|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One of the exciting things about the Green River varves is that they go back far enough to allow additional correlations with other cycles, for example the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21,000 year orbital cycle.
Since those factors show up in the record it adds additional weight to the conclusion that they are annual cycles. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
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. I believe the term liquefaction given water is a liquid and has an affinity to not compress helps explain quite well by this young earth creationists. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Liquefaction During the Flood
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
reversespin writes: I believe the term liquefaction given water is a liquid and has an affinity to not compress helps explain quite well by this young earth creationists. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Liquefaction During the Flood So using that webpage as your reference, how does liquefaction explain varve layers being deposited in very short time periods? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
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. Ok, so you have fine layer, course layer, fine layer, and coarse layer. And you are saying that the only way this could have settled down on the bottom is annually. There is no other way? Experiments have shown (I have linked these) that the same sedimentation layers are layed down quickly. It is based on the size of the grains. Bigger going to the bottom and smaller going to the top.
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. Flood geology explains this perfectly. Strata - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
[qs]This is not sand but silt and we can deal with how to make silt after someone explains Thread 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.[qs]
I just did.
So lets look at your 4 million catastrophic events. No body said it took 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. Again, Mount St. Helens produced 100 of the layers in one day. So it would not take nearly as many as you claim.
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. No, events such as these combined with a world wide flood would be enough to produce most of what we see. Again, no one says that they don’t happen yearly. Just that all that we see did not happen yearly.
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? Once again it can be done by a self sorting mechanism explained here, and in a Nature article. Silt is still made up of small particles and will eventually settle out.
Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No body said it took 4 million catastrophic events. There are over 4 million layers (actually recent core samples have shown over 20 million). So what is your process for laying down 4 million layers, alternating between finer and coarser, lighter and darker?
Again, Mount St. Helens produced 100 of the layers in one day. So it would not take nearly as many as you claim. Sorry that is volcanic ash. We are talking about lake varves.
No, events such as these combined with a world wide flood would be enough to produce most of what we see. Again, no one says that they don’t happen yearly. Just that all that we see did not happen yearly. Please explain the mechanism?
Once again it can be done by a self sorting mechanism explained here, and in a Nature article. Silt is still made up of small particles and will eventually settle out. The key word is eventually. Still waiting for a model. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
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.
Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures
| Answers in Genesis
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. Oh, I think it can be explained. http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/.../VarvesProblems.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
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 Morton has a way of being loose with his facts. http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/.../VarvesProblems.htm
quote: It would appear that your source prefers to count all laminations rather than just the varves. It is very difficult to determine what is a real varve and what isn’t. It is not exact. From the same source:
quote: That is exactly why we recommend that YECs not try to do this at home. Let the professionals handle this. And, of course, Michael Oard is a professional. Not that you could recognize one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
If you can't post your own explanation of it then don't post. If you keep posting like this you will not be posting at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
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? Nothing makes my scenario better. It is another interpretation which you can’t seem to fathom.
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. And as YEC’s keep showing it is not verified again and again. Yelling louder does not make you right.
Don't you think it's time to move on? Sure, any time.
Or do also think that it's a bit dangerous to assume that the Wright brothers were correct? The Wright brother used real operational science that was proven out by experimentation. You haven’t.
Sorry C, but your arguments seem to be reaching. I hope so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And, of course, Michael Oard is a professional. Not that you could recognize one. A professional meteroloagist (weatherman) Not a geologist. What is his education in geology? When you use the argument from authority logical fallacy it is useful to at least have your authority be in the correct field ... Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
Please explain why you think that ash layers need to be separated evenly in time? Well, it is really quite simple. The two ash layers represent to different episodes in time. Two different eruptions. Now if the layers that are between them had been put down annually, then they ought to be consistent wouldn’t you think? They are not. They range from 1160 to 1568. http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/.../VarvesProblems.htm
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? Well, that’s the way most geologist see them. Maybe you should take that up with them.
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? No, but the two ash layers, being uniform as they are suggests that it was two different events in time. An ”event horizon’ I believe is the term used.
Names and quotes that show these two geologists believe it must be evenly spaced ash layers for the old earth model to be effective. See above.
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? It doesn’t. Not necessarily anyway. What it does show is that these layers couldn’t possible be annual events.
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. Thanks for the definition. I do indeed have a theory since it is testable. Uniformitarians, on the other hand, seem to be lacking.
You have apparently never heard of examples such as this: Tollund Man I have indeed heard of this. Yet, can you show an example of where it occurs with fish or birds? Experiments have shown that birds and fish don’t hold up to well. http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../v19/i3/greenriver.asp#f8
quote: Have you really never heard of things being preserved without predation or decay? Are you ignoring the obvious contradictions to your argument? You’re missing the point. Organic things don’t just lay on the ground for thousands of years without either decaying or being eaten by scavengers. Unless they have been buried quickly.
Or perhaps you are advocating a much much younger earth than most Yec's ... Dr.Adequate would be so proud. Even Younger Earth Creationism Not at all, but Dr. Adequate obviously doesn’t know any creationists.
You contradict yourself once again (In the same post no less): How so?
Your model is certainly supported by the Last Tuesday Model. I am sure Dr. Adequate would enjoy your support on his Even Younger thread. What a way to completely avoid the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationist Member (Idle past 5646 days) Posts: 95 Joined: |
Tell us then, why we can show observations up to the limit of radiocarbon dating at 50ky? First of all, that is not an observation of 50000 years, but an inference of that time based on radiocarbon dating. Which itself is based on assumptions. Perhaps you can explain why traces of carbon can be found in diamonds.
Why is it such a bad assumption that processes were similar prior to that? Because there is no way to test it. Were you around 50000 years ago? Do you know anyone who was? Are there any eyewitnesses?
Why must they have occurred? Your word? You’re being kind of inconsistent in your uniformitarian views aren’t you? Do you really believe these layers could lay there for thousands of years and to not have been disturbed by either corrosion or, say, a storm?
Why is that? Do you really believe that a fossil will leave no traces? No traces? The fossils themselves are traces. No, the problem is that you have fossils at all.
What about foot prints? Do they break down also? Footprints are not organic. However, footprints are subject to erosion.
You have already been shown that Brethault is a fraud. I haven’t been shown any such thing. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Why do you keep going back to him? Is this all you’ve really got? Because it is a legitimate experiment that hasn’t been proven wrong.
Why not address my issues with the flume experiments? (Never mind, I actually know why) What is there to address? Nature did similar experiments and came up with the same results. http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/nature.asp
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. Well, I cannot link the actual document, but here is one you might find interesting. http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/.../VarvesProblems.htm
quote: Hey, you've convinced me! I doubt if any amount of evidence will convince you. You’re too engrained in your uniformitarian beliefs. Strong faith indeed.
Millions of them, eh? No, why would you think so?
What does the bible say about that? I don’t think the Bible talks about varves at all. But perhaps you should read it anyway. Because it is an eyewitness account. Written by Someone who claims to have been there.
You realize this makes you an uber-uniformitarian, don't you? Not sure what that is.
YOu seem to have a hard time with assumptions. Only, when they can’t be proven.
My question is, how do you get through life without making any assumptions? It has caused me difficulties in my life.
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. Well, at the moment, I’ll take his over yours. No offense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Again, Mount St. Helens produced 100 of the layers in one day. So it would not take nearly as many as you claim.
And again, if only you knew how unspeakably ignorant this statement seems. If you compared a proximal volcanic setting to a pelagic depositional setting, you wouldn't be taken serious in kindergarten. But then, you obviously haven't read earlier responses on this subject, so it is to be expected. This is very inconsiderate of you. Why are you wasting our time? Oh never mind...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The topic is "Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood" so the rest of your stuff is simply off topic and irrelevant.
The issue is "How do you explain the specific mechanisms that laid down over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, finer and coarser varves at the Green River?" The conventional model adequately explains what is seen. If you wish to be taken seriously you need to present a model that explains things even better than the conventional model. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Morton has a way of being loose with his facts.
Already addressed by Glen. But, if you actually read the quote, you would know that. And why do you think that they use the term "varves" in stead of varves? Hmmm? It is because they know that some of the layers are not varves. As Glenn points out, varves can be best counted in the depocenter in a distal lacustrine environment.
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/.../VarvesProblems.htm It is very difficult to determine what is a real varve and what isn’t. It is not exact. From the same source:
Heh, yeah, I agree. Especially for a YEC! Ya know, I always recommend that YECs don't try this without an adult present.
And, of course, Michael Oard is a professional. Not that you could recognize one.
Yes, and I do not recognize one here. Oard is not a geochronologist or a geologist. I seriously doubt his ability to judge the validity of varve counts. In the meantime, please explain the concordance of varve counts with radiocarbon data from Lake Suigetsu.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024