Jbuza wrote:
No, lava deposits will erode, they cannot accumulate because exposed deposits would erode away. Don't you think? . . . . But I am sure you'll admit that even mighty lava flows can and do erode.
Lava deposits certainly do accumulate, and they certainly do erode. Many Island chains demonstrate that Lava accumulates.
Your position was that if the Earth were much older that there would be far more lava deposits. It would seem that erosion counteracts the formation of lava flows thus a resultant rough equilibrium, would you disagree? So there is no reason to assume an older earth would be covered by lava.
You don't notice how absurd your argument is when in one sentence you propose an old Earth would be covered in lava and in another it would be covered in topsoil? Obviously your focusing only one one aspect of geological processes.
Jbuza wrote:
You keep saying that things don't occur at constant rates yet you keep using constant rates to try to disprove the other side, strange indeed.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything, I simply suggested that given the huge factor of difference between the two models with respect to time perhaps we might expect to find some observable differences between the two models. I proposed some possible indicators. I keep saying that there is no a priori reason to assume things occur at constant rate.
No one is assuming that processes occur at a constant rate. The only thing assumed is that the physics of the past is the same as today. Ever look at a the theory explaining the formation of the Hawaiin islands? It does not propose uniform lava flow. Your posible indicators are all false.
Jbuza wrote:I guess you feel it is a flaw to think that there would by observable differences in a 10,000 year old earth and a 4,700,000,000 year old one.
No, however the proposals you brought up are flawed. Which is why I went through each example.
Many of your arguments for what an old earth should show were of your own flawed understanding. They were not based on what scientist have actually concluded. You haven't brought up realistic posibilities. Such as a young earth would probably contain naturally occuring technetium.
Jbuza wrote:
You really think trees grow continuously in one area for 4 billion years. And how come angiosperms don't occur until the Cretaceous. Did the flood cause oaks and other flowering trees to only be buried with certain animals? What kind of flood was this? Are you really thinking this through? The sahara desert was not always a desert, it was once a tropical jungle. Why are you making rediculous assumptions? Climates change, think ice ages, or do you have an alternate explanation for mammoths frozen in ice and dinosaurs in the frozen antarctic?
I guess you are not really interested in the original premise of the thread, but want to put me on the defense arguing all kinds of things of your choosing. Fine.
I'm sorry?!? You stated that if trees grew continuously in one place for 4 billion years we should expect a difference.
Jbuza wrote:Perhaps there would be a difference apparent in the crust of the earth indicating whether there truly has been 4,000,000,000 years of trees growing
Do you remember saying that?
This would assume constant weather, and science stating that trees existed for 4 billion years among a whole host of issues which I brought up above. They certainly do relate to your statement, read your quote and my responce again. A 4 billion year uninterupted growth assumes constant weather, thus the Sahara comment. Again your proposals are assuming outlandish scenarios.
Jbuza wrote:...no I am not thinking it through, but responding to what you are trying to make my argument into. One that I never proposed here. I never made any claims or assumptions about the Sahara always being a desert. IT seems to me that you are making ridiculous statements about arguments I am not posing.
No empirical support? Are you really examining the evidence? Here's a simple example. Lets take Lake Suigetsu as an example. Every spring single celled algae bloom in the lake and settle down creating a thin white layer. The rest of the year sediments are dark. This results in black and white bands of sediment. Each layer of algae deposits is relatively alike in thickness measuring 1.2 mm each. 45,000 paired layers have been counted. What is your explanation?
The white layers are not only the result of algea, but from pollen and large particles that wash into the lake or are turned up from the shore during storms.
Then why the uniform thicknesses? And why don't storms and pollen create layers today?
Jbuza wrote:The darker bands are from clays that suspend in the water longer. What is the evidence that shows that sedimentation only takes place twice a years in these layers? Demonstrate please sinking rates of pollen, algea, and clay. Alternating periods of calm dry weather, and heavy storms can introduce new particulate into the system many times in a single season.
Sure this experiment has been conducted. First we lay a bottle on the lake bed, then we wait several years, when we return we count the layers. You can conduct this experiment yourself. There is nothing new to this observation, in lakes throughout the world organic material tends to settle in greater quantities in the fall as lower temperatures cause a dieoff.
Jbuza wrote:AS to Hawaii.
There is evidence to suggest that the chain could have formed rapidly. “At the present rate it would take approximately 220,000 years to build the present volcano. However, evidence on the volcano indicate that it has not always produced flows at the present slow and relatively steady rate. Large and thick deposits of ash and pumice are present from older eruptions, reported in 1790 and again in 1924. Along the cliffs of the Hilina fault system are exposed 9 ash layers indicative of such eruptions, estimated to be thousands of years old (ref.
http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs132-98/).
Well of course there are period of higher activity, but that is not in dispute. Read your source more carefully, you can see that there are more details from which one can make analysis than the cursory ones you seem to have made. Note that several of the layers are dated to tens of thousands of years old.
At least nine layers of volcanic ash, the oldest of which are tens of thousands of years old, are exposed along cliffs in the Hilina fault system
From your source.
Jbuza wrote:Volcanic eruptions have been known to lay down 700 feet of ash in a single eruptions, and that within recorded history. There is no reason to assume a slow birth to the islands. Wishful thinking and narrative are the building blocks of scientific investigation. I am postulating differing hypothesis your wanting finished reports just isn't going to happen without more effort than I am willing to put into this conversation.
However the data collected on the hawaiin islands just don't show the pattern you proposed. That is that the earlier islands formed very quickly and then volcanic formation dies down towards the present. It shows a, from geological timescale, a gradual formation of the island along the chain.
Jbuza wrote:It would be exceedingly difficult to measure the erosion of the islands without knowing there original heights.
It is quite clear that the original island had to be at least cover the base of the seamounts which lie submerged just below the ocean. And if the mountains formed at the same time one would expect coral growth and other organic deposits to be uniform if not at least random. What we do see is a progressive increase of this as we go further from the hotspot.
Jbuza wrote:IT is impossible to determine the amount of substance removed from the islands without first knowing the original amount of substance.
Again the seamounts are still there for one to estimate the original size of the island.
Jbuza wrote:But you can certainly claim it to try and lend evidence to your hypothesis. Lots of empty claims, are you sore that I don't make more empty claims, so that you can feel good about the ones from your theory?
We can look at the different types of volcanic material which make up the island. Analysis of the different types of rocks allows one to estimate the original size of the island. See here
Stages of eruption.
Sorry that is all the time I have right now. I have not addressed the argon-argon issue. Suffice it to say that I don't believe it to be uniform throughout the earth.[/quote]Then why the inverse relationship between distance from Hawaii and apparent date, do you have an explanation for this?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
The seafloor is moving westward at an average of 8cm per year currently.
