Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 61 of 119 (443655)
12-26-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
12-26-2007 9:47 AM


On correlations
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 9:47 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 62 of 119 (443668)
12-26-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
12-26-2007 9:47 AM


Re: on models
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 11:36 AM johnfolton has replied

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


Message 63 of 119 (443672)
12-26-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by johnfolton
12-26-2007 11:22 AM


Re: on models
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by johnfolton, posted 12-26-2007 11:22 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by johnfolton, posted 12-26-2007 9:55 PM Percy has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 64 of 119 (443747)
12-26-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
12-24-2007 10:31 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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 10:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 5:13 PM Creationist has not replied
 Message 73 by edge, posted 12-26-2007 7:23 PM Creationist has not replied

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


Message 65 of 119 (443753)
12-26-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Creationist
12-26-2007 5:04 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:04 PM Creationist has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 66 of 119 (443757)
12-26-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
12-24-2007 10:59 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AdminNosy, posted 12-26-2007 5:38 PM Creationist has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 67 of 119 (443760)
12-26-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by edge
12-24-2007 11:10 PM


Re: Interpretations
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:
Inconsistent Varve Counts
Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568. Lambert and Hs (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160.
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:
In the fall 1994 issue of Science Speaks, Don Stoner (1994) stated that the Green River Formation of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming "contains more than four million annual layers." He then says, "Obviously, this means that the lake existed for millions of years before it disappeared." Our discussion here will address the question of varve chronology or clock and shows that laminar deposits (sediment in thin sheets) do not necessarily indicate seasonal deposits. A true varve consists of a couplet of summer silt and winter clay, a period that is difficult to demonstrate. (Quigley, p. 150) The abstract in Michael Oard's series on varves states:
Varves have been used to set up the first "absolute" chronology, which significantly exceeds the Scriptural time scale from Genesis. Observations of modern glaciers and recent climate simulations show that the ice sheets during the Ice Age melted rapidly, much faster than indicated by varves. A further investigation of varves demonstrates that other mechanisms deposit varve-like couplets in a short time. Therefore, "varves" are not necessarily annual. A method to distinguish between annual depositional sequences and other mechanisms is difficult to apply. (Oard, p. 72)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 5:51 PM Creationist has not replied
 Message 75 by edge, posted 12-26-2007 7:35 PM Creationist has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 68 of 119 (443764)
12-26-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Creationist
12-26-2007 5:28 PM


In your words
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:28 PM Creationist has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 69 of 119 (443766)
12-26-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by edge
12-24-2007 11:15 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:15 PM edge has not replied

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


Message 70 of 119 (443768)
12-26-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Creationist
12-26-2007 5:37 PM


Re: Interpretations
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.

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 67 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:37 PM Creationist has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 71 of 119 (443777)
12-26-2007 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Vacate
12-24-2007 11:17 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
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:
Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.8
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Vacate, posted 12-24-2007 11:17 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Vacate, posted 12-27-2007 2:01 AM Creationist has not replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 72 of 119 (443792)
12-26-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by edge
12-24-2007 11:28 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
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:
Buchheim and Biaggi (1988) measured Green River Formation "varves" between two volcanic tuff beds each two to three centimeters thick. Geologists consider each tuff bed a synchronous layer, i.e., every point on that tuff bed has the same age. The two tuff beds thus represent two different reference times. If the laminations in between these two beds are annual layers, the same number of layers should be present everywhere between the two beds. Buchheim and Biaggi found the number of laminae between the tuff beds ranged from 1160 to 1568. Lambert and Hs (1979) measured "varves" in Lake Walensee, Switzerland and found up to five laminae deposited during one year. From 1811, which was a clear marker point (because a newly built canal discharged into the lake), until 1971, a period of 160 years, they found the number of laminae ranged between 300 and 360 instead of the expected one per year or 160.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:28 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 7:23 PM Creationist has not replied
 Message 77 by edge, posted 12-26-2007 8:10 PM Creationist has not replied

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


Message 73 of 119 (443798)
12-26-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Creationist
12-26-2007 5:04 PM


Re: Ignoring the off topic stuff
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:04 PM Creationist has not replied

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


Message 74 of 119 (443799)
12-26-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Creationist
12-26-2007 6:45 PM


Trying to head back towards the topic.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 6:45 PM Creationist has not replied

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


Message 75 of 119 (443801)
12-26-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Creationist
12-26-2007 5:37 PM


Re: Interpretations
Morton has a way of being loose with his facts.
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/.../VarvesProblems.htm
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Creationist, posted 12-26-2007 5:37 PM Creationist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 8:06 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