How does a 6000 yr. creationist explain the Hawaiian Islands

[rocketman]

Sorry but what do you not understand.
Creationism exists for 6000 years. If you believe in the evolution of man then the theories of creationism are older again, less the fifty years we might say that man has had a better idea 'and you want to dismiss it........'

Thanks for trying rock hop, but I still don't really follow. Are you for or against creationism?

Somebody, whoever, you can read back over it all if you like, stated that, how could there be light before there was the sun, in their rebuttal of creationist theory. Obviuosly, I am not talking about a scientist, as the Hubble pictures will explain but a creationist with any knowlege will not simply dismiss the fool rather they may demand that they recant and perhaps become a creationist themselves.

I've studied the creationist movement for a long time and I don't believe the majority of creationists 'demand' anything.

I don't know, I thought it read pretty straight forward. It did have no direct refference but it seemed obvious that I was directing it at an individual in particular. It may be , that because I an new to the forum, I am reading the whole thread and so it is all fresh to me and the post may be ages old.

Perhaps you should quote the post you had in mind, as I am quoting you now. Use the quote button. That way we all have a reference from which to try to understand you.

And welcome to the forum.

 

[rock hop]

Post 19.
Ok, but then Genesis also says that God created the light first, but the sun, moon and stars afterward, on the 4th day.
And how do you expect to have light, called Day, and darkness called Night, without the Sun?
How do you explain that?
It's all pretty nonsensical to me. The Genesis' Creation have no logical in it.

This feels like tattle telling. I haven't said if I am for creationism or not. Basically the blind are led on both sides of this topic. I believe in solutions, either solid ground or meeting halfway when the answer eludes both parties.

 

[rocketman]

This feels like tattle telling. I haven't said if I am for creationism or not. Basically the blind are led on both sides of this topic. I believe in solutions, either solid ground or meeting halfway when the answer eludes both parties.

Ok. But don't be surprised if our North American cousins around here put you in a category. It seems to be their way.

 

[Runlikethewind]

[FONT=&quot]

RUNLIKETHEWIND ~ I found your answers to the Hawaiian Islands very interesting. I guess you don't understand the problems involved in their formation. But first of all you down play the dating of the ages of the different volcanoes. You indicated that they ALL may be the same age. If that is true then wouldn't the ARGON testing have the same dating for all the Islands? …….

As I stated earlier the YEC reject radiometric dating methods so your Argon tests prove nothing, they are unreliable. To use this as a valid argument you must first convince the YEC that Argon dating is reliable and can give us accurate ages. Good luck with that……And again that will move the discussion away from the topic at hand and into an area were the YEC feel more comfortable since the arguments against radiometric dating are more well known in YEC circles.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

All the islands are formed on The Pacific Plate that is moving over the layer in the earth known as the Asthenosphere, at the rate of 5 to 10 cm/yr, when the plate stops a island is formed by the molten lava. The island starts out at the bottom of the ocean over 3 miles below sea level and over a lot of time builds an island as tall as Mt. Everest if you measure from the bottom of the ocean, like at Hawaii Island.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]In fact when measured from the ocean floor Hawaii is actually the tallest mountain in the world. Also the plate does not stop moving at all but it moves so slowly that only a certain area is exposed to the hotspot for some duration of time. In fact this is supported by the fact that a new seamount is forming east of the Island chain as a new area of the oceanic crust is exposed to the hotspot, so we have multiple volcanoes erupting simultaneously, which is actually a good argument against the theory I proposed and is much better explained by the accepted theory that the volcanoes erupted one at a time as the plate moves over the hotspot.

If all the islands were formed at the same time then all of them should be eroded about the same. The fact is the youngest 10 volcanoes have mountains on them but all the other 42 that are westward are almost flat on top showing that the wind and rain has warn them down during the millions of years of existance. The very youngest volcanoes are the only ones left with mountains on them.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Now this is a much better argument. But it rests on the assumption that erosion rates are the same now as they were in the past. Couldn’t Noah’s flood account for the large erosion of the other islands? Maybe in the eyes of the YEC it would. Couldn’t erosion rates have been different in the past? Maybe. And just because they all erupted at the same time doesn't mean they all erupted the same amount of material or that they were ever the same size. So if the other mountains were smaller to begin with of course they would be smaller now.

How long do you think a mountain island like Hawaii Island would take to be built from molten lava when it had to start 3 miles below sea level and build up to about 14,000 feet high above the water? If you really push yourself you can drive around the whole top of the island in one day. Think how much bigger the Base of the island is 3 miles deep in the ocean. It would take 1000's of years for just one island to be made and then the Pacific plate has to move so another island can be made, and this goes on for 52 islands?? The YEC think all this could happen in 6000 years. I have a bridge I want to sell them. arlan

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]This is the very argument that is defeated by proposing they all erupted at the same time. Let’s say it takes 1000 or even 2000 years to build an island the size of Hawaii. If they all erupted at the same time and they all started erupting 6000 years ago then they would still have been built before the flood happened, which would also explain how the tops of some of the other islands are so flat, because they were molten when they were submerged by the flood waters causing them to spread out underwater and cool faster and flatter….or something.


[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]And again let me reiterate, I don't buy these arguments I am making, I am just playing the sophist here…..[/FONT]

 

[herushura]

Genesis is not a 6000 year creation story, its a 6 Month creation story of the harvest throught Spring Equinox to Autumn/fall Equinox

 

[Runlikethewind]

Genesis is not a 6000 year creation story, its a 6 Month creation story of the harvest throught Spring Equinox to Autumn/fall Equinox

The 6000 years age does not come from Genesis, it comes from the calculations made by Usher using the genealogies of the Old Testament. You see, Usher calculated how many years past between Adam and Christ based on the numerous citations of ages and relations in the scripture. He even calculated it to the day and hour I think. But this brings up something I forgot. The 6000 year age only goes back to Adam, who was created on the 6th day. Some YEC then take the first 5 days and, based on scripture, claim that a day is 1000 years in the eyes of God, giving the total age of the earth closer to 11000 years while still remaining true to their interpretation of scripture. This gives them more time to play with for the formation of the earth.

 

[herushura]

the zero hour on the astrological clock begins on the day of the spring equinox when the sun crosses above the equator. This is Day One of Creation

6000Bc is the start Age of Gemini
4000BC is the age of Taurus
2000BC is the age of Aries
1 AD is the age of pisces

its all based on astrological clocks

 

[fantome profane]

[FONT=&quot]
As I stated earlier the YEC reject radiometric dating methods so your Argon tests prove nothing, they are unreliable. To use this as a valid argument you must first convince the YEC that Argon dating is reliable and can give us accurate ages.[/FONT]

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. There is no evidence, no argument that could ever convince most young earth creationists. Their position is not based on evidence and has nothing to do with logical arguments. Theirs is a position of faith, and it is not subject to evidence. If they cannot rationalize the evidence, they can simply ignore it. YEC is a position that people hold despite the evidence, not because of it.

 

[Arlanbb]

RUNLIKETHEWIND ~ Just because the YEC rejects the Potassium-Argon dating does not in any way prove that the results are wrong from it. Science has proven that when the atomic clock is set by the heating of the rock to its melting point ALL evidence of any Ar-40 gas is released into the air. This has been checked on new volcanoes, none of the new recrystallizes rock has any Ar-40 gas trapped in the rock. Science has studied this system and know that 1 out of every 10,000 K atoms is K-40 and for every 100 K-40 atoms that decay, 11 become Ar-40. So far the YEC have not disproved this information. What they do is say "will we don't know what the world was like before the biblical deluge and that might have had a different effect on the element. First of all the YEC have never given us a date for the biblical deluge so without that information their argument falls flat. All the archaeology evidence disproves any evidence of a biblical deluge,
in the last 100,000 years. Therefore K-Argon results are real [+ or - 10%] till the YEC prove them otherwise.

Glad you brought up the Pacific plate that keeps moving, I was going to mention that later if I had to. The volcanoes that form in the ocean have a special shape to them depending on how high they reach. By measuring the Base it can give you a very good idea of the hight the molten lava got to before the ages broke the parts exposed to the elements above ground and the waves actions. Many of those real old islands are really underwater today because of their age.
The fact remains that Midway Island is about 27,700,000 years old and as you move east each island get younger and younger. If each island took only 1000 years to form then not including the time for the pacific plate to move between each island we still have at least 52,000 years for earths age - not 6000 years. arlan

 

[rock hop]

Arlanbb, I cannot quote this as it was a snippet of some documentary that I just caught hold of. It is suggested that the deluge may well have been the breaking of the Pillars of Hercules. The Atlantic was much higher than the inland sea and this was part of the catasrophe. The evidence that was used in the telling, relates to tributary rivulets still etched in seabed floors of both the Black Sea and the Mediteranean. The Black Sea was also part of the documentary, as they seem to think that the Bosporus Straight was also a wall against the outward sea.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Arlanbb, I cannot quote this as it was a snippet of some documentary that I just caught hold of. It is suggested that the deluge may well have been the breaking of the Pillars of Hercules. The Atlantic was much higher than the inland sea and this was part of the catasrophe. The evidence that was used in the telling, relates to tributary rivulets still etched in seabed floors of both the Black Sea and the Mediteranean. The Black Sea was also part of the documentary, as they seem to think that the Bosporus Straight was also a wall against the outward sea.

There is geological evidence that massive, catastrophic flooding occurred on a large scale in several places in the world. We had one here in the Pacific Northwest at the end of the last ice age, the Missoula floods. But none of these floods was to the scale of a global deluge that most YEC consider it to be. These floods do, however, support the idea that there is some historical reality to many ancient flood stories that talk of massive flooding of the whole "world", because to someone living along the shore of the black see when the Bosporus gave way it would have seemed as if the whole world was under water....

 

[Elessar]

Stepping out of my personal beliefs for a moment, from a mytho-historical standpoint, there must have been something which happened that was very much like the Biblical Deluge. Considering the great number of Deluge myths from cultures with had little or no contact with one another, dating to around the same time, which would amount to *something*. From a historical point of view, I would probably guess, ignoring the Bible, that there was probably a massive geological shift planet-wide, a sort of thing which has been shown to occur at times. One guess, for example, would be a global warming, melting of the polar icecaps, which led to wholesale increase on the sea level. This would have led to massive flooding, possibly including that which filled the Mediterranean and/or Black Seas, and, at least over a period of decades or centuries, had a significant impact on the environment. This wouldn't be all that dissimilar to the idea of geological formations, for example, the Crimea, Manhattan Island, the Nile Delta, etc, being changed by modern global warming, to a lesser extent.

 

[gnostic]

This would have led to massive flooding, possibly including that which filled the Mediterranean and/or Black Seas, and, at least over a period of decades or centuries, had a significant impact on the environment.

The problem with correlating the Biblical Flood with the Black Sea Deluge is that the Black Sea one is said to be 7600 years ago (5600 BCE). This is the Neolithic period, where there are no writings whatsoever.

That's over 1600 years before the so-called Creation of Adam and at least 3200 years before that of the Biblical Flood (it's really depends on when the biblical flood happened, and dates have given as early as 2400 BCE and as late as 2100 BCE ).

They are too far apart to be related in any way.

The Sumerian versions of the Flood were written possibly even before the biblical version, but according their versions the Deluge was set before Gilgamesh's reign. Gilgamesh is a semi-historical figure, who possibly ruled in Uruk c. 2700-2600 BCE, so that means he lived at least 2 centuries before the Flood, and the flood was meant to have happened long before him.

Egyptian doesn't even have Deluge myth. They do actually get annual flood, but nothing like those found in the Near East flood myths.

Even then, there is no historical and archaeological evidences of any such catastrophic deluge in 3rd millennium BCE. If it had, it would have caused major disruptions in the major civilisations in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

I don't think there are anyway to equate the Flood that happened around 7600 years ago with that of around 4400 years ago. Being around 2 millennia apart, it is not realistic to use the Black Sea argument to validate the Bible's Flood.

Also the Black Sea Deluge had only enlarged the Black Sea. Yes, it did cause massive flooding. However, it only increase the sea level of the Black Sea. The once large fresh-water lake became a sea, when the Mediterranean level increased and the Sea of Marmara had breached the Bosporus. This deluge, however, didn't cause any damage to the Mesopotamia or Canaan.

That's the theory about the Black Sea Deluge, but there are not serious doubt about this theory about it being a lake prior to 7600 BP (before present).

 

[Caladan]

Stepping out of my personal beliefs for a moment, from a mytho-historical standpoint, there must have been something which happened that was very much like the Biblical Deluge. Considering the great number of Deluge myths from cultures with had little or no contact with one another, dating to around the same time, which would amount to *something*. From a historical point of view, I would probably guess, ignoring the Bible, that there was probably a massive geological shift planet-wide, a sort of thing which has been shown to occur at times

Elessar,

From archaeological and historical perspective, we can say that that the fact that several mythologies have a story about a flood is not because they all documented it, but because they have effected each other (the mythologies), The Babylonians inherited the Sumerian mythology, the Hebrew bible took in Mesopotamian myths (and even terms) into it etc. it is possible that these stories reflect a local and limited event in the memory of the region.

 

[painted wolf]

I find it amusing that people get excited about cultures that depend on major rivers having flood myths.

They don't seem to be as excited by all the other cultures that don't have them though.

wa:do

 

[Elessar]

However, that doesn't explain deluges in other mythologies unrelated to the Middle East - for example, the Aztecs, Then all mankind was lost and drowned and turned to fishes. The water and the sky drew near each other. In a single day all was lost, and Four Flower consumed all that there was of our flesh. The very mountains were swallowed up in the flood, and the waters remained, lying tranquil during fifty and two springs. Deluge-type occurrences, or hints of them, are additionally found in Celtic, Germanic, Suomic, Hellenic, Indic, Chinese, and Polynesian, in addition to other Native American accounts.
Also, purely from a historical standpoint, it could easily have been an oral story for millennia before it was written down. Oral traditions have been proven to last for millennia even in societies where literacy exists and is relatively widespread. The fact that it is dated by YECs to the last 6,000 years does not discount its possible relating of a true event further in the past.

EDIT: In addition, we don't know the whole of Egyptian mythology - I hate it when people act like we do. We only know what we've been able to translate, which is maybe half of it, at absolute best. There is no possible way to know every detail from any mythology in the history of the human race.

 

[painted wolf]

The Aztecs lived in a swamp... floods were a big deal when your city was built on a bunch of artifical islands.

wa:do

 

[Heneni]

I wonder if people who trust carbon dating know how silly they sound when they quote it as evidence. Even KNOWN samples, where the date of the sample is pretty much a dead give away give contradicting results with different methods of carbon dating.

heneni

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I wonder if people that try to dismiss Carbon-14 dating know how terribly ignorant they sound?

Would it be too much to ask, that one of those people actually read
up on the accuracy (and limitations) of the methodology?

HowStuffWorks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"
Carbon-14 Dating
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All three of the articles shown above discuss the calibration and limitations of the testing method.

Not that I expect certain people to actually read up on it, prior to passing judgement based on unbiased information.

For those of you that would rather wallow in willful ignorance, I am including a link to the misinformation available at the site "Answers in Genesis".
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

Your welcome.

 

[darkendless]

I wonder if people who trust carbon dating know how silly they sound when they quote it as evidence. Even KNOWN samples, where the date of the sample is pretty much a dead give away give contradicting results with different methods of carbon dating.

heneni

You quote the bible as evidence, carbon dating is based on a concrete mathematical formula, the bible is just a book. Don't be a hypocrite.