Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mid-ocean Ridges and Age of Formation
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 7 of 45 (714139)
12-20-2013 5:07 AM


Sea mounts
Associated with plate tectonics are the many chains of islands and underwater mountains, formed as the plates moved over a hot spot of magma. This created volcanoes that built the mounts, and that died as the plate moved further away. The Hawaiian-Emperor chain is the best known one. Most of these show a linear increase in radiometric age as you move away from the hot spot, consistent with currently observed rates of movement of the plates, thus being a check on the accuracy of RM dating.
Fitting in all the tectonic movement during or post-Flood is a major problem for YEC. (With all the earthquakes Noah would not have been able to stand up, let alone plant a vineyard!) Adding the consistency of RM dates must be a killer!

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2013 9:15 AM Pollux has replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2013 6:21 PM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(2)
Message 9 of 45 (714233)
12-20-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-20-2013 9:15 AM


Re: Sea mounts
Well of course all those magnetic reversals have to occur in a YEC model. Usually the tectonic movements are at the end and /or soon after the flood. So you have the plates whizzing around at miles per day, stupendous vulcanism to build the seamounts, oceanic crust, Deccan traps etc, radiogenic decay rates hyperaccelerated without heat problems, then you need an ice age afterward, to finish in time to build the pyramids. So much to do, so little time!
But wait. The evidence of the direction of the movement of ice in Southern Africa, South America, and Australia did not make sense until Weggener proposed continental drift, and it was realised the ice was there BEFORE the continents broke up.
Oh dear. As Fagin said in Oliver, I think I'd better think it out again!
It must have been easier being a Flood "geologist" before so many inconvenient facts were discovered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2013 9:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 8:22 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 11 of 45 (714246)
12-20-2013 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
12-20-2013 6:21 PM


Re: Sea mounts
I read in recent months that the bend in the chain is due to migration south of the hot spot, while the plate was moving NW. This was indicated by magnetic evidence of the more distant mounts being formed at higher latitudes. This seems much more likely than the previous idea that the plate rotated. I guess there is still a great deal to learn about the inner Earth.
There are other sea mount chains that show the same increase in age as you go along them. Also there are old volcanoes in the Australian Great Dividing Range that also increase in age consistent with the rate of movement of the plate. The hot spot is thought to be in Bass Strait and weaker than previously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 12-20-2013 6:21 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 18 of 45 (714264)
12-20-2013 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
12-20-2013 9:10 PM


Re: Sea mounts
Faith, you have calculated what would be an average speed right up to the present. Movement of one part of the plate by several feet causes massive earthquakes like the recent-tsunami producing one. Your scenario requires these to happen world-wide on a daily basis throughout recorded history, which does not seem to have happened. That is why YEC requires a huge rate of movement early, settling down before history started. Remember this also requires the sea mounts to be built in a day or two as the plates whizz over the hot spots requiring vulcanism that would make Krakatoa seem a firecracker, and doing something about those radioactive decay rates. Somewhere then you have to fit in the ice age, remembering what Isaid above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 9:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 3:18 AM Pollux has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 19 of 45 (714266)
12-20-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
12-20-2013 9:48 PM


Re: Sea mounts
The actual evidence strongly suggests that plate speed, rate of vulcanism, and radioactive decay rates have not substantially changed in millions of years. What evidence shows there was ever even feet per day of plate movement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 9:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 3:23 AM Pollux has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 20 of 45 (714278)
12-21-2013 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
12-20-2013 9:48 PM


Re: Sea mounts
As a further thought, Faith, what evidence makes you think you need to have a speeded-up plate tectonics in your scenario?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 12-20-2013 9:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 3:26 AM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 24 of 45 (714285)
12-21-2013 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
12-21-2013 3:26 AM


Re: Sea mounts
The Bible says nothing about plate tectonics after the Flood. A wind dried up the Flood waters, and the abatement lasted several months. But before we discuss the problems of rapid tectonics further, why do you want to put it in your scenario? Is there some evidence that you accept from the real world that shows you need any tectonics in a Flood model?
Remember the standard picture of plate tectonics has movement all over the Earth, not just the separation of the Atlantic. India had quite a journey before it slammed into Asia; the Middle East is a very tectonically active place today; and Africa is ripping apart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 3:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 4:11 AM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 26 of 45 (714287)
12-21-2013 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
12-21-2013 4:11 AM


Re: Sea mounts
If you mean 100 BC for 11 feet per day and it is not a misprint, this is still a 10,000 fold increase in rate of movement with its attendant quakes AND do not forget the vulcanism. Krakatoa cooled the earth for months due to its dust. You need maybe thousands of Krakatoas a year for centuries. The Romans probably would have noticed. To get the degree of movement of plates as recorded by palaeomagnetism you need much more than 20 feet per day for many years then slow it to a rate comparable to today's. It would take more than 1000 years at 20 feet per day to open the Atlantic. You have to quickly build the sea mounts such as in the Hawaiian-Emperor chain, erode them, sink them, grow thick coral reefs on some them as they sink, and alter radiometric decay rates in line with the change of rate of movements so that when the evil scientists come along in the 20th century they will find the age of the sea mounts is pretty well just what you would expect for the CURRENT rate of movement. i.e. if you plot age against distance from the hot spot you get a straight line. And you have to fit an Ice Age in somewhere, with the inconvenient evidence that there was major ice on S. Africa, S. America, and Australia BEFORE they separated.
Take the advice Fagin gave himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 4:11 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 11:18 AM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


(1)
Message 28 of 45 (714331)
12-21-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
12-21-2013 11:18 AM


Re: Getting back to the Mid-Ocean Ridges
And while all the rapid plate movement was going on the trees were quietly producing annual rings and Lake Suigetsu was producing tens of thousands of layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 11:18 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-21-2013 3:41 PM Pollux has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 30 of 45 (714486)
12-23-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
12-21-2013 4:11 AM


Re: Sea mounts: Question for Faith
Faith, in the GC thread you said it is not the data but the interpretation that OE put on it that is the problem.
Wikipedia has an article "list of volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain" showing how they are older as they get further away from Hawaii. Can you please interpret it for me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 12-21-2013 4:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 12-23-2013 8:19 AM Pollux has replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
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 replied

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

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
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 replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
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 replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024