So now Faith's model of a tectonic bump and the slowing down to the present rate is shortened by 1500 years.
So that leaves roughly 2,500 years for Faith's plate movement. There are 8 islands so at best each island has just over 300 years to form. But there is the underwater chain to consider. Wouldn't the formation of that chain of seamounts take at least half the available time away for the Hawaiian Islands formation? That leaves about 150 years for each island to form.
(50,000/150=333) So there is a factor of 333 disagreement between the observed rate of island formation as displayed by Loihi and the rate necessary for Faith's model to be credible.
I see last night I lost my board virginity. I must take my leave now to make confession to a priest.
The idea that basins formed during the Triassic or during the Carboniferous and Tertiary is just gobbledygook, like saying a rock is a landscape, which is one of the most bizarre ideas of historical Geology. It provides nothing in the way of evidence one could even begin to picture in one's mind.
The "idea" of landscapes has been presented to you numerous times, you just choose to continue ignoring it. All one must do to "imagine" these landscapes is look out your window. The rocks of tomorrow (in geologic time, not Faith time) are present in the landscapes of today.
The beaches you walk, the sand dunes you climb, the alluvial fans you mine for placer gold, the reefs we visit, the ocean sediments we sample, the valley floors you walk upon, the rivers you fish, the meteor crator (in AZ) we marvel at, and so on and so on, are the landscapes of which we speak. These are the landscapes for which ample evidence exists in the rock record.
So while you may be able to shut your mind to the visible history in the rocks, you waste precious time doing so.
Keep in mind that Faith accelerates all tectonic plate movement to occur in 4,300 years. This means the plates were initially moving at 20 feet per day and have gradually slowed down to their current rate. So this "initial jolt" would have to accelerate the plates from a stop to 20 - feet per day which would be a force beyond reckoning - the kind of force that tears planets in half ... or gently folded the Appalachians, either way.
In case Faith accuses me of falsely attributing this concept to her Message 6. To the best of my knowledge she has not recanted from this position even though it was shown to be all but impossible.
Have you done or do you know of any calculations about the amount of energy required/released from superfast continental drift?
I tried to look for that but to no avail. I remember having read someone calculating the conditions that the fludde would´ve caused. Basically boiling and crushing every living thing.
Faith KNOWS that the fludde happened and even though she claims that everything happened via natural processes, that cannot have been the case. There is no way Noah or any other animal had survived the fludde thus rendering (if not everything else was not enough!!) the entire myth useless.
The problem with her model is a cause for the initial separation. If they moved under the influence of currents why don't they continue to move at that rate? The arbitrary current that appears out of no where and then disappears again for no reason doesn't sit well with her claim of no divine intervention.
Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is against the Flood.
How about this - since the ocean floor was buried under this load in your model that became the geologic column then the coral reefs were all buried.
quote:Coral reefs teem with life, covering less than one percent of the ocean floor, but supporting about 25 percent of all marine creatures.
How did that 25% survive the flood without the coral reefs? But more importantly how did the reefs existing today grow in the time available since the flood??
quote: We will here concentrate on one atoll - Eniwetok - as an example of how we can determine the age of a reef. This reef was thoroughly investigated by deep core drillings in preparation for its use as a test-site for a hydrogen bomb explosion. This atoll is roughly circular with all the standard characteristics of a growing reef. It rests upon an extinct volcano, as expected, and the volcano rises about two miles above the ocean floor.
The reef itself is 4,610 feet tall. Examination of the material from the bore holes reveals that this is a normal reef that formed from the cementing together of corals and lime-secreting algae. (This algae is different from the kind that lives within the corals.) In addition, three unconformities (discontinuities in the growth of the reef) were located at depths of 300, 1000, and 2780 feet. These unconformities contain pollen from seed-bearing shrubs and trees, which indicates there were periods when the reef surface was above sea level (and so no coral growth at the surface) which lasted long enough for land plants to colonize the surface.
With this information we are ready to calculate the age of the Eniwetok reef. All we need to do is divide the height of the reef by the rate at which it grew. This calculation is rather like finding how long it would take to travel a certain distance. The time is calculated by dividing the distance to be travelled by the speed or rate of travel. For example, if one is to travel 150 miles and one's average rate of speed is 50 miles per hour, then the trip will take 150/50 = 3 hours to make the trip, not allowing for stops along the way. Just think of the height of the coral as the distance travelled and the rate of coral growth as the speed.
Research indicates that maximum rates of reef growth are about 8 millimeters per year, determined by examining the present growth rates of numerous reefs in the vicinity of Eniwetok. Admittedly, one may question whether the growth rate wasn't perhaps faster for this particular reef, but there are limits to how fast corals can grow. Growing biological systems obey strict physical and chemical laws relating to metabolism, reproduction, and intake of nutrients. This last item is particularly important because the rate of growth of coral depends on the amount of dissolved calcium carbonate it can extract from the seawater. Calcium carbonate, though, is rather insoluble, so there is not a large concentration of it in ocean water. Thereby reef growth is limited to a fraction of an inch per year.
Thus 8 millimeters per year cannot be far from the actual growth rate of the Eniwetok corals. Using this value, the age of the reef is calculated by dividing 4,610 feet by 8 millimeters (about .3 inch) per year, which is about 175,000 years. But this is a minimum age since we have not taken into account the time periods (represented by the unconformities mentioned above) when the reef was not growing. Nor have we taken into account the time necessary to form the volcanic base on which the reef grew.
Recently, further calculations for the rate of reef growth have been based on the concentration of dissolved calcium carbonate in seawater and upon the rate at which corals can absorb it and manufacture their shells. This rate turns out to be only about 5 millimeters per year, which means that the Eniwetok reef is more like 280,000 years old, not counting pauses in growth. A similar analysis for the much larger Grand Bahama Reef reveals an age of 790,000 years. And again, this is a minimum age, since that reef also contains numerous unconformities.
Of course you have nothing to say about how you think it is possible for the reefs to grow so quickly. YECs are off here by a factor of 35. But even if that were possible which it isn't then you still have this problem:
quote:Subsidence as a Limiting Factor of Reef Growth
And there is one more simple reason why such high estimates assumed by AIG and others are entirely unreasonable. The reason is this -- the net growth of the reef can only be as fast as the net subsidence of the seamount or platform on which it is growing. This is a limiting factor. Thus, even if a reef could grow at, say, 3cm per year rather than around 1cm or less as virtually all of the empirical estimates show, the reef can still only grow to the surface of the water. Where rates of subsidence of seamounts can be measured, it is only a few mm per year. Subsidence rates have been estimated with high precision for the Hawaiian Islands, which are similar in most respects to the submerged seamount atop which the Eniwetok atoll rests. These islands are subsiding at only a few mm per year.
Carbon dating of drowned reefs on the side of Hawaii show that it has subsided at this slow rate for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, its a little more interesting than that. You can actually predict the radiometric ages of a drowned coral reef, with considerable accuracy, simply by dividing the depth in mm by the observed subsidence rates in mm per year.
Radiometric ages of Hawaiian corals compared to ages predicted by extrapolating observed subsidence rate of 2.7mm per year. Judging by the close correlation between predicted age and actual age, the rate of subsidence for the island of Hawaii has remained very close to 2.7mm per year throughout at least the last half-million years.
But for argument's sake, let's disregard the radiometric dates. Do any YECs have a plausible explanation for the growth of a 4600ft thick reef in 4500 years of post-flood time? And if YECs really think reefs can grow at rates of 100-400mm per year or more, when can we expect to see the research documenting this, and the evidence showing that the required conditions for this were somehow satisfied throughout post-flood times, while not being satisfied anywhere today? Remember, even if we multiply the fastest observed reef growth rates by a factor or 10, and assume *continuous* maximum growth rates, and assumed *no* erosional breaks or storm damage, and assumed that subsidence was somehow *greatly* accelerated, we would *still* need 14,000 years for the growth of Eniwetok.
The energy of motion for the Lithosphere at 20ft per day is not all that fantastic, not quite 6 little boys.
Thanks. I was thinking more of the implications of rapid tectonic movements like subduction. The amount of energy released in earthquakes is vast and if scale 8 quakes happened every half an hour all around the globe...
Another problem is to try and explain how and why the tectonic movements slowed down to roughly what we see today and have been able to calculate having happened in the past. Variable convection currents? :-)
On the other hand 20 ft of new oceanfloor forming every day for thousands of years would most likely show somewhere.
The problems for rapid plate tectonics is orders of magnitude greater than can possibly be realistic, however, Faith still believes.
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.