CMI and Wikipedia on Collapsing Arches

All very nice, but the evidence is against you. What in geology supports such a bizarre scenario? To take a very simple case, Why is Kaua’i so much more eroded than Hawai’i? Why do radiometric dates show Kawa’i’s lava to be so much older than the oldest lava in Hawai’i? Why does the entire Hawaiian chain show this coordinated spatial, erosional, and temporal progression, if it all happened within a year?

And I picked this at random. Anything in geology could be used as evidence against your flood and your silly instant tectonics.

6 Likes

The geology of Hawaii is not something I’ve personally studied, so I won’t venture there, except to say that it may be an example of post-Flood volcanism (perhaps immediately following and connected with the Flood). As far as radiometric dating goes, it has been very heavily addressed at creation.com. There are many examples of discordant “dates” and conflicting results. I don’t have all the answers as to why the method fails, but it is clear that it’s not a reliable clock. I’m going to base my view of the past on the Bible’s revelation, not on the attempts to speculate made by people who are rejecting the Bible.

1 Like

“Professional Apologist” par excellence.

You really are the comedy gift that keeps giving.

1 Like

Well, that much is obvious. Maybe you should, and then you wouldn’t present such a lame set of excuses.

But I thought most plate movement happened during the flood. How can such an island chain over a stationary hot spot not be a demonstration of plate movement?

And yet the dates of the Hawaiian Island chain are consistent with their positions on the plate and their states of erosion.

And there’s the central problem: you will believe what you think the bible says and ignore all empirical evidence if necessary. Why bother even talking about evidence when the bible is your sole guide, trumping all else? And it eventually always comes down to that, so why not start where you’re going to end? All this talk of science and evidence is merely a distraction.

6 Likes

Intellectual penis envy.

He wants cargo.

1 Like

I’m not even thinking of the event, I am thinking of the very material the Earth is made of. Rocks cannot deform in the extreme way you mention: entire continents rasing and basins subsiding in a matter of months or a few years. The material itself simply doesn’t allow that, not without being subject to extreme pressures and shattering as a consequence. What you envisage would require plastic deformation at fantastic rates, far beyond what the materials are capable of.

2 Likes

There are of course many, many more examples of concordant dates and consistent results, but you never mention those. The truth is that the signal formed by these numerous consistent results far outweighs the noise created by the discordant ones. That is why we still use the methods, and have done so for over half a century, and pay real money for the analyses. Because on the whole they actually work.

2 Likes

Seems he’s lost all interest in discussing natural arches. Wonder why that is? :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

If that’s the case then why do you and CMI continually try to play at science? Why do you guys feel the need to drastically misrepresent actual scientific findings and/or invent your own science-free fantasies to try and prop up those religious beliefs? Why don’t you just say “I can’t explain the scientific evidence which seems to contradict me but I believe Genesis in the Bible is literal anyway”. That would at least be respectable. The way you guys butcher actual science now is the reason you get so much ridicule and pushback.

2 Likes

Yes it would. But the few YEC writers/speakers I can think of who have been that honest have gotten themselves ostracized from much of the YEC community as a result.

1 Like

Doesn’t matter. Same answer. Nothing matters except his ideas about Genesis.

1 Like

That’s what he says.

But then he tries to deny the scientific evidence and say it also supports his beliefs.

Whereas, personally, I quite easily accept that Genesis makes claims that are directly contradicted by scientific evidence, and reconcile this by taking the position that science is correct, and Genesis isn’t.

@PDPrice does not seem to have the same courage of his convictions.

At last, a proper reference.

What did they say about new arches forming?

2 Likes

Well yes, you YECs make a complete song and a dance out of every “discordant” date that you can find.

But – and it is a big but – you blow them completely out of proportion.

You need to realise that there is a difference between “doesn’t always work” and “never works.”

You also need to realise that there is a difference between “occasionally out by a few percent” and “consistently out by a factor of a million.”

You also need to realise that there is a difference between “doesn’t work when it’s done wrong” and “doesn’t work when it’s done right.”

You also need to realise that there is a difference between “doesn’t work when pushed to the limits of its sensitivity” and “doesn’t work when used well within its operational parameters.”

If you want to argue for a 6,000 year old Earth, you need to do far better than just come up with a tiny minority of results that are out by only a few percent of the half-lives of their respective isotopes in situations where there are clearly identifiable explanations for the discrepancies. You need to be able to account for the 90% or more of cases where there is no discordance. You need to be able to explain how they could not only be wrong by a factor of up to a million, but all give the same wrong results as each other.

6 Likes