Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 46 of 119 (443428)
12-24-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by edge
12-24-2007 10:47 PM


All you've proven is that you can't think outside the uniformitarian box. Nothing you have is any proof of what you believe. You believe it because you think the earth is old. None of the evidence you suggest really says that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 10:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 12-24-2007 10:57 PM Creationist has not replied
 Message 51 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:15 PM Creationist has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 119 (443431)
12-24-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Creationist
12-24-2007 10:50 PM


All you've proven is that you can't think outside the uniformitarian box.
You keep saying this. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one whose thinking is stuck in a box?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:50 PM Creationist has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 119 (443432)
12-24-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Creationist
12-24-2007 10:11 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
But the water is still. Also, no one suggests that catastrophic events continue forever. They do stop and when they do, the silt settles.
And when that happens the densest particles will settle before the others of the same size and largest particle will settle before smaller ones of the same density. They will NOT form alternating bands of one and then the other.
All the diatoms will settle before 99% of the silt settles and you will NOT get alternating layers of diatoms and silt.
You can't MAKE it happen.
There is no way you can explain multiple layers of alternating density or alternating size in varves without multiple periods of settling.
When some silts take days to settle you cannot create many layers in a year, even with optimum conditions, and you need to make thousands every day.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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 50 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 11:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 66 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:28 PM RAZD has not replied

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


Message 49 of 119 (443433)
12-24-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Creationist
12-24-2007 9:59 PM


Re: Interpretations
I suggest you look at another interpretation. This from Glenn Morton:
Garner makes it look as if secular geologists are coming to the conclusion that there are no varves in the Green River. This is not at all the case. Furthermore, Garner fails to honestly inform his readers that Buchheim's work is in Fossil Lake, the smallest of the ancient lakes and this is an important aspect of what the researchers observed. It is true that they observed more laminations near the shore than out in the lake's center. But they should have and that is what Garner fails to tell his readers.
Fossil lake was about 18 miles long and 12 miles wide. It is found at the Utah/Wyoming border. Gosiute is found to the east of Fossil lake and was 200 miles in diameter. Here is what happens: A small rainfall would produce a small amount of sediment running into each of the lakes. The sediment settles out within a few miles from the shore. But since Fossil lake was so small, the storm laminae never settled out in the short 6 mile distance from shore. Thus Fossil lake would have annual layers plus storm layers. Storm runoff would affect the layer count preferentially nearer the shore.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm
It would appear that your source prefers to count all laminations rather than just the varves. That is exactly why we recommend that YECs not try to do this at home. Let the professionals handle this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 9:59 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:37 PM edge has replied

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


Message 50 of 119 (443434)
12-24-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
12-24-2007 10:59 PM


The Green River varves
Actually, research from 2000 points pretty definitely to the Green River Varves being annual events as you can see here which actually gives us not 4 million years but even longer.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 12-24-2007 10:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 51 of 119 (443435)
12-24-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Creationist
12-24-2007 10:50 PM


All you've proven is that you can't think outside the uniformitarian box. Nothing you have is any proof of what you believe. You believe it because you think the earth is old. None of the evidence you suggest really says that. All you've proven is that you can't think outside the uniformitarian box. Nothing you have is any proof of what you believe. You believe it because you think the earth is old. None of the evidence you suggest really says that.
This is the best reasoning you've got? So tell us how this is different from your own position? What really makes your scenario better?
I hate to rain on your parade, but the only reason we assume an old earth is that it has been verified again and again by previous work. Don't you think it's time to move on? Or do also think that it's a bit dangerous to assume that the Wright brothers were correct? Sorry C, but your arguments seem to be reaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:50 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:42 PM edge has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 52 of 119 (443436)
12-24-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Creationist
12-24-2007 10:11 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
Message 37 writes:
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.
Please explain why you think that ash layers need to be separated evenly in time? You are aware that fires happen at varied times throughout the year? If these ash layers represent volcanic eruptions (as I asume them to be), why do you conclude that these eruptions must be evenly spaced in time? Do you have information about this particular area and perhaps some references that would lead readers to conclude that volcanoes in that region are on a specific eruption schedule?
Message 40 writes:
quote:
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
Names and quotes that show these two geologists believe it must be evenly spaced ash layers for the old earth model to be effective. It would also help if you explained why ash layers not evenly spaced has anything at all to do with support for a young earth?
Message 40 writes:
Your theory doesn't agree with my theory
You don't have a theory, you have an idea at best. You are mostly just displaying a lack of knowledge and arguments from incredulity.
Message 37 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
Message 33 writes:
Even the bottoms of lakes have some oxygen.
You have apparently never heard of examples such as this:
Tollund Man
Have you really never heard of things being preserved without predation or decay? Are you ignoring the obvious contradictions to your argument? Or perhaps you are advocating a much much younger earth than most Yec's ... Dr.Adequate would be so proud. Even Younger Earth Creationism
Message 40 writes:
quote:
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.
You contradict yourself once again (In the same post no less):
Message 40 writes:
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.
Your model is certainly supported by the Last Tuesday Model. I am sure Dr. Adequate would enjoy your support on his Even Younger thread.

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 71 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 6:08 PM Vacate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 119 (443438)
12-24-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Chiroptera
12-24-2007 5:22 PM


Re: Interpretations
(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.
Source please - this includes IntCal04 (Reimer) data...

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 12-24-2007 5:22 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 54 of 119 (443439)
12-24-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Creationist
12-24-2007 9:49 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
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.
Tell us then, why we can show observations up to the limit of radiocarbon dating at 50ky? Why is it such a bad assumption that processes were similar prior to that?
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.
Why must they have occurred? Your word?
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.
Why is that? Do you really believe that a fossil will leave no traces? What about foot prints? Do they break down also?
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:
You have already been shown that Brethault is a fraud. Why do you keep going back to him? Is this all you've really got? Why not address my issues with the flume experiments? (Never mind, I actually know why)
Really? A couple of well know geologists disagree with you, since they found it rather inconsistent with your theory.
Maybe you should get a quote directly from them regarding their viewpoint on varves. Counting layers is not the same as counting varves. We have been over this before.
Your theory doesn't agree with my theory, so your theory is wrong approach is not very scientific.
Hey, you've convinced me!
Again catstrophic events. Turbidity currents, etc.
Millions of them, eh? What does the bible say about that? You realize this makes you an uber-uniformitarian, don't you?
That is not based on science but assumptions.
YOu seem to have a hard time with assumptions. My question is, how do you get through life without making any assumptions?
As has been shown, experiments prove otherwise.
Well, if you want to take a quack's word for it, I suppose so. He hasn't convinced very many people, though. But you were easy, I guess.

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 72 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 6:45 PM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 55 of 119 (443488)
12-25-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
12-24-2007 6:09 PM


Re: Interpretations
Hi Jar,
This thread picked up a lot of posts in a short time, and I'm working my way through the thread, but thought I'd respond to this now. I'm not really replying to you but reacting to what you said for the general audience:
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.
I agree that this isn't a scientific model, but it certainly gives the impression of being much more explicit than what we usually see, so I'd thought I'd explain why it isn't a scientific model, or at least why I think it's not. Here's the link again: The Biblical Geologic Model
The model is presented in tabular form divided into categories of the geological history of the world. Assuming the terminology is explained somewhere (e.g., the phases with names like residual, dispersive, abative, etc., which gives only a rough impression) it seems like a fine model, except for one thing: it's not based upon real-world evidence. As the model itself states in the box in the left hand side, "The timescale is from Ussher's chronology which is based on internal evidence from the bible itself."
That the model is based upon revelation and not real-world evidence explains why creationists have such difficulty presenting their views in scientific venues. They could submit a paper based upon this nicely rendered table to a journal, and it would be rejected outright because it isn't derived from evidence from the real world.
While it's nice when creationists become explicit about their model, that's only one of the necessary requirements for a scientific model. J. R. R. Tolkein was also very explicit, as was Stephen R. Donaldson, as was J. K. Rowling, but doesn't make Bilbo Baggins, Thomas Covenant or Harry Potter real. What gives a model reality is a foundation of real world evidence.
And this creationist model, like all other flood models, has no supporting evidence drawn from the natural world. There's no world-wide flood layer, and there are rafts of evidence for an ancient earth, such as the lake varve layers that are the subject of this thread.
When creationists look at their models, if they're truly interested in making them scientific then they have to start asking themselves the fundamental question of science: what evidence from the natural world leads me to conclude this? Right now the answer to that question is that there is no evidence, so step 2 is to go out and seek that evidence.
But creationists don't really care about the evidence. They instead just short circuit the whole part of the process of becoming accepted science and instead make special pleadings to school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures. A point that I hope has been made when creationism has gone on trial is that there is no science anywhere that has joined the canon through legislative fiat. Passing a law making knitting part of automotive engineering would make just as much sense.
As this thread continues to discuss how lake varve sediments could be consistent with a great flood, such creationist models as this one serve as a reminder of the importance of keeping the focus on the evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 6:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 11:12 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 56 of 119 (443492)
12-25-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
12-25-2007 10:55 AM


on models
Thank you sir. Would you take a look at Message 44 where I post a few other issues involved in the Green River varves and see if that makes the issue any clearer?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 10:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 1:37 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 57 of 119 (443513)
12-25-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by jar
12-25-2007 11:12 AM


Re: on models
I have no answers for how to make the light bulb go on for Creationist. It seems obvious that water must be completely still for long periods for fine silt to settle out, and that the number of distinct layers means that at a minimum hundreds of thousands of years are involved, and why this shouldn't be obvious to everyone is a mystery to me.
The only reason we're talking about this particular varve environment is because creationists don't accept that varves are annual layers, claiming that during the flood many hundreds of varve layers were deposited in very short time spans, despite that that would require varves deposited extremely quickly to appear identical in form and structure and composition to those deposited very slowly as we see happening today.
I don't see how claiming that things with a normal appearance instead happened impossibly quickly is much different from just saying that God created varves in just the form we find them today.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 12-25-2007 11:12 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM Percy has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 58 of 119 (443615)
12-26-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
12-25-2007 1:37 PM


Re: on models
It seems obvious that water must be completely still for long periods for fine silt to settle out, and that the number of distinct layers means that at a minimum hundreds of thousands of years are involved, and why this shouldn't be obvious to everyone is a mystery to me.
Most of the heavier sand will settle out in about 1 minute. Silt particles will settle out in about 5 minutes. The fine clays may take 48 hours or more.
http://education.usace.army.mil/...sons/8/sdemols8lv1-2.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 12-25-2007 1:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Vacate, posted 12-26-2007 1:58 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 9:47 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 59 of 119 (443619)
12-26-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by johnfolton
12-26-2007 12:57 AM


Re: on models
The fine clays may take 48 hours or more
So if there was a way of depositing first heavier particles and then the lighter particles on a 48 hour cylce. (as opposed to a annual cycle as I would expect) We should be able to calculate the minimum time it takes to have varying layers of light and dark materials.
4,000,000 / 365 / 2 = 21,917
At a rate of 182 alternating cycles per year we must still expect the minimum time for four million layers to accumulate to take about 22 thousand years.
Why though would there be a constant 48 hour cycle of deposition between light and dark materials? What would cause such a thing if its not annual erosion? (as I have assumed these layers to have been)
Edited by Vacate, : meant annual erosion not seasonal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 60 of 119 (443654)
12-26-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by johnfolton
12-26-2007 12:57 AM


Re: on models
reversespin writes:
Most of the heavier sand will settle out in about 1 minute. Silt particles will settle out in about 5 minutes. The fine clays may take 48 hours or more.
http://education.usace.army.mil/...sons/8/sdemols8lv1-2.html
Your webpage describes a simple experiment using 1-quart mayonnaise jars where the depth of water is maybe 6 inches, but even more important, the amount of time it takes a water column to empty itself of sedimentary material is not the same as the amount of time it takes for a varve layer to form. Usually a varve layer contains far more material than the overlying water column could contain at any one time, and this means that the sedimentary material in the overlying column must be continually replenished. Rapidly moving water can move sedimentary material very quickly, but of course the water's motion prevents fine material from settling out, so the water must be still.
So where is the additional material to come from? It can drift in at extremely low rates so that the energy of the water is low enough to still permit fine-grained sedimentary material to settle out, or material can settle on the surface from the air, and the environment cannot be too windy or it will disturb the quiet water and prevent fine-grained material from settling, though of course this is a function of water depth which must be taken into account. But in either case this often takes a considerable time.
In many cases the annual nature of varves is obvious because of seasonal qualities. Many pollens appear at specific fixed points every season, and the pollen grains found at fixed levels in varve layers have a periodicity that matches the seasons. Same for many types of seeds. And there are other apparent differences due to seasons.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 12-26-2007 12:57 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 10:04 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 62 by johnfolton, posted 12-26-2007 11:22 AM Percy 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