Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

quote:

---

Darwin just collected his data and proposed his theory. He was bothered by the fact that, according to the thinking of his time, the Earth was much much older than 6,000 years but apparently not old enough for his theory. After that we discovered how old the Earth really is.

---

JM:[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-07-2004]

Double post, sorry[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

Hum, that's not my understanding, although you're probably mcuh more espert than I am. I am, of course, aware of the various pre-radioisotope-dating estimates listed in "The Age of the Earth", including estimates in the millions and billions of years in teh first half of the nineteenth century.Hoewever, I have found Dr. Andrew MacRae to be a trustworthy source, and wonder if you have any comments on the folowing, from Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist:

quote:

---

Perhaps of particular interest to present-day creationists, however, is the way that Miller also discusses the theological issues. Many of the points Miller raises will be completely familiar to anyone who has followed the newsgroup talk.origins for a while, no matter what their perspective on the issues discussed there. Also, Miller's "The Testimony of the Rocks" book, published in 1857, provides useful historical documentation of the state of geology and the "global flood" model a few years prior to the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution in "The Origin of Species" in 1859. A common claim of some modern "young Earth global flood" creationists is that the geologic time scale and fossil succession is somehow "circular" or otherwise dependent upon evolutionary theory. A simple reading of Miller's discussion, prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory, makes it obvious that before Darwin's theory was published, the basic fossil succession and geologic time scale was well-established by completely independent means, even in the opinion of creationist geologists of that time. Likewise, the theory of a global flood as an explanation for the Earth's geology had been completely abandoned by almost all scientists familiar with geology, including the creationist ones. It was not consistent with the evidence known even then.

---

[This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2004]

i misread your post, tried to remove my comments but not soon enough!CheersJoe Meert

edge, It says the seamounts are venting hydrothermal flows, etc...http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/loihi.htmlIn 1970, our ideas about the seamount changed drastically following an expedition that went to Loihi to study an earthquake swarm (intense, repeated seismic activity) that had just occurred there. It was revealed that Loihi was a young, active volcano, rather than an old dead seamount from a bygone aeon. The volcano is mantled with young and old lava flows and is activly venting hydrothermal fluids at it's summit and south rift zone.

quote:

---

edge, It says the seamounts are venting hydrothermal flows, etc...

​

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/loihi.html

---

Indeed, but it does not say that the waters are juvenile. In general, oceanic basalts are considered dry.

quote:

---

In 1970, our ideas about the seamount changed drastically following an expedition that went to Loihi to study an earthquake swarm (intense, repeated seismic activity) that had just occurred there. It was revealed that Loihi was a young, active volcano, rather than an old dead seamount from a bygone aeon.

---

Just as plate tectonics would predict, by the way.

quote:

---

The volcano is mantled with young and old lava flows and is activly venting hydrothermal fluids at it's summit and south rift zone.

---

Yes, the fluids are recirculated ocean water and not water derived from the mantle.

In message 130, Mr. whatever asked:"JonF, It looks like Hawaii is moving, but couldn't find anything
that showed where the bench marks are located on Hawaii, but
then I asked Ned to find the exact GPS bench mark data, someone
gave me tons of sites saying whatever, so likely Hawaii is
moving, the picture was great, all I was asking for was where
are the bench marks they used, how much have these established
bench marks moved(did these marks move or shift), it might be
within all your links, but if these bench marks exists, would
of thought it would of been posted, don't they use GPS on Hawaii
for land surveys, would think this would be common knowledge,
maybe the islands are shifting but not in the right direction,
etc..."The "benchmark" used by the Western Pacific Integrated Network of GPS (WING), Pacific GPS Facility (PGF), and UNAVCO for their GPS data collection is a dedicated antenna and dome ground station at Kokee Park, Hawaii, USA (KOKB). This ground station is not a "benchmark" like the metal monuments attached to concrete pilings or metal rods planted into the ground. Rather, it is a dedicated structure used as a base stations for GPS research by NASA, USGS, various universities, and so forth. In part, it serves as a base station for USGS GPS research into predicting volcanic activity of Hawaiian volcanoes using GPS monitoring of ground movement. It is a rather expensive installation designed and built specifically not to move or shift with time and be an ultrastable location for research using satellite GPS techniques.The locational data for the Kokee Park ground station is given in great detail in 1. Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory along with
http://sopac.ucsd.edu/scripts/dbLocateSite.cgi?site=KOKB ;
http://sopac.ucsd.edu/processing/refinedModelDoc.html ;2. "Monument: BHFHC53R-13533-1999"; and 3. http://archive.unavco.org/query/ps?sid=240(NOTE: More about UNAVCO can be found at:
Page not found – UNAVCO )Monument BHFHC53R-13533-1999 is the specific antenna and dome at the Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory dedicated to plate tectonic studies using GPS. A map showing the location of other GPS ground stations in the Pacific Ocean can be found at Pacific GPS Facility (PGF).Another system used to measure rates of plate tectonic movement is the VLBI System used by the Crustal Dynamics Project at the Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory. It is described in Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory by Clyde A. Cox and
http://ivs.crl.go.jp/mirror/publications/ar2001/nskpgo/" Kokee Park Geophysical Observatory is located on the Island
of Kauai in the Hawaiian Islands, Kauai is the most northwestern
(inhabited) Island. The site is in a State Park (Kokee State
Park) hence its name. It is located at an elevation of 1100
meters near the Waimea Canyon, which is often referred to as
the Grand Canyon of the Pacific"The above web pages provide all of technical specifications that the technical people need. They also provide email addresses of people, who can likely answer any questions that a person might have about the ground stations.Bill Birkeland

quote:

---

Yes, the fluids are recirculated ocean water and not water derived from the mantle.

---

Creationists frequently get challenged to support their assertions.Just for "grins", I'm going to devils advocate challenge you to support the above quoted.Trouble maker Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Bill, Thanks, at least I know where to go for answers, etc...Edge, Mt. St. Helens wasn't even by the Ocean, yet 90 percent of what came out was water, it wasn't near the ocean, its a safe bet it wasn't ocean water or spring water, but water coming from beneath the mantle, Even today up to 90% of what comes out of volcanoes is water, etc... Mt. St. Helens | Answers in Genesis

From:
Geology of Interactions of Volcanoes, Snow, and Water:
Mount St. Helens, Washington
Eruption-triggered floods 1980-1986

quote:

---

An explosive eruption of Mount St. Helens on 19 March 1982 had substantial impact beyond the vent because hot eruption products interacted with a thick winter snowpack. A blast of hot pumice, dome rocks, and gas dislodged crater wall snow, which avalanched through the crater and down the north flank. Snow in the crater swiftly melted and formed a transient pond. The pond deepened swiftly and discharged a destructive flood down the north flank of Mount St. Helens and from there down the North Fork Toutle River valley.

---

I'm afraid the USGS trumps AIG on this one. A lot of melted snow, not magmatic water.Mooseps by edit:

quote:

---

4. Preliminary melt inclusion chemistry suggests low volatile contents in WIP magma types, but small H2O contents (1—5 wt%) in some CA types; accordingly, magmatic temperatures could be up to ~100C lower (in the most water-rich magmas) than indicated above.

---

From CASCADIA MAFIC MAGMATISM AND HETEROGENEITIES IN THE MANTLE WEDGE
Not that great of a reference for the water topic. - Technical, but not primarily on magma volatiles. Still, maybe interesting reading on Cascade volcanics. There is at least a little that is specific to Mt. St. Helens[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-08-2004]

It was the water inside the dome that erupted, though the glacier likely melted within that minute, it continued blasting for days, We've all already agreed there is fractured rock and water in the super deep wells, no reason to believe the explosion wasn't caused by these juvenile waters rising under pressure, pressurizing the dome and the mountains side with pressurized water and gases, the explosion is force of this water under pressure instantly becoming steam, this is what caused the entire top of the mountain to disappear. Mt. St. Helens | Answers in Genesis The time was 8.31 Sunday morning May 18th, 1980. One minute later, a gaping hole appeared in the face of the earth as an estimated 10 megaton explosion blasted over a cubic mile of material out of Mt. St. Helens, U.S.A. The top 400m (1,300 feet) of the mountain was blown away and the blast disintegrated trees and flattened forests for a radius of 11 km (7 miles). A wall of ash, mud, and broken trees roared across nearby Spirit Lake and swept down Toutle River Canyon.

I will try to research things further. Right now, I concede there is a certain volatile content (including water) to volcanic magmas. I'm not buying that it's anywhere close to your percentages. I suspect that a big part of your explosion might be from groundwater derived water, not mantle derived water. But more research required.By the way, while your Kola drill hole is quite an impressive achievement, it was nowhere near to getting to the mantle. I think that the "into the mantle" number you cited was the total depth of the hole. Perhaps this has been covered upstring, and I missed it.One more thing. Try to find your reference from the USGS (United States Geological Survey), or some other journal source, or at least a science magazine. Citing AIG carries about as much weight in this arguement, as citing a "People" magazine article.Moose

You'r still just waving your arms and ignoring the evidence.Look at http://EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings! -->EvC Forum: Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!. No mater what you think of age determinations, there is a correlation there that must be explained. And why is the amoutnof erosion on each island, and every indication of age, correlated with distance from Kiluea?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, the fluids are recirculated ocean water and not water derived from the mantle.

---

Creationists frequently get challenged to support their assertions.

​

Just for "grins", I'm going to devils advocate challenge you to support the above quoted.

---

--Hydrothermal circulation is well documented in the scientific literature. Of course, hydrothermal circulation is largely observed at ocean ridges, albeit it is also readily observed where there is active volcanism, including incipient and relatively aged hot spot volcanism. It is clear that hydrothermal systems fundamentally work by circulation of initially cold ocean water, and are subsequently expelled diffusively or at localized hydrothermal vents. Much of what is known about hydrothermal systems is derived from analysis of ophiolites (oceanic crust thrust on land). Networks of stockwork fractures in ophiolites below sulphide mounds (formed by hydrothermal precipitates) are directly associated with zones of hydrothermal alteration, where hydrothermal fluids alter the chemistry of the rock. In many cases, this alteration produces haloes of alteration, observable by spectrographic analysis, or in many cases by obvious changes in color near the hydrothermal veins. For some cores in modern ocean crust at hydrothermal fields, hydrothermal alteration, stockwork branching, and hydrothermal microcracks and veins have also been identified.I suggest obtaining a copy of AGU's Geophysical Monograph #91 for in depth analsysis of the physical, chemical, geological, and even biological effects, including supersurface, surface, and subsurface manifestations of hydrothermal processes.--I may be able to answer specific questions regarding hydrothermal systems as well.See:Physical, Chemical, Biological, and Geological Interactions within Sea Floor hydrothermal systems, edited by S. Humphris, R. Zierenberg, L. Mullineaux, and R. Thomson, American Geophysical Union monograph, 1995.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

90% something's fishy here. When I saw the number, I was surprised, when I saw that AIG provided no source for this number I was not. I looked through a couple of papers on water content in magmas and found quoted ranges of 0-7%.Here's one example from Alaska (Maximum water content in all samples was 5-7 wt. %)http://www.uoregon.edu/~artemis/Augustine.htmlhere's another from Ed Stolper on back arc magmatism
Page Not Found Division of Geological and Planetary SciencesI think you better document this number with a source.CheersJoe Meert