Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 119 (443390)
12-24-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Creationist
12-24-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Interpretations
What particles? Do you even know? Would it be diatoms? Pollen? What?
It is almost all silt.
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?
Be in an area devoid of oxygen is one way.
Yes, you see the evidence as supporting your world view. I understand that.
No, you still have it backwards. I made conclusions based on the evidence.
That's not an example of anything. That is speculation based on uniformitarian assumptions.
No, it is a conclusion. If you can present a model that explains what is seen that is different, please do so. You need a method to lay down alternating layers of silt that is consistent and will produce the over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser silt.
But that is inconsistent with the fossil evidence.
Gish Gallop, palming the pea, misdirection. Won't fly here.
We are talking about how lake varves were laid down.
Your right that is more bs. Just where does it exist?
There are at least 20 places around the world where the full geological column is present.
Here is a discussion on that

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 7:45 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 8:25 PM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 119 (443392)
12-24-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Creationist
12-24-2007 7:45 PM


Re: Interpretations
But that is inconsistent with the fossil evidence.
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 7:45 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 8:28 PM edge has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 33 of 119 (443393)
12-24-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
12-24-2007 8:00 PM


Re: Interpretations
It is almost all silt.
I'd be more inclined to believe you if you offered diatoms or pollen. Actually, you accept annual varves based on blind faith don't you?
Be in an area devoid of oxygen is one way.
Even the bottoms of lakes have some oxygen.
No, you still have it backwards. I made conclusions based on the evidence.
You did? Your above statement seems to suggest that you really interpreted the evidence based on your preconcieved notions of how old the earth is. Denial won't work.
No, it is a conclusion. If you can present a model that explains what is seen that is different, please do so. You need a method to lay down alternating layers of silt that is consistent and will produce the over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser silt.
Of course. Experiments show that fine layers of sediment can be put down quickly. Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! | Answers in Genesis
http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/
Gish Gallop, palming the pea, misdirection. Won't fly here.
We are talking about how lake varves were laid down.
Yes, I know. Pity you can't or won't see the evidence right in front of you.
There are at least 20 places around the world where the full geological column is present.
Really? Perhaps you should discover how the geologic column is really defined.
http://trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
BTW, here is the uniformitarianists geologic column. No more scientific than walker's.
Geologic Column
Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 8:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 8:41 PM Creationist has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 34 of 119 (443394)
12-24-2007 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
12-24-2007 8:20 PM


Re: Interpretations
See the latest posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 8:20 PM edge has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 35 of 119 (443397)
12-24-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by edge
12-24-2007 2:05 PM


The point is that laminations in sediments deposited by a debris flow are not varves. You seem to equate the two.
What do you mean by debris flow? These sediments were put down by fluid flow.
Again, different geological setting, different grain-sizes, different sediment influx, different current velocities... You remain confused.
Geologic setting? Explain. Different grain sizes? Explain. Different sediment influx? Explain. Different current velocities? Explain. Explain how one can tell the difference between any of these and any other thin layer of sediment.
I know it's a mystery to you, but your professional YECs are preying upon your ignorance of this subject.
So far all you have done is deepen the mystery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 2:05 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 10:47 PM Creationist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 119 (443399)
12-24-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Creationist
12-24-2007 8:25 PM


Re: Interpretations
I'd be more inclined to believe you if you offered diatoms or pollen. Actually, you accept annual varves based on blind faith don't you?
It doesn't much matter what you believe or don't believe. It is a matter of what the evidence actually shows.
Even the bottoms of lakes have some oxygen.
Actually, no that is not true. It is not unusual to find Anaerobic conditions and in fact, such conditions are on the rise.
But that is all still just Gish Gallop, misdirection, palming the pea and other dancing techniques.
The material at Mt. St. Helen's is different then what is seen in the Green River varves. The issue for creationists is to provide a model that creates what is seen there. A volcano won't do it, they are not volcanic ash. They are a series of over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser silts.
That is the model you need to present.
The rest of your stuff is simply another attempt to draw the discussion off topic.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 8:25 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:21 PM jar has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 37 of 119 (443407)
12-24-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
12-24-2007 8:41 PM


Re: Interpretations
It doesn't much matter what you believe or don't believe. It is a matter of what the evidence actually shows.
Actually it does matter, since the interpretation of the evidence is affected by it.
Actually, no that is not true. It is not unusual to find Anaerobic conditions and in fact, such conditions are on the rise.
Let's say that it is true, not that it is, but that it is true in this case. It still doesn't explain any scavangers from eating it while it layed there for thousands of years.
But that is all still just Gish Gallop, misdirection, palming the pea and other dancing techniques.
Call it what you want, but it takes a great deal of faith to beleive that these fish and birds layed there year after year with no decay and no scavangers to eat them. Anyway the whole thing was put to rest by Buchheim and Biaggi in 1988. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/...gy/pub/grd4/nsp_paleo_vol4.pdf
The material at Mt. St. Helen's is different then what is seen in the Green River varves. The issue for creationists is to provide a model that creates what is seen there. A volcano won't do it, they are not volcanic ash. They are a series of over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser silts.
OUr position is quite clear. It is caused by a post flood catastrophe or a series of catastrophes. And some of it does contain ash. In fact it contains two volacanic ash layers. According to Paul Garner Green River Blues | Answers in Genesis
The two ash layers are separted by 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers. If your, and other uniformitarian's interpretations are correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same. However it isn't. Perhaps you can explain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 8:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 9:29 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 39 by anglagard, posted 12-24-2007 9:33 PM Creationist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 119 (443409)
12-24-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Creationist
12-24-2007 9:21 PM


Ignoring the off topic stuff
OUr position is quite clear. It is caused by a post flood catastrophe or a series of catastrophes.
But that says nothing since you are asserting some imaginary flood. In addition you need to describe the model that creates over 4 million alternating varves of light and dark, finer and coarser silt.
The two ash layers are separted by 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers. If your, and other uniformitarian's interpretations are correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same. However it isn't. Perhaps you can explain it.
Bullshit. There is no reason that the number of layers should be the same between the ash layers. In fact that simply adds additional weight since obviously they are NOT the mechanism that produced the alternating layers of silt.
So what is the model to explain the over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser silt?
Remember, the minimum time for the fine layer to form is a month. So regardless of anything else we are looking at not less than 333,333 years.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:21 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:49 PM jar has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 39 of 119 (443410)
12-24-2007 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Creationist
12-24-2007 9:21 PM


Re: Interpretations
Creationist writes:
Call it what you want, but it takes a great deal of faith to beleive that these fish and birds layed there year after year with no decay and no scavangers to eat them. Anyway the whole thing was put to rest by Buchheim and Biaggi in 1988. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/...gy/pub/grd4/nsp_paleo_vol4.pdf
This is a 138 page document, which page?
Edited by anglagard, : malformed quote box

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:21 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:59 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 40 of 119 (443413)
12-24-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
12-24-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
But that says nothing since you are asserting some imaginary flood.
But it is consistent with it. However, you are the one with the problem, since you can't show any observations over millions of years that they were layed down annually. Nothing that is, but your imagination.
You also can't account for the smoothness of the varves. Not consistent with errosion, or other disturbances, that surely would have happened if they were layed down over millions of years.
And, of course, you still have the problem of the fossils, which experiments have shown will decay or break down even if protected from oxygen or scavengers.
In addition you need to describe the model that creates over 4 million alternating varves of light and dark, finer and coarser silt.
I've already shown you experiments that prove this can be done quickly, but you either didn't understand the evidence or you rejected it out of hand. Very scientific of you. But here is another attempt:
Experiments on Lamination of Sediments | Answers in Genesis
http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/
Donate | The Institute for Creation Research
There is no reason that the number of layers should be the same between the ash layers. In fact that simply adds additional weight since obviously they are NOT the mechanism that produced the alternating layers of silt.
Really? A couple of well know geologists disagree with you, since they found it rather inconsistent with your theory. Your theory doesn't agree with my theory, so your theory is wrong approach is not very scientific.
So what is the model to explain the over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser silt?
Again catstrophic events. Turbidity currents, etc.
Remember, the minimum time for the fine layer to form is a month. So regardless of anything else we are looking at not less than 333,333 years.
That is not based on science but assumptions. As has been shown, experiments prove otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 9:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 9:53 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 54 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:28 PM Creationist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 119 (443414)
12-24-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Creationist
12-24-2007 9:49 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
Again catstrophic events. Turbidity currents, etc.
Sorry, we are looking at very fine sediment that stays in suspension unless the water is virtually still.
Now, please explain what the 4,000,000 catastrophic events were?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:49 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:11 PM jar has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 42 of 119 (443415)
12-24-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by anglagard
12-24-2007 9:33 PM


Re: Interpretations
Sorry , wrong link. It can be found here:
H.P. Buchheim and R. Biaggi,”Laminae counts within a synchronous oil shale unit: a challenge to the “varve” concept’. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 20:A317, 1988
Can't link it for obvious reasons.
Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by anglagard, posted 12-24-2007 9:33 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:10 PM Creationist has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5645 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 43 of 119 (443418)
12-24-2007 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
12-24-2007 9:53 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
Sorry, we are looking at very fine sediment that stays in suspension unless the water is virtually still.
But the water is still. Also, no one suggests that catastrophic events continue forever. They do stop and when they do, the silt settles.
Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures | Answers in Genesis
Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 9:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 10:31 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2007 10:59 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 52 by Vacate, posted 12-24-2007 11:17 PM Creationist has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 119 (443420)
12-24-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Creationist
12-24-2007 10:11 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
They can only settle on the bottom. That is what is so clear about this example. We have over 4,000,000 instances of a finer material being laid down followed by a slightly coarser layer then another finer layer, another coarser layer.
To get that fine a silt to settle out the water must be near still, followed by the more active flow to provide the slightly coarser layer, followed another quiescent period.
This is not sand but silt and we can deal with how to make silt after someone explains How to make sand., but for now, you need to present the model that explains over 4 million layers of finer silt then coarser silt, lighter silt then darker silt.
So lets look at your 4 million catastrophic events. If it happened over the 6000 year period you have mentioned that is over 666 events a year, about two a day, every day right up through yesterday. Likely someone might have noticed.
In that case it also eliminates a flood during those 6000 years.
If it happened during the flood year it is about 11,000 repeating cycles a day or something over 450 such events every hour, more than seven every minute.
Now remember this is such fine silt that it will stay suspended unless the water is standing still for a considerable period of time.
So once again, what is your model for the 4 million plus alternating layers of finer and coarser, lighter and darker material?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:11 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:04 PM jar has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 119 (443426)
12-24-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Creationist
12-24-2007 8:36 PM


What do you mean by debris flow?
If you don't know the terminology, how can you teach me anything?
These sediments were put down by fluid flow.
Yeeees... You are equating a volcanic mudflow with lacustrine sedimentation. That makes no sense.
Geologic setting? Explain.
Alluvial fan, pelagic, etc., etc. Really, how can you criticize mainstream science when you haven't a clue as to what they are talking about?
Different grain sizes? Explain.
Self-explanatory. You are wasting my time.
Different sediment influx? Explain.
Rate of addition of sediment.
Different current velocities? Explain.
Not all currents are the same speed.
Explain how one can tell the difference between any of these and any other thin layer of sediment.
The all come together in a depositional model.
So far all you have done is deepen the mystery.
Actually, all I've done is exposed your ignorance of the topic. Just as professional YECs have exploited it. There is no big mystery here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 8:36 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:50 PM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024