Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

No, just the varves in this lake. And even that is not a naked assumption. There is good information written into the varves to make it clear that they are not only annual today but have been annual for a very long way back.It is apparent that you have not read the material presented. Until you do you haven't begun to attack the information available.

No. Of my 4 undergraduate degrees, none are in Biochem. I am a PhD candidate in Biochemistry, tho.

Content, size, material, formation. In the case of lake varves the content is what was growing at the time. Things such as pollen, or critters or sediment. In the case of the Green River formation in Wyoming there is a record of over 4,000,000 layers or varves. They alternate between a fine grained layer and then a coarser grained layer.As to your link, sorry, but no Young Earth model or Biblical Creation model there. If you think shit like this is a model then you do have much to learn.Fortunately you have arrived in a place where you can actually learn stuff if you want.Once you work through "Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood" you can move on to learn many other things.It's all up to you.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

In this particular case, this is not an assumption. (Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting.)The data in the image above are radiocarbon dates for layers in several different phenomena. As you can see, they all match almost perfectly. The data includes very different phenomena, such as tree rings, lake varves, and mineral deposits in a cave.The data make perfect sense if one assumes that these are annual features as they appear to be. If these are not annual, then one has to wonder exactly how these very different phenomena manage to track one another perfectly like this.This is what is called consilience of data. We have different, completely independent lines of evidence that the varves in, say Lake Suigetsu (which is one of the data sets above) are annual. If they weren't, we can't explain why they track so perfectly other, completely independent data that are also usually annual.(I can't find the original graphic -- I got this one from TheologyWeb.

---

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

Could you elaborate?Would you accept this sort of comment as valid argument against the theory of evolution?

If the Theory of Evolution presented something like that graph and claimed it was a model, certainly.AbE:Let me expand as you asked. The site he linked to had a section that they claimed was a geological model, but when I clicked on it all I got was the graph I linked to. Now that is not a model, in fact it is not even a hypothesis, perhaps it is on it's way to becoming a WAG, but not quite there yet.Up thread creationist mentions the ash fields from Mt. St. Helen's eruption. The facts are that even had we not been on scene, after the fact geologists would have been able to identify those field as either ash fall or ash flows, and to differentiate between the two.What happens in nature leaves records and those records can be read. In the case that I mentioned, the Green River varves, we see over 4,000,000 layers and the finer material is so fine that it would take a minimum of a month to settle out as well as other condition, very slow flowing or still water. The coarser material indicates faster flow.So what we see is a snapshot of over four million episodes, each lasting over a month. From the thickness of some of the finer layers we can safely say that the event took considerably longer than a month, but even if we use the minimal figure of one month per cycle, we have a record of over 300,000 years. And that is just that one location, that one piece of information.The fact is that there has not been a world-wide flood. Not ever.Edited by jar, : Expand reply.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Content such as what, what size difference, what material? Lots of assertions yet no evidence. Yes, I see your point.http://rcp.missouri.edu/geosci_shelton/research/geocol.htmGeologic column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceNo reason to accept any of it as a scientific model. Well, good. Perhaps you will be interested in learning together. Who knows what you may learn if you are willing to give up your 'old earth presuppositions.'

What information? Actually, I think I have read all of it at one time or another, or at least something similar.

Content will vary depending on what specific example you are looking at. In the example I gave of the Green River varves it is two different fine materials, one lighter, one darker, one coarser that the other. see Message 21 for more information on that example.

quote:

---

As to your link, sorry, but no Young Earth model or Biblical Creation model there. If you think shit like this is a model then you do have much to learn.

​

Yes, I see your point.

​

http://rcp.missouri.edu/geosci_shelton/research/geocol.htm

​

Geologic column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

​

No reason to accept any of it as a scientific model.

---

Yes, none of those are models however the first you linked to is simply a depiction of fact, the depiction of the existing geologic column at one particular place; while the later if you read the write up is simply a perversion of truth and a collection of attempts to palm the pea, more an effort to see just how gullible ignorant Christian Creationists can be. I have no such presuppositions. The fact that the earth is old, and the universe even older is a conclusion based on the evidence, not a presupposition.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

If this were the case you would not ask: You are attempting to pretend to discuss and argue with something before you have the facts in hand. It is like me attempting to teach you something about the Bible without having read it.We are not going to repeat all this material for you. You can go back up thread, read the posts and respond to them showing why you think they are wrong or asking questions if you need clarification.

So, you're basing it on lighter/darker material? Or the substance that is in that material? The Green River varves present an even bigger problem for you, since the layers contain well preserved fossils of fish and birds. Of course you do. The evidence didn't tell you this. Your interpretation of the evidence based on your presupposition is where you got that. If you didn't have it, then you would accept the chart of the person that I gave you, since he explains his chart based on his presuppositions. It is every bit as scientific as you beloved geologic column is.http://biblicalgeology.net/...sources/geological_model_2.pdf

No, I ask the question so we can get away from generalities and get down to specific evidence, which you have not offered. I wonder if you have read any of it. Sorry, but I am not going to go back and read every single item in this thread. You are the one who challenged me to come over here. It is up to you to supply the evidence.

On the lighter and darker material and its consistency, the size of the particles. How is that a problem? But the evidence DID tell me that. Bullshit. Sorry but that really is the problem. His chart is a fantasy based on his presuppositions, mine is based on conclusions from the evidence. Sorry but that is simply more bullshit. The Geological Column is simply a statement of what exists, no presuppositions needed beyond the assuption that lower layers were laid down before the material on top of it. The geological column itself is only a listing of what is found. There is nothing there that requires belief, it simply is.A good example is the listing of Green River varves as I outlined in Message 21.We can see the material that makes up each layer, tell how fine the material was, test to see how long it would take for the sediment to fall out of suspension in water at different flow rates. What we see is over 4 million such cycles. As I said, even at the very minimal period of on month per layer (and remember many of the layers are so think it must have taking far longer, and in reality what is seen is the annual spring run off so over 4 million years is the most likely period) we see a record of not less than 333,333 years.Edited by jar, : fix link to msg 21

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

The people here may well be honorable opponents but the folk leading the Creationist, ID movement are crafty connivers. There is NO honor to be found there.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

What particles? Do you even know? Would it be diatoms? Pollen? What? Did you really ask that? Yes, we shall learn much today. How could a fish or a bird lie on the bottom of the ocean for years and years and not decay or be consumed? Yes, you see the evidence as supporting your world view. I understand that. Well, I wouldn't have used that strong a word for your interpretation, but... BS, again. Your right that is more bs. Just where does it exist? That's not an example of anything. That is speculation based on uniformitarian assumptions. But that is inconsistent with the fossil evidence.