-28-2013 2:55 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Pollux, posted 12-28-2013 4:44 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 45 (714814)
12-28-2013 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
12-28-2013 6:46 AM


Re: Sea mounts
quote:
No, there has to have been a cooling factor you aren't taking into account.

How have you determined this to be a reasonable conclusion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 6:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 12-28-2013 8:11 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 39 of 45 (714818)
12-28-2013 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
12-28-2013 6:46 AM


Re: Sea mounts
Yeah, so you all say and of course you MUST be right because you were there and witnessed it.

No, we all know and have often demonstrated that eyewitness accounts are unreliable and events in the past leave traces.

We are right because the traces your scenario would leave aren't there and the traces our scenario would leave are there.

In any case, it would be nice to have it acknowledged that twenty feet a day is not the miles a day the anti-Floodists impute to creationists.

YEC's have all sorts of wacky fantasies. Walt Brown and John Baumgardner have the continents moving at many miles per day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 6:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 8:39 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 40 of 45 (714819)
12-28-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by TrueCreation
12-28-2013 6:53 AM


Re: Sea mounts
How have you determined this to be a reasonable conclusion?

You've been a YEC, you should know; she made it up because she's infalible and is never wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by TrueCreation, posted 12-28-2013 6:53 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25317
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 45 (714825)
12-28-2013 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by JonF
12-28-2013 7:59 AM


Re: Sea mounts
I don't understand how anyone can get miles a day out of the simple problem of three thousand miles of distance covered in 4300 years.

Etewitness acciounts are certainly a lot more reliable than conjurings about the past from the present could possibly be. If he was there and died of the heat then we'd know he was right about the heaty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by JonF, posted 12-28-2013 7:59 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by JonF, posted 12-28-2013 9:11 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 12-28-2013 10:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 42 of 45 (714827)
12-28-2013 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
12-28-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Sea mounts
I don't understand how anyone can get miles a day out of the simple problem of three thousand miles of distance covered in 4300 years.

Nobody does. Your fantasy doesn't incorporate miles per day, other YEC fantasies do. Waltie and Johnnie and many other YECs think all the continental movement happened during the fludde year.

Etewitness acciounts are certainly a lot more reliable than conjurings about the past from the present could possibly be

It's been proven, insofar as anything can be proven in science, that eyewitness accounts are unreliable.

But your claim that we cannot discover the past from the traces in the present is just an unsupported and disproven assertion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 8:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 43 of 45 (714833)
12-28-2013 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
12-28-2013 8:39 AM


moving plates and freezing lakes
I don't understand how anyone can get miles a day out of the simple problem of three thousand miles of distance covered in 4300 years.

Which doesn't account for all the other movements of the plates

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html

quote:
Scientists now have a fairly good understanding of how the plates move and how such movements relate to earthquake activity. Most movement occurs along narrow zones between plates where the results of plate-tectonic forces are most evident.

There are four types of plate boundaries:

  • Divergent boundaries -- where new crust is generated as the plates pull away from each other.
  • Convergent boundaries -- where crust is destroyed as one plate dives under another.
  • Transform boundaries -- where crust is neither produced nor destroyed as the plates slide horizontally past each other.
  • Plate boundary zones -- broad belts in which boundaries are not well defined and the effects of plate interaction are unclear.


The divergent boundaries are the mid-ocean ridges and the rift valley in Africa.

quote:
Divergent boundaries

Divergent boundaries occur along spreading centers where plates are moving apart and new crust is created by magma pushing up from the mantle. Picture two giant conveyor belts, facing each other but slowly moving in opposite directions as they transport newly formed oceanic crust away from the ridge crest.

Perhaps the best known of the divergent boundaries is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This submerged mountain range, which extends from the Arctic Ocean to beyond the southern tip of Africa, is but one segment of the global mid-ocean ridge system that encircles the Earth. The rate of spreading along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge averages about 2.5 centimeters per year (cm/yr), or 25 km in a million years. This rate may seem slow by human standards, but because this process has been going on for millions of years, it has resulted in plate movement of thousands of kilometers. Seafloor spreading over the past 100 to 200 million years has caused the Atlantic Ocean to grow from a tiny inlet of water between the continents of Europe, Africa, and the Americas into the vast ocean that exists today.


2.5 cm is 1 inch. per year.

quote:
Rates of motion

We can measure how fast tectonic plates are moving today, but how do scientists know what the rates of plate movement have been over geologic time? The oceans hold one of the key pieces to the puzzle. Because the ocean-floor magnetic striping records the flip-flops in the Earth's magnetic field, scientists, knowing the approximate duration of the reversal, can calculate the average rate of plate movement during a given time span. These average rates of plate separations can range widely. The Arctic Ridge has the slowest rate (less than 2.5 cm/yr), and the East Pacific Rise near Easter Island, in the South Pacific about 3,400 km west of Chile, has the fastest rate (more than 15 cm/yr).


So the movement you calculated relates to the slow end of the rates of motion, and the fastest is 6 times faster (6 inches per year).

quote:
Evidence of past rates of plate movement also can be obtained from geologic mapping studies. If a rock formation of known age -- with distinctive composition, structure, or fossils -- mapped on one side of a plate boundary can be matched with the same formation on the other side of the boundary, then measuring the distance that the formation has been offset can give an estimate of the average rate of plate motion. This simple but effective technique has been used to determine the rates of plate motion at divergent boundaries, for example the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and transform boundaries, such as the San Andreas Fault.

Thus there is a wide range of information about time and rates of movement that are consistent around the world. This includes age of formation of the rock and ages of magnetic reversals.

Etewitness acciounts are certainly a lot more reliable than conjurings about the past from the present could possibly be. If he was there and died of the heat then we'd know he was right about the heaty.

And that is probably a good reason why trained observers who are knowledgeable about geology and physics end up with results that are certainly a lot more reliable than your conjurings about the past based on fantasy.

Message 37: ... No, there has to have been a cooling factor you aren't taking into account. ...

That is you hoping for a miracle again ... as you do for every piece of contrary evidence that is so inconvenient for your fantasy.

Now you want thermodynamics to change on your whim. If you change the thermodynamics so that water doesn't boil then you change the thermodynamics of everything else ... fresh water lakes and rivers would freeze solid by the same process of miraculous heat removal. Hilarious.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 8:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 292 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(3)
Message 44 of 45 (714854)
12-28-2013 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
12-28-2013 6:46 AM


True science honors God, like this.
No, there has to have been a cooling factor you aren't taking into account.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 6:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 11-13-2011


(2)
Message 45 of 45 (714864)
12-28-2013 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
12-28-2013 6:46 AM


Re: Sea mounts
Faith you don't seem to understand that your feet per day scenario means that there is still rapid movement while there are lots of people around to notice the attendant quakes and volcanism. That is why other YEC postulate miles per day. This of course multiplies the attendant problems, like those seamounts and other volcano chains which have to be built more quickly.Then there's those little things like frantic magnetic pole reversals, vast changes in radioactive decay rates, and how to get rid of the accompanying heat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 12-28-2013 6:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017