Search This Blog

Friday, March 29, 2013

Siberian and Deccan Traps cannot be long-age formations

As one of the commenters has posted on fossils and "paleosols" found in Deccan and Siberian Traps quite often, it is time to put an end to the topic with a flourish, hopefully.   In my last two posts I did try to make it clear to the reader that "paleosol" as used by Darwinists is typically a "pseudosol" or in other words, they are wrong about finding well-established soils forming atop lava flows and then covered up with new lava flows in formations like the Deccan and Siberian Traps.   

We investigated some supposed "paleosols" and found them to be lacking in evidence but instead to be layers of more friable rock associated with the rapid formations of the lava flows occurring in association with the Noahic Flood.  See my last two posts:

Large Igneous Provinces support Creation while Darwinists flail at Straw Men!



Now we move on to show that the Siberian Traps and Deccan Traps had to have formed quickly and in association with the Flood, thus dismissing the concept of long ages.   

That fossils might be found is not surprising if the eruption of lava pierces through forming or already-formed sedimentary layers.  Here we go in three articles that, in order, present the reason Siberian and Deccan Traps are not long-age formations and therefore not of interest to Creation science other than to note their existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


New Study Explains Fast-Moving Magma


The Deccan Traps in India, and especially the Siberian Traps, have vast quantities of lava rock near the earth's surface. Many geologists have assumed that this formed over millions of years. However, recent studies testing that assumption have shown just the opposite—the magma moved rapidly from great depths.
A 2000 Science paper calculated that the magma that later hardened into surface rock traveled at about nine miles per hour.1 It started in deeply buried molten form and rose through pipes, penetrating more than 60 miles of continental crust before finally reaching the earth's surface. The 2008 film Journey to the Center of the Earth, adapted from the 1864 novel by Jules Verne, illustrated this kind of pipe—albeit in a highly fictionalized manner.
As the magma traveled from great depths, it carried several minerals, including diamonds. If it rose any slower than the calculated rate, the heat and pressure at depth would have reduced the diamonds to graphite.
Other studies reviewed by geologist Andrew Snelling in 2007 confirm that the magma rose rapidly.2 And with fast enough rates and large enough pipes, the earth's almost continent-size lava fields could have formed in just hundreds, rather than millions, of years.
But exactly how could the magma have risen that fast?
To answer that question, geologists recently proposed a model based on new experimental data on magma behavior. In their report published in Nature, the team explained how materials deep in the earth can rise rapidly to the surface. They wrote, "This mechanism enables the continuous and accelerating ascent of the magma."3
In their conception, when carbon-rich magma mixes with a silicon-containing material, like the pyroxene minerals that comprise crustal rocks, the silicon lowers the solubility of the magma's carbon content. This process discharges carbon dioxide gas from the molten solution.
Since the Nature study geologists knew that magma mixes with silicon-containing crustal minerals on its way up, they suggested that this causes the rising magma to continuously release carbon dioxide gas that propels the magma upward. As it ascends, the magma picks up even more silicon-based material to continue the process, like adding more fuel to a fire.
So now, not only are geologists confident that certain volcanic magmas rose rapidly through continental crust, but they also have a plausible mechanism to explain how it happened. Thus, Bible-believing scientists can have even more confidence that giant lava fields did not require vast time, but merely the right mixture of materials, lending support to the Bible's depiction of a young earth.
References
  1. Kelley, S. P. and J.-A. Wartho. 2000. Rapid Kimberlite Ascent and Significance of Ar-Ar Ages in Xenolith Phlogopites. Science. 289 (5479): 609-611.
  2. Snelling, A. A. 2007. The Rapid Ascent of Basalt MagmasActs & Facts. 36 (8): 10.
  3. Russell, J. K. et al. 2012. Kimberlite ascent by assimilation-fuelled buoyancy. Nature. 481 (7381): 352-356.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on February 8, 2012.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now a slightly more technical article that was referenced above that explains why we know the aforementioned traps are rapidly-formed.


The Rapid Ascent of Basalt Magmas



It is now well established that the earth's upper mantle is the source of the basalt magmas erupted by many volcanoes as lava flows1--for example, Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii. The earth's crust is predominantly of a granitic composition, whereas the mantle is closer to a basaltic composition. Pieces of mantle rock are often brought to the earth's surface in basalt lava flows. Other evidence also confirms that the basalt magmas are generated by partial melting of the upper mantle rock.
Explosive Eruptions and Mantle Water
Where such volcanic eruptions occur on the continents, the basalt magmas typically have to ascend some 60-80 kilometers (35-50 miles) from the upper mantle to the surface. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which magmas ascend and the rates of magma ascent are known to play a critical role in the dynamics of volcanic eruptions, but these phenomena have until now been poorly constrained. Critics of catastrophic Flood geology have thus used the presumed long, slow ascent of basalt magmas, and their uniformitarian extrapolation back into the past of the small volumes of basalt magmas delivered to the earth's surface today, to insist that many millions of years of eruptions would have been needed to produce the basalt lavas found in the geologic record.
However, the ascent rate of the gas-rich, explosively erupted kimberlite magmas that host diamonds has previously been determined as four meters per second (about 787 feet per minute or nine miles per hour)!2 Such a rapid ascent rate is crucial to survival of the diamonds carried by these unusual magmas from 200-400 kilometers (125-250 miles) down in the mantle up to the earth's surface. A slower ascent rate would result in the diamonds turning to graphite. To put this ascent rate into perspective, it only takes between 12 and 30 hours for the diamond-carrying kimberlite magma to travel from 200-400 kilometers depth in the mantle up to erupt at the earth's surface (Figure 1).
Small amounts of water have been found dissolved as hydrogen and hydroxyl ions (the dissociated components of water) in the minerals within fragments of mantle rocks (xenoliths) brought to the earth's surface in basalt magmas.3 Even those small amounts have major effects on physical and chemical processes in the mantle, also being critical to plate tectonics.4 Furthermore, experimental studies have shown that this water dissolved in mantle minerals would likely be partially lost during transport to the earth's surface, being partitioned into the ascending magma.5 Consequently, measuring the water still dissolved in such minerals within xenoliths in erupted basalts could provide clues to quantifying magma ascent rates prior to eruption.
Patagonian Basalt Study
Such a study has now been undertaken.6 Olivine crystals were separated from garnet-bearing mantle xenoliths within the Quaternary (post-Flood) alkali olivine basalt flows of Pali-Aike, Chile,7 for Fourier Transform Infrared at the centers of the mineral crystals in these xenoliths indicate that these pieces of mantle rock were originally under temperature and pressure conditions corresponding to a depth of 60-80 kilometers.8 Furthermore, there is no geophysical evidence below these lava flows of a magma chamber in which the xenoliths could have been stored for an extended period and become equilibrated with their host magma during transport from the mantle to the earth's surface.
The alkali basalts hosting the mantle xenoliths erupted at a temperature estimated to have been between 1200ºC and 1290ºC.9 Furthermore, FTIR measurements of the visible clinopyroxene crystals (phenocrysts) in the basalts show no evidence of hydroxyl (OH) incorporated in them. This, together with the absence of amphibole, indicates that the basalts were undersaturated in water, making the basaltic magma which transported the mantle xenoliths an effective "sink" (or potential receiver) for hydrogen. An environment thus existed in which the mantle xenoliths could have become progressively dehydrated during magma ascent, and in proportion to the rate of ascent.
Profiles of FTIR measurements across individual grains in the mantle xenoliths revealed that the water distribution in the pyroxene grains was homogeneous, in contrast to the olivine grains where their rims were hydroxyl depleted.10 In total, thirty olivine grains were studied, and all olivine grains larger than 0.8 mm across had hydroxyl-depleted rims. Additionally, profile measurements were repeated on two of the olivine grains while crystallographically oriented, because it is known that hydrogen diffusion in olivine is related to its crystal structure. These measurements confirmed that the rims of the olivine grains in the mantle xenoliths were hydroxyl-depleted. This indicates that this olivine was dehydrating in the water-undersaturated host basalt magma as the mantle xenoliths were engulfed by it and transported up from 60-80 kilometers depth to the earth's surface.
Calculating a Rapid Ascent Rate
Using experimentally-determined diffusion coefficients for hydration of olivine,11 water diffusion profiles were calculated for all three crystallographic axes of an olivine grain at a temperature of 1245±45ºC for various durations, with an initial water content of ~312 weight parts per million (wt ppm) and a final water content of 0 wt ppm at its rim. Thus it was possible to approximate the ascent rate of the mantle xenoliths and, by extension, their host basalt. The calculated ascent rates ranged from 1.9 hours at 1290ºC to 3.4 hours at 1245ºC and 6.3 hours at 1200ºC. Furthermore, FTIR analyses across cracks in the olivine grains did not exhibit any perturbations of the hydrogen profiles, so hydrogen diffusion from the grain rims occurred predominantly prior to the cracking of the grains near the earth's surface or after the eruption of the host basalt. Therefore, these mantle xenoliths must have reached the earth's surface in a matter of only several hours.
Assuming a depth of origin for the xenoliths of 60-80 kilometers, the corresponding ascent rate is 6±3 meters per second (13.5±6.5 miles per hour). Because these xenoliths are denser than the host magma, this estimate gives a minimum ascent rate for the host alkali basalt magma. That equates to this basalt magma only taking between two and eight hours to travel from the upper mantle to erupt at the earth's surface. Such a rapid ascent to the earth's surface is consistent with the freshness of these xenoliths and is similar to the ascent rate of four meters per second determined for volatile-rich kimberlite magmas containing diamonds.
Conclusions
Any claim that the eruptions of basalt lava flows are a timescale problem for the Genesis Flood on a young earth can now be easily dismissed. If it only takes basalt magmas between two and eight hours to travel from their upper mantle sources to erupt through volcanoes at the earth's surface, then many basalt volcanic eruptions could have easily occurred during the Flood year. Furthermore, the volume and scale of the basalt lavas found in the geologic record, such as the so-called flood basalts of the Deccan and Siberian Traps,12 testify to the global catastrophism operating in the Flood year, in contrast to today's occasional, small, and relatively insignificant basalt eruptions.
The bigger question is how so much of the upper mantle rock partially melted quickly enough to generate those enormous volumes of flood basalts. However, during the Flood year the pre-Flood ocean floor ruptured into plates that sank into the mantle via thermal runaway subduction, the resulting mantle-wide convective flow generating huge mantle plumes and rapid melting of enormous volumes of upper mantle rock beneath the mid-ocean rift zones.13 Thus catastrophic plate tectonics during the Flood is the only viable explanation for the many basalt flows found in the earth's rock record. And this new experimental evidence confirms the rapid ascent and eruption of basalt lavas, consistent with the Biblical framework of earth history.


References
  1. Hall, A. 1996. Igneous petrology, 2nd ed. Harlow, England: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
  2. Kelley, S. P., and J.-A. Wartho. 2000. Rapid kimberlite ascent and significance of Ar-Ar ages in xenolith phlogopites. Science
  3. Bell, D. et al. 2003. Hydroxide in olivine: A quantitative determination of the absolute amount and calibration of the IR spectrum. Journal of Geophysical Research 108 doi: 10.1029/2001JB000679.
  4. Hirth, G., and D. L. Kohlsedt. 1996. Water in the oceanic upper mantle: implications for rheology, melt extraction and the evolution of the lithosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 144:93-108. Regenauer-Lieb, K., et al. 2001. The initiation of subduction: Criticality by addition of water? Science 294:578-580.
  5. Ingrin, J., and H. Skogby. 2000. Hydrogen in nominally anhydrous upper-mantle minerals: Concentration levels and implications. European Journal of Mineralogy 12:543-570.
  6. Demouchy, S. et al. 2006. Rapid magma ascent recorded by water diffusion profiles in mantle olivine. Geology 34:429-432.
  7. Skewes, M. A., and C. R. Stern. 1979. Petrology and geochemistry of alkali basalts and ultramafic inclusions from the Pali-Aike Volcanic Field in southern Chile and the origin of the Patagonian Plateau lavas. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research
  8. Stern, C. R. et al. 1999. Evidence from mantle xenoliths for relatively thin (less than 100 km) continental lithosphere below the Phanerozoic crust of southernmost South America. Lithos 48:217-235.
  9. D'Orazio, M. et al. 2000. The Pali-Aike Volcanic Field, Patagonia: Slab-window magmatism near the tip of South America.Tectonophysics 321:407-427.
  10. Demouchy et al., ref. 6.
  11. Kohlstedt, D. L., and S. J. Mackwell. 1999. Solubility and diffusion of "water" in silicate minerals. In Microscopic properties and processes in minerals, ed. K. Wright and R. Catlow, 539-559. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  12. Jerram, D. A., and M. Widdowson. 2005. The anatomy of continental flood basalt provinces: Geological constraints on the processes and products of flood volcanism. Lithos 79:385-405.
  13. Austin, S. A., J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K. P. Wise. 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics, In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh, 609-621. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship. 289:609-611. 6:3-25.
Cite this article: Snelling, A. 2007. The Rapid Ascent of Basalt Magmas. Acts & Facts. 36 (8): 10.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following article is referenced, albeit with ages that I would disagree with, but if viewed from the standpoint of seeing these formations associated with The One Global Flood the author's assertions are validation of the assertions of Snelling:

The anatomy of Continental Flood Basalt Provinces : geological constraints on the processes and products of flood volcanism.

Jerram, D. A. and Widdowson, M. (2005) 'The anatomy of Continental Flood Basalt Provinces : geological constraints on the processes and products of flood volcanism.',Lithos., 79 (3-4). pp. 385-405.

Abstract


The internal architecture of the immense volumes of eruptive products in Continental Flood Basalt Provinces (CFBPs) provides vital clues, through the constraint of a chrono-stratigraphic framework, to the origins of major intraplate melting events. This work presents close examination of the internal facies architecture and structure, duration of volcanism, epeirogenetic uplift associated with CFBPs, and the potential environmental impacts of three intensely studied CFBPs (the Parana-Etendeka, Deccan Traps and North Atlantic Igneous Province). Such a combination of key volcanological, stratigraphic and chronologic observations can reveal how a CFBP is constructed spatially and temporally to provide crucial geological constraints regarding their development. Using this approach, a typical model can be generated, on the basis of the three selected CFBPs, that describes three main phases of flood basalt volcanism. These phases are recognized in Phanerozoic CFBPs globally. At the inception of CFBP volcanism, relatively low-volume transitional-alkaline eruptions are forcibly erupted into exposed cratonic basement lithologies, sediments, and in some cases, water. Distribution of initial volcanism is strongly controlled by the arrangement of pre-existing topography, the presence of water bodies and local sedimentary systems, but is primarily controlled by existing lithospheric and crustal weaknesses and concurrent regional stress patterns. The main phase of volcanism is typically characterised by a culmination of repeated episodes of large volume tholeiitic flows that predominantly generate large tabular flows and flow fields from a number of spatially restricted eruption sites and fissures. These tabular flows build a thick lava flow stratigraphy in a relatively short period of time (c. 1–5 Ma). With the overall duration of flood volcanism lasting 5–10 Ma (the main phase accounting for less than half the overall eruptive time in each specific case). This main phase or ‘acme’ of volcanism accounts for much of the CFBP eruptive volume, indicating that eruption rates are extremely variable over the whole duration of the CFBP. During the waning phase of flood volcanism, the volume of eruptions rapidly decrease and more widely distributed localised centres of eruption begin to develop. These late-stage eruptions are commonly associated with increasing silica content and highly explosive eruptive products. Posteruptive modification is characterised by continued episodes of regional uplift, associated erosion, and often the persistence of a lower-volume mantle melting anomaly in the offshore parts of those CFBPs at volcanic rifted margins.
Item Type:Article
Keywords:Flood basalt, Mantle melting, CFBP, Etendeka, Deccan, North Atlantic igneous province.
Full text:Full text not available from this repository.
Publisher Web site:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lithos.2004.09.009
Record Created:16 Feb 2007
Last Modified:05 Apr 2010 16:30

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The bottom line is this - The Siberian and Deccan Traps are shown to have been rapidly formed in association with water (Noahic Flood comes to mind) and are NOT evidence of long ages.   Any fossils of any kind, be they foraminifera or fruit or frog, were in the sediments that were interrupted by the fast-moving lava that was extruded in enormous quantities very quickly.  Therefore, there is no chance that actual paleosols will be found but only portions of the flood sediments that may be found, the remains of the original layering displaced by the lava flow.    These were rapidly formed massive lava flows, part of the catastrophic Flood and Post-Flood age.   Some areas of these formations could have rapidly become weathered and able to sustain plant growth and become ordinary soil and perhaps we may see that a glacial lake dike break and associated flood might have captured and buried soil formed shortly after the Flood and before the end of the Ice Age.  Otherwise there is no possible way for actual soil to have had time to form here.

Darwinist geologists appear to "find" paleosols where they do not exist.  The presence of preserved fossils is expected as the large igneous provinces were formed during the same time period as the sedimentary rock layers.   The total time from beginning of the Noahic Flood until the end of the Ice Age is not precisely known, but the formations of the Earth are being examined and understood within a Biblical Geological framework by men such as Walker, Snelling and Baumgardner.   

I am now going back to my task of posting on the fossil record interspersed with a few articles relative to the Creation versus Darwinism theme that is the main topic on this worldview blog and I will not be moved by the complaints of Darwinists about the Traps.  They formed fast, they formed during the dynamic Flood and post-Flood era and surprise, the Darwinists are wrong again!

24 comments:

Jon W said...

Hmmm....

Interesting.

I see a reference that discusses ascent rates of deep magma in kimberlite pipes, which are explosive high-velocity eruptions, and an attempt to use that paper as evidence for horizontal flow rates of basalt lava, which is generally a low-energy low-velocity eruption. Meanwhile, an actual historical flood-basalt eruption took eight months to erupt just under 15 km^3 of basalt and cover an area of 565 km^2. (See http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/laki.html) The Deccan Traps included 512,000 km^3 of basalts and covered roughly 500,000 km^2. Extrapolating from the one to the other...

Also, http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/columbia-river-basalts-rate-emplacement casually mentions a fact I hadn't known before: we know the Columbia River Basalts were erupted on dry land because we can trace some of the flows all the way west to where they entered the Pacific Ocean, and see exactly where the still-hot lava was rapidly chilled into volcanic glass by the cold seawater.

Jon W said...

Next I see a reference to a paper that hypothesizes a model for flood basalts that suggests large basalt provinces can be built up in a couple of million years. Unfortunately, you need flood basalts to be completely erupted and cooled in just days for Flood geology to work.

And none of this gets you any closer to answering the original question: how does Flood geology explain the existence of intertrappean fossil strata, complete with paleosols and entire ecosystems of now-extinct animals? They do exist, you know, and just dogmatically denying that fact doesn't make the fact go away. If it did, we wouldn't have a national debt crisis anymore.

radar said...

Well, Jon, I didn't expect you to accept the evidence that the traps were formed rapidly in water-related situations. But I did the posts so people with a clear mind and critical thinking would see the evidence and not so much for you. Jesus Christ could probably walk in your front door and you'd close your eyes so you couldn't see Him.

We know the Snake River Canyon is a post-Flood formation and is a result of a glacial lake dike break. If the Columbia River Basalts were formed during the Flood era that does not change the game one bit.

The referenced paper was a supposition based on evidence my article writers demonstrated (in their opinion and mine) that the formations happened quickly. Just as the Gerhart/Kirschner findings had a Darwinist patina, they actually found evidence for design rather than evolution and so goes the paper I put up at the end for the reader to see. I expect the reader to use common sense and critical thinking, compare the evidence and decide if they believe in the slow or fast formation of the Traps referenced. I have a bit of confidence in the majority of readers and expect them to think for themselves.

The formation is typical of very fast formation according to my authors.

I say the paleosols you keep talking about are not paleosols. You say they are. Tomato, tomahto. Also, if you cannot comprehend the idea of lava flows piercing through sedimentary mudrock and leaving much of the fossil remains intact, so be it. That is my assertion and I stand by it.

You still major in trivia and ignore the bigger issues. You want to talk about how to pilot a jet plane at high altitudes when you haven't yet established you can even ride a bike, in terms of the evidence for the foundations of your Darwinist faith.

Anonymous said...

"Well, Jon, I didn't expect you to accept the evidence that the traps were formed rapidly in water-related situations. But I did the posts so people with a clear mind and critical thinking would see the evidence and not so much for you."

Radar, did you have any substantive response to Jon's factual objections to your post...

... or is derision all you have left?

Jon W said...

Derision and misdirection are all he's ever had. I don't think he even understands my arguments, much less is able to respond coherently to them.

radar said...

Jon and his self-congratulatory egoism is bad enough, but he even has rooters that agree with him.

My point is that we have solid evidence that LIPS we find were formed quickly and not over long ages.

Jon, it is devious and heinous behavior on your part to claim that you have the answers and I don't understand the issues. It doesn't change the evidence. It is childish behavior on your part. When you grow up enough (attitude, not age) to learn to discuss or debate things properly, I will pay more attention to your complaints. For now, I am going to continue my series on fossils and you go ahead and celebrate your fake victory along with your buddies.

The Siberian and Deccan Traps were formed quickly in association with flood conditions. Their sheer size indicates formation during the Flood period. Fossils in the sediments parted by lava flows are not a problem for Creationists. What Darwinists need to do is to quit identifying friable rock produced by rapid lava flows as paleosols.

Anonymous said...

So it's confirmed. Derision is all Radar has left on this issue.

Radar, unless you can counter Jon's substantive points above, it's clear that you've lost this battle.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think he even understands my arguments"

True, Radar makes that abundantly clear in virtually all his responses to you.

Jon W said...

"The Siberian and Deccan Traps were formed quickly in association with flood conditions."

Prove it.

"Jon, it is devious and heinous behavior on your part to claim that you have the answers and I don't understand the issues."

Unless it's true. Do you understand the problem with using a kimberlite burst as a model for a flood basalt? Do you understand why it makes more sense to use a historical flood-basalt eruption for modeling prehistoric flood-basalt eruptions?

Jon W said...

Say Radar, I have an idea for you: on this day of Rising for you and all your fellow Christians, let there be a re-creation of your attitude. Instead of simply believing what creationist authors tell you about conventional science, why don't you take some time to study what conventional science actually says, and objectively weigh the two against each other?

radar said...

Jon, been there, done that, have the t-shirt. My substantive arguments are more compelling and sensible than yours concerning these formations. You have your opinion but I believe your opinion is not objective and you have never tried being objective to my knowledge.

Fact is, Creation scientists do not even try to disprove the continual efforts by Darwinists to ignore the overwhelming evidence of a fairly quick flood-related formation of these LIPS and the so-called paleosols which do not hold up to scrutiny.

I am paying attention to the dissemination of good science, logic and philosophy. Because I am a Christian, I can state that I have a set of absolutes that define morality and a Creator as First Cause for basic things like existence, life, self-consciousness, information, art, etc. You, on the other hand, have dismissed God and depend upon a old pagan myth that the Universe made itself and with no purpose or plan.

Therefore, you cannot even claim to understand right from wrong without borrowing MY morality. After all, if you evolved from pond scum and there is no meaning to life, what is your standard of morality? If it is the consensus of mankind, that is logically flawed because a majority does not necessarily mean correctness. A majority of Hatchetfish, if kept in a tank with no lid, will jump out of the tank and onto the floor and die. No group of men can claim to have any certainty without God, for they are then evolved creatures whose thoughts are programmed and thereby not reliable but rather random firings of brain cells in patterns chosen over millions of years for an advantage in reproduction.

No God, no free will, your free will is illusory if there are no absolutes. How can you even know I exist? Could your existence not be a dream that is as likely to *poof* away as it was to *poof* in...

Anyway, the Siberian and Deccan Traps are Flood-related formations that I consider yet another mistake by Darwinists, just as the idea of "junk DNA" and "vestigial organs." Sorry. Your buddies may still agree with you. Be wrong if you like.

radar said...

Oh, one more thing. Jon'x questions and answers are far less thorough than my posts. He is presented with a great deal of supporting information to deal with, so I understand why he often just goes with "radar is too stupid to understand" stuff. Do you have any idea what that sounds like to ordinary men who are familiar with philosophy and science? It is the equivalent of shouting cries of victory while running away.

Since I made the posts and present the information, it is on the commenters to refute what I say if they wish. Linking to a site like talkorigins will not suffice.

I have pointed out to readers that I can tell you do not necessarily read the posts before you comment and actually proved it once by comparing the time stamps on my article and your comments. You could not have finished even one-fifth of that particular article and post before making a negative comment.

Listening before speaking is wise,, reading before writing equally wise.

C-14 dating calibration was explained to you. You simply cannot wrap your minds around the basics:

C-12/C-14 ratio in the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium, so old-age formulas are flawed from the start.

The Flood would have produced extra C-14 by the very nature of the event.

Creationists use known dates to calibrate C-14 in objects, with these facts in mind and then have found that recalibrated C-14 dating with the new approach is pretty reliable. But it will not yield an age over 10,000 years and yet the bottom-most flood layers have C-14, which would be gone by 100,000 years.

Since Darwinist methods are so wildly unreliable, I will go with the new system. Go back, read the article and find the Ian Juby video on my page and pay attention and then you will understand my argument. Agree or fail to agree, you seem to have not even tried to comprehend it due to failure to read and listen to all of the evidence I presented. Not my fault.

Jon W said...

"Jon'x questions and answers are far less thorough than my posts."

That's because:

1) I'm limited by the acceptable size of a comment and you're not;

2) I prefer to write my own material rather than copy it; and

3) I see no reason to spend time wading through your morass of malarkey and refuting it in detail, when a few precision strikes will accomplish the same goal much faster.

Case in point: your yapping just above about the Flood and carbon-dating. You claim that "The Flood would have produced extra C-14 by the very nature of the event." Carbon-14 production is a nuclear event, accomplished by high-energy radiation. Even under your "Continental Demolition Derby" model, the Flood was entirely a physical event. Where did the excess radiation come from to create all that extra C14, and why didn't it also fry every living thing on the Ark?

Jon W said...

Oh, and you didn't answer my question from up above. Do you understand the problem with using a kimberlite burst as a model for a flood basalt? Do you understand why it makes more sense to use a historical flood-basalt eruption for modeling prehistoric flood-basalt eruptions?

And do you understand that this use of flawed models, coupled with the lack of any substantive answer by you or your sources, illustrates clearly why "creation science" is a fraud?

radar said...

The Deccan Traps in India, and especially the Siberian Traps, have vast quantities of lava rock near the earth's surface. Many geologists have assumed that this formed over millions of years. However, recent studies testing that assumption have shown just the opposite—the magma moved rapidly from great depths.

Anonymous said...

"The Deccan Traps in India, and especially the Siberian Traps, have vast quantities of lava rock near the earth's surface. Many geologists have assumed that this formed over millions of years. However, recent studies testing that assumption have shown just the opposite—the magma moved rapidly from great depths."

Did you perhaps not read or understand Jon's questions immediately preceding your comment? As you said yourself: "Listening before speaking is wise, reading before writing equally wise."

"Creationists use known dates to calibrate C-14 in objects, with these facts in mind and then have found that recalibrated C-14 dating with the new approach is pretty reliable."

Exactly how does this re-calibration differ from the calibration currently used by mainstream science? Which major recorded events are accounted for accurately by this alleged (though most likely fictitious) creationist model that mainstream science gets wrong? Be specific.

And why is it that any such re-calibration still doesn't line up with your desired results of a global flood 4,300 years ago and a beginning of everything 6,000 years ago?

radar said...

As anony-you and Jon do not seem to read the entire posts I write, I will not answer. I have already presented my case for the traps and Jon does not pay attention.

You do not understand radiometric dating. We get approximate dates based on best-guess calibration because we cannot fully adjust for the effects on the atmosphere caused by the Flood. Everything produced by the post-Flood civilization must be around 4500 or less years old. Fossils in the Cambrian and on up cannot be more than 4500 years old.

We compare earliest known dates and the C-14 of those items to calibrate all samples. Creation science realized that the atmosphere was not in equilibrium and it is not, so the atmosphere is less than 25,000 years old and all dates approaching that age are terribly flawed by the failure to adjust to this.

Now take that information, read the articles and you will have an overview of true C-14 dating.

Jon W said...

" I have already presented my case for the traps and Jon does not pay attention. "

That's because your "case for the traps" is so weak that any judge would order a directed verdict for the defense (conventional science) as soon as you sat down.

radar said...

Jon, I am using 21st Century research to refute your older and outdated arguments. You lost, man, just own it. There is not one aspect of the sedimentary rocks that can support Darwinism with all the flood characteristics, fossils with remains and not just rock and too many short-term radiometric systems that preclude old Earth ages, like the magnetic field, zircon, and even the levels of carbon in the atmosphere all give us 10-10,000 year maximums.

Also all of the basic orders of organisms are found fully formed and highly developed in Cambrian rocks.

Long age radiometric dating suffers from the fault of not knowing the starting condition of the element. But the Sun and Moon could not have been around for too long anyway.

Those of you who have read the blog for any length of time know I present evidence from every field of study relevant to origins. They also know that Jon W is a self-proclaimed expert who dismisses my posts but fails to present worthwhile evidence to back himself up. I will take my arguments against yours any day. I just wish we could appear together on stage before a live crowd and debate. Fun that...

radar said...

10-20,000 year maximums, sorry. But the magnetic field by itself is enough to derail the Darwin train. We've been measuring it since around 1500 AD so we have a great idea of its decay rate and a very sound idea of how far back we can go before life would not be able to withstand it. Game, set and match on that alone.

Jon W said...

How do you do that, Radar? How do you read a comment like "I see a reference that discusses ascent rates of deep magma in kimberlite pipes, which are explosive high-velocity eruptions, and an attempt to use that paper as evidence for horizontal flow rates of basalt lava, which is generally a low-energy low-velocity eruption. Meanwhile, an actual historical flood-basalt eruption took eight months to erupt just under 15 km^3 of basalt and cover an area of 565 km^2. (See http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/laki.html) The Deccan Traps included 512,000 km^3 of basalts and covered roughly 500,000 km^2. Extrapolating from the one to the other... "

and then somehow convince yourself that I "fail to present worthwhile evidence?"

Anonymous said...

It seems pretty clear that it's because he doesn't understand what you're saying in the first place.

The alternative explanation would be unkind.

radar said...

Jon has unfortunately revealed his lack of comprehension of some of the issues with one ridiculous comment that I ripped to shreds and, having been exposed, he took his ball and ran away.

The lack of understanding belongs to the Darwinists. These formations are difficult to explain unless you include the Noahic Flood. Paleosols (so-called) that have been inspected are actually friable sedimentary rock. Furthermore the rates of flow claimed by Jon are not supported by the evidence...as I thoroughly explained.

Again, with all the huge problems with Darwinism I do understand why you might concentrate on questionable rabbit-trail issues. If that give you some comfort in this life, go for it. But when you look at the entire evidence menu you dare not stray from the appetizers lest you run into facts poisonous to evolution and deep ages. :-)

Monca Roland said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.