The Siberian Traps cover an area about the size of Western Europe; over seven hundred thousand square miles and were the product of a whole series of events as opposed to a single eruption.
The basic format is of flood basalt layers of lava flows interspersed with pyroclastic ash as well as tuff.
Different layers have different chemical composition and show a pattern of sudden explosive volcanic events followed by lava flows. Since they are found as layers we can establish relative ages, lava from younger events being above lava from earlier events.
Thickness varies but even today some remaining parts are well over two miles thick.
Any reason to think ANY of it occurred under water? What would the effect be if it occurred during an ice age when the entire area was frozen over? Relative ages is no problem, as long as you aren't claiming it took millions.
An important consideration is that we know that lava flow fronts do not move quickly and that people can usually out walk lava advance so from that we can get some idea of how long it took for just the parts remaining to have been deposited.
And how long DID that take?
In addition since there is evidence of many, many overlaying layers showing separate flows we can safely assume similar speeds for each subsequent event.
The fastest lava flow front speed recorded was only six miles an hour so a human might need to jog to stay ahead of that.
There is additional evidence that shows there were at least two separate stages of volcanic activity, again, each consisting of multiple flow events.
So tell us what time frame you are talking about. How long for all the events to occur?
It has been suggested that it might be useful to compare cooling times to something like Hoover Damn but I'm not at all sure that would tell us anything. The Siberian Traps are not a single monolithic object and did not have cooling pipes with cold water running through them
Unless perchance they erupted into water or a frozen landscape.
but we can look at modern lava flow fronts to get some ideas.
Risky to assume conditions then were the same as now.
Lava can form a thin skin, sometimes thick enough to support a human's weight fairly quickly; perhaps in as little time as a half hour; but that skin in turn insulates the interior so that it can take weeks or months for the flow itself to cool once the event stops.
Weeks or months no problem. It's those millions of years that are open to question.
Lava can flow very rapidly through established lava pipes (maybe 40-60 MPH) but that is only in established old fields and does not expand the field.
Cooling time then is related to how fast the flow front advances and until the final extent of the individual flow is reached means little. That seems to point to flow rate being the determining time factor and once active flow stops the whole layer should cool in a fairly short period measured in months.
Months perfectly within Flood time scale. I'd have accepted a few hundred years.
But again, the above holds true for each layer of lava, each event, each flow.
So add up those months and what do you get? Nothing that would keep the tenth generation from Noah out of the area I would guess.
OK, here's the problem. New subspecies or varieties or races are called "Species" today. They aren't, they are subspecies or varieties or races.
What's the essential difference between being of different species and being of different subspecies?
Well, they used to know these things before the ToE made its absurd claims that erase the boundaries between Species, based on nothing but faith in the ToE and not on any actual evidence. The boundaries remain, only Science is blind to them.
How about a shred of evidence for your assertion that modern taxonomy is completely wrong.
How about a shred of evidence that there is no genetic barrier between Species? First produce that. You can't, it's purely an artifact of the theory of evolution.
As I've argued many times, microevolution involves the reduction of genetic diversity along the evolving line which ultimately reaches a point beyond which evolution is impossible. Evidence for this is in the problems of conservation found in the wild and in domestic breeding, though ridiculously denied by the ToE. All the ToE has in answer is pure theory, mental conjurings, faith in the theory.
What is it, other than support for your own position that indicates what you say is correct?
In short, what the heck do you know about biology?
It is clearly describing "kinds" as those having the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Hmmm ... I wonder what the definition of "species" is in modern biology?
What's your problem? There would have been representatives of each Kind or Species on the ark while multiple millions of their cousins off the ark died.
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
That would be an acceptable definition of a Kind. Problems occur, however, when you get a new breed or race that can't interbreed with the mother population and decide on that basis that it's a new Species, which in evolutionistic terms implies that it can produce more and more variations which is how the ToE assumes all the different Species arose. But in actual fact such a new race or breed has LESS genetic ability to evolve further and actually represents the outer boundary of a Species' ability to evolve. Its genetic reduction is in many cases most likely the reason for the loss of its ability to continue to interbreed with the mother population. I've argued this to death on other threads, better not to continue it here.
So, let's hear more about your wild assertion that biology has got it all wrong and how the biblical "kind" is different than our "species"? Only this time why don't you include some evidence because right now you're just spouting things that even the bible doesn't agree with.
"Biology" didn't get things wrong, the Theory of Evolution did.
I wish I could give you an illustration but my printer has been dysfunctional for over a year and I don't think I ever used the scanner on it anyway. Paint is indeed awkward. Oddly enough I used to be able to draw fairly easily on it with the old roller mouse; the nonroller mouse is useless.
However, here's the main blog post I did on the subject a few years ago. Figure 58. "Lyell's illustration of lateral pressure forming folds in strata, using folded cloth and books" is probably the center of the argument, about two thirds of the way through the post. Lyell of course wasn't thinking along my lines, but Hutton's.
Where did the rock go? here's a thought: Wherever an unconformity is actually visible some enormous quantity of rock has disappeared just to allow us to see the formation. Where did THAT go?
This is off topic and I'm agreeing with HBD that we need to get back on track. All I will say here is that there is not one word in your post that justifies millions of years. In fact you don't give time estimates at all which is why I asked. And none of the facts you described require more than years, hundreds at most.
That would be in an open system, that is the material has a place to go (ie. to a basin). Folding under the strata would be a closed system, the materials should be trapped in the system. If you have an idea as to how they could get out, that would definitely help.
The suggestion is that the shearing action is what OPENED the system, shoving out the rubble wherever it opened.
Just wondering: in considering the evidence of shear is the age of the shearing event relevant, and how often is the age actually known as opposed to surmised?
Saab, I KNOW the earth is not millions of years old. I KNOW the tectonic plates have not been in motion for millions of years.
So I KNOW you and all believers in millions of years are wrong about what WOULD happen IF things happened in the Flood time frame. There is no other time frame possible.
NOTHING "ground to a halt," the plates have been in motion since the Flood some 4300 years ago, including the plates raising the Himalayas, slowing down continuously since the motion started. ABE: From what I calculated to be a launching speed of 20 feet per day, ten on either side of the Atlantic Ridge. /ABE*
The likelihood is that nobody had arrived in India during the first movements of the plates anyway.
* What I said in that post:
I figured the distance between Europe and North America to be currently roughly 3000 miles, and for that distance to have been traveled in a rough 4500 years would mean moving at an average rate of 1000 miles in 1500 years, or 10 miles in 15 years or 3/4 mile in one year, or 3960 feet or 47,520 inches, or 11 feet per day. I put that number at the midpoint of the time between the Flood and today, or roughly around 100 BC or so. I figure that's the speed at which the continents would have been separating in 100 BC. Before that they were separating at a faster rate that increases back to the beginning, and since then at a slower rate that decreases to the present rate of 2-4 inches per year.
By the way, the amount of deformation during the Kaibab uplift is nowhere near as intense as the folds you show in your blog.
Yes. Same principle though.
But I still think the best explanation is that the sheared off rubble accumulated under the Tapeats where the magma from below turned it into schist.
The problem you have is that the rubble appears in the Tapeats as well. This means that the Tapeats came after whatever event caused the rubble, either tectonic or sedimentary.
I don't take that as a problem at all but confirmation of the idea that there was abrasion between the two levels of rock. The quartzite boulder that is embedded in the Tapeats seems to me to be evidence of this. The British creationist group that pointed this out in their video think it shows the movement of a slurry, but of course I'm wacky enough to disagree with them too, since I like my abrasion theory better. But they are like most Creationists who start their Flood scenario on top of a pre-existing G.U. I don't see how any strata could pre-exist the Flood; All of it must be the product of the Flood or none at all.
Anyway the appearance of rubble in the Tapeats (which I kept trying to prove to PaulK a long time ago who kept denying it but anyway), its existence there is evidence FOR the abrasion theory rather than against it. Still room for more rubble to collect under the Tapeats where the schist is located.
What I'm trying to do is find a way to prove it to others. Some do at least understand what Im talking about, however. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you.
ABE: Actually, it's more like I'm trying to figure out HOW it all happened, so as to prove it to others.
Here's a video lecture about the Grand Canyon by British creationist Paul Garner who is arguing his case for physical erosion of the G.U. as opposed to chemical weathering, starting at 1:01:40, and shows the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats at 1:06:
™ Version 4.2
