A Creationists Take on Lake Suigetsu

[Mike PSS]

Below these stars is the verbatum writings of a creationist about Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The title is the link to the original, all other links are embedded and images copied over. So you don't really need to go over to the linked page to get the article itself, it's all here.

I've colored the original writing in bold blue except the quote boxes (where bolding is from the linked article). My comments are in bold black.
*******************************
Lake Suigetsu: No Help for Old Earthers (http://truthmatters.info/2008/04/11/lake-suigetsu-no-help-for-old-earthers/)

http://afdave.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/suigetsu_area_150.jpg
Lake Suigetsu is a small lake in Japan which is often used by Old Earth believers to try to disprove the Young Earth timescale.

The author has that backwards. Lake Suigetsu data is argued against by Young Earthers because the conclusions happen to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.

They say that Lake Suigetsu has a continuous record of varves (fine laminations deposited annually) in the sediment below the lake for the last 100,000 years or so. Here’s Glenn Morton’s description of Lake Sugetsu (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm). One person I debated recently claimed that Lake Suigetsu disproves the Book of Genesis as a historical record (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=210239). But does it really? Or is this just one more false claim put forth by anti-creationists?

We cannot say for sure yet, but it’s looking like yet another false claim. I have now been investigating Lake Suigetsu off and on since June 2007 and I have discovered some very fascinating stuff. For instance …

1) INCREASING RECOGNITION THAT MANY “VARVES” ARE NOT ANNUAL LAMINATIONS AFTER ALL.

“It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as ‘varved.’ There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units … without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation.”
Quigley, R. M, Glaciolacustrine and glaciomarine clay deposition: a North American perspective; in: Eyles, N., editor, Glacial geology—an introduction for engineers and earth scientists, Pergamon Press, New York, p. 151, 1983.

I got this quote from an Answer in Genesis article and presented it to some scientists at the Talk Rational Forum. One of them, a PhD geology student, was kind enough to get the book from the library and provide the context for me HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=21775#post21775). Quigley’s opinion seems to be that true varves require a cessation of glacial melt runoff during the winter so that precipitation of clay particulates can take place. It seems that Quigley restricts his discussion to comparisons of pro-glacial and post-glacial lakes, but other non-glacial lakes exhibit non-annual laminations as well. For example …

Quigley was quote-mined by AiG and this article just passes that quote-mine on. Quigley specifically addresses the fact that professional interpretations of varves are not an issue.

2) ORIGINAL THIRD SISTER LAKE RESEARCHERS WERE WRONG ABOUT LAMINATIONS BEING ANNUAL

Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

Brian K. Hammer & Eugene F. Stoermer
Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI
48109–2099, USA (email:bhammer@umich.edu)

Journal of Paleolimnology 17: 437–449, 1997. 437
1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Belgium.

Third Sister Lake possessed banded sediments as described by Eggleton (1931), however, the banding pattern of the recent sediments was not annual as previously described (Eggleton, 1931; Potzger &Wilson, 1941; Ludlam, 1969), but event-driven. Variations in band thickness from 0.2 to 5 cm suggested that the time between depositional events was variable. (p. 445)

Read the entire paper for free HERE (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/dspace/bitstream/2027.42/43079/1/10933_2004_Article_118144.pdf).

The only thing to take away from this paper is that scientists examined older data (1969 being the latest publication) and found erroneous assumptions in prior work. These scientists then corrocted the assumptions and errors and published a corrected account. Lake Suigetsu, on the other hand, has not been questioned to this day on the annual nature of the varves and many papers published have supported the original contention that the layers are annual in nature AND found additional ways to measure this annual nature. In fact, other scientific disciplines are using the cores from Lake Suigetsu to derive historic weather patterns, rainfall patterns, pollen distributions, and also derive some of the longer period weather relationships.

3) IF LAKE SUIGETSU LAMINATIONS ARE ANNUAL, THEN WHY ARE THEY NOT FORMING TODAY? And it is clear (if you actually read the relevant science papers as I have) that they are not, though many Old Earth advocates assume that they are. There are two key papers which tell us this: A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14 C calibration curve, H Kitagawa, J van der Plicht - Radiocarbon, 1998 - radiocarbon.org, and Survival strategy of diatom species living on now-depositing non-glacial varves, M Kato, Y Tanimura, H Fukusawa - Quaternary International, 2004 - Elsevier. Kitagawa begins his varve counting back around 1664 and earlier around the time of the earthquake and Kato counts her ‘varves’ from 1729 and before. Some people have claimed that the varves stopped forming in 1664 when the canal was built because of the influx of saltwater to a formerly freshwater lake. But if this is true, why does Kato assert that varves were still forming up until 1729? The answer, in my opinion, is that the ‘varves’ in Lake Suigetsu are not all true varves, that is annual laminations. Probably there have been some annual laminations, but it is more likely that the Suigetsu laminations are similar to the Third Sister Lake laminations in that several laminations are laid in any given year. In wet years, more laminations were probably laid and in dry years less.

This argument is a red herring. The fact that over 40,000+ counted and identified varves which are annual in nature is in no way changed by the fact that Lake Suigetsu underwent evironmental changes in the past 350 years that has either limited or eliminated varving from occurring today. This in no way addresses the existance of 40,000+ varves from the lake cores themselves.

4) SUIGETSU LAMINATIONS ARE NOT WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT FROM STILL WATER DEPOSITION. Glenn Morton has obtained a close up picture (at right) of the laminations. Notice that some of the laminations begin and end in the picture. This is important because it indicates that these laminae were probably laid by turbidity currents, not by still water deposition.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsucore.jpg

There is no expert opinion contained in that analysis, only conjecture and wishful thinking. To my untrained eye there exists consistant layerring in an alternate way with all light layers existing across the core picture, although they do vary in thickness. I see no loss in layers.

Is my opinion any better or worse than the authors?

5) KATO’S SEDIMENT CORE AND KITAGAWA’S CORE DO NOT MATCH UP … THEYR’E NOT EVEN CLOSE. Kitagawa analyzed several cores, one of them SG2, a piston core, which was also later analyzed by Kawakami (A new opportunity to detect paleo-earthquake events dating back to the past 10 millennia: a record, S Kawakami, H Fukusawa, Y Kanaori - Engineering Geology, 1996 - Elsevier). Kato analyzed a different core, SGP-12 (see citation above). Kato claims that the 1662 earthquake layer is at ~102cm below the top of her core while Kitagawa puts his 1662 earthquake layer at ~29cm, roughly a 70 cm difference. Remember, we’re talking about two cores taken from the same lake fairly close to one another. Does this much variation over such a small area speak of slow, steady, annual deposition? To me, it does not. To me it argues strongly for episodic deposition driven by periodic heavy rains and even an occasional tsunami or earthquake. Japan is an extremely earthquake-prone country.

Another red herring argument. The cores are aligned by the common layer associated with the 1662 Kanbun turbidite which is present in both samples. The amount of material above this alignment layer (between the Kanbun turbidite and the lake surface) is immaterial to the 40,000+ varves that exist below this layer.

WHAT ABOUT KITAGAWA’S CARBON 14 DATING? Kitagawa’s carbon 14 dating appears to support the idea that the Suigetsu laminations are an annual record from ~7000 YBP to ~35000 YBP (Years Before Present). However, AMS testing of leaf samples such as those submitted by Kitagawa only uses a very small portion of the leaf to obtain a date (typically 1/500th portion of the leaf). Also, AMS labs generally know what date they are shooting for prior to doing the test (i.e. the tests are generally not blind-see links below). Also, dates are typically either rejected or explained away if they do not meet the expectations of the researchers. So my question is, “Did Van Der Plicht’s AMS lab (who did Kitagawa’s tests) reject several small leaf bits as they were testing each leaf until they hit on one that roughly matched the ‘varve age’ that they were given beforehand?” I see no reason why they would not have, given the knowledge we have about radiometric dating practices. See THIS DISCUSSION (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4870779#post4870779)and THIS ONE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=18906#post18906) for further info on this topic. I have e-mailed with Dr. Van der Plicht to investigate this, but have not received an answer yet. I know my contact info is good because he did send me some general info on radiometric dating.

This argument does nothing to bolster the young earth claims against the conclusions from Lake Suigetsu. The "leaf sample" argument is immature and easily dealt with in detail if the author so chooses to protest. The "no blind testing, labs know the age" argument is a hyperventilation in the face of the facts. Neither of these lines of reasoning addresses the consiliant nature of the 14C ages with depth and varve count that resulted from testing macro-fossils within the Lake Suigetsu core.

ARE THERE ANY LAKES WHICH ARE ‘VARVING’ UP TO THE PRESENT DAY? Yes, but probably not many. Lake Baldeggerse is one such lake. See discussion HERE (http://rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=7037). In this discussion, note that “Lasting Damage” (AKA Jet Black, a PhD physicist with whom I dialog alot) says “Note here that dave has been explicitly told that the coring methods used by Kato and Kitagawa are piston cores, which would damage the highest sediments which are soft and unconsolidated.” While it is true that Jet Black claimed this, he has not presented evidence that his claim is true. Also, he told me this first when he was under the mistaken impression that Kitagawa’s core was taken with a drill corer, not a piston corer. Piston cores may cause some damage, but probably not much and since both researchers used the same type of equipment, we should expect similar results.

The different coring methods have no impact on the presence of 40,000+ varves contained within Lake Suigetsu. Plus, these same varves have been cross-correllated between several cores and aligned using distinct turbidite and tephra layers found in each core. It is this consiliance that supports the conclusions first put forward by Kitagawa and Van der Plicht.

CONCLUSION
Contrary to firm declarations from Old Earth Advocates that Lake Suigetsu ‘disproves the Genesis timescale’ or that it supports an Old Earth, the evidence favors episodic deposition of laminations. Probably the majority of the laminations were laid during the year of the Global Flood of Noah, with much of the balance being laid during the ensuing Ice Age and the Global Warmup and Melt which followed that several hundred years later. This whole period would also have been a period of readjustment of the earth and we would expect much more frequent earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and such to have occurred during this time.

Lake Suigetsu seems to fit well within the Flood paradigm.

My friend Jet Black’s most recent summary post (4/6/08) on this topic can be found HERE (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=23419#post23419).

It is unfortanate that the author does nothing to support his "conclusions" here. The scenario outlined above cannot be shown in the reams of data available on this subject. If history is any guide then author will refuse to address the data once again. Only by providing a detailed and cogent argument, using the raw data from Kitagawa, could the author hope to challange the conclusions that Lake Suigetsu represents a varve history of 40,000+ years that also calibrates the 14C radiocarbon curve (along with dendrochronological findings, ice cores, and other independent dating techniques).

Please comment on what you read and find in this article. I find it shallow and very incomplete when the author initially sets out to try and discredit over 40,000 varves and never addresses the varves except to point at one picture (and Kitagawa took over 1500 photos) and say "See, they don't go across." BTW, the author has never provided anyone with any qualifications that he has the professional training to interpret the photos in the first place. Nor has the author addressed the physical (the marine valves associated with every layer in that photo) and chemical evidence that accompanies the photographed layers. Nor has the author addressed the large number of turbidite and tephra layers contained in those 40,000+ layers.

In fact, there is so much this paper DOESN'T address that what it does say seems almost meaningless.

[VoxRat]

Now here's a quandary...
It's always been my general policy to not worry about what any given nutcase writes in his private diary, or posts on his fantasy blog. It's always been my policy to not get involved unless the thinker of the thoughts in question pokes his head into the real world, and purports to be entering into a dialog with the real world (of which I am a denizen).

So what to do when someone posts it for the "thinker" in question?

I think I'll hold off until and unless someone actually undertakes to defend this nonsense.

[Occam's Aftershave]

That sounds like the same hypocritical asshat who banned * me from adding comments to his blog.





* as defined by a certain YEC

[David B]

It looks vaguely familiar;)

David B

[Mike PSS]

Now here's a quandary...
It's always been my general policy to not worry about what any given nutcase writes in his private diary, or posts on his fantasy blog. It's always been my policy to not get involved unless the thinker of the thoughts in question pokes his head into the real world, and purports to be entering into a dialog with the real world (of which I am a denizen).

So what to do when someone posts it for the "thinker" in question?

I think I'll hold off until and unless someone actually undertakes to defend this nonsense.
From what I gleaned from the links, didn't YOU participate in some of the discussions in the "real world" with this author?

In that case, would what is printed here reflect on the discussions where you were present?

In other words, does the authors representation of your discussion...
a) Reflect the facts of the discussion?
b) Misinterpret the facts of the discussion?
c) Outright misrepresent the facts of the discussion?

[VoxRat]

Now here's a quandary...
It's always been my general policy to not worry about what any given nutcase writes in his private diary, or posts on his fantasy blog. It's always been my policy to not get involved unless the thinker of the thoughts in question pokes his head into the real world, and purports to be entering into a dialog with the real world (of which I am a denizen).

So what to do when someone posts it for the "thinker" in question?

I think I'll hold off until and unless someone actually undertakes to defend this nonsense.
From what I gleaned from the links, didn't YOU participate in some of the discussions in the "real world" with this author?

In that case, would what is printed here reflect on the discussions where you were present?

In other words, does the authors representation of your discussion...
a) Reflect the facts of the discussion?
b) Misinterpret the facts of the discussion?
c) Outright misrepresent the facts of the discussion?Damn you, MikePSS! Now I'm going to have to read it!

[ericmurphy]

I'm curious about this last statement, which I have reason to believe was written by a certain YEC known to frequent this forum:

Lake Suigetsu seems to fit well within the Flood paradigm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, but you've been unable to even articulate a plausible mechanism by which 100,000+ layers of fine laminae like those found at the bottom of lake Suigetsu could have been deposited by any sort of catastrophic process, whether it involved a global catastrophic flood or not. Nor have you provided any plausible hypothesis by which such fine laminae could have been confined to lakebeds, when your global catastrophic flood would have inundated the entire surface of the planet, and not just the lakebeds.

[Febble]

I'm curious about this last statement, which I have reason to believe was written by a certain YEC known to frequent this forum:

Lake Suigetsu seems to fit well within the Flood paradigm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, but you've been unable to even articulate a plausible mechanism by which 100,000+ layers of fine laminae like those found at the bottom of lake Suigetsu could have been deposited by any sort of catastrophic process, whether it involved a global catastrophic flood or not. Nor have you provided any plausible hypothesis by which such fine laminae could have been confined to lakebeds, when your global catastrophic flood would have inundated the entire surface of the planet, and not just the lakebeds.

I think his idea is that it happened in phases. Presumably the Flood first laid the sedimentary rock that forms the rock from which Lake Suigetsu was hollowed (maybe by turbulence from the receding waters - where did they go?) - then "varves" were laid IN the lake by a series of subsequent large local floods (presumably something to do with the receding waters again - it's not really clear).

Which would of course mean that there should be large segments of the core samples with identical radiocarbon age, rather than the steady linear slope that we see, but I think we have to resort to massive scientific fraud to account for that.

Note that Dave has no arguments FOR his explanation, he relies merely on proclaiming the absence of arguments AGAINST them (well, as long as he can keep them at bay).

[Constant Mews]

The author's explanation is not coherent, makes no testable hypotheses that distinguish it from the real science on this point, and is flatly contradicted by the science involved in hydrological sorting.

In short, the article contains gross misrepresentations of science, flagrant lies (since the author has been corrected on most of these points already), and ends with a statement flatly contradicted by the contents.

D-

[ericmurphy]

I'm curious about this last statement, which I have reason to believe was written by a certain YEC known to frequent this forum:

Lake Suigetsu seems to fit well within the Flood paradigm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, but you've been unable to even articulate a plausible mechanism by which 100,000+ layers of fine laminae like those found at the bottom of lake Suigetsu could have been deposited by any sort of catastrophic process, whether it involved a global catastrophic flood or not. Nor have you provided any plausible hypothesis by which such fine laminae could have been confined to lakebeds, when your global catastrophic flood would have inundated the entire surface of the planet, and not just the lakebeds.

I think his idea is that it happened in phases. Presumably the Flood first laid the sedimentary rock that forms the rock from which Lake Suigetsu was hollowed (maybe by turbulence from the receding waters - where did they go?) - then "varves" were laid IN the lake by a series of subsequent large local floods (presumably something to do with the receding waters again - it's not really clear).

I doubt Dave appreciates your valiant attempts to make sense of his "arguments," Febble, but I do. And try as you might, you can't make them make sense. There's simply no way a massive, turbulent, catastrophic flood could lay down tens of thousands of laminae a few millimeters in thickness, in a year or so. Not possible. Reminds me of a Python sketch:

Game Show Host (John Cleese): Good evening and welcome to Stake Your Claim.

First this evening we have Mr Norman Voles of Gravesend who claims he wrote all Shakespeare's works. Mr Voles, I understand you claim that you wrote all those plays normally attributed to Shakespeare?

Voles (Michael Palin): That is correct. I wrote all his plays and my wife and I wrote his sonnets.

Host: Mr Voles, these plays are known to have been performed in the early 17th century. How old are you, Mr Voles?

Voles: 43.

Host: Well, how is it possible for you to have written plays performed over 300 years before you were born?

Voles: Ah well. This is where my claim falls to the ground.

Host: Ah!

Voles: There's no possible way of answering that argument, I'm afraid. I was only hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you're more than a match for me!

Host: Mr Voles, thank you very much for coming along.

Voles: My pleasure.

Which would of course mean that there should be large segments of the core samples with identical radiocarbon age, rather than the steady linear slope that we see, but I think we have to resort to massive scientific fraud to account for that.

At least Voles could admit it when he was busted.

Note that Dave has no arguments FOR his explanation, he relies merely on proclaiming the absence of arguments AGAINST them (well, as long as he can keep them at bay).

It's hard to argue against Dave's claims, because, in Pauli's formulation, they're not even wrong.

[RAFH]

I'm curious about this last statement, which I have reason to believe was written by a certain YEC known to frequent this forum:

Lake Suigetsu seems to fit well within the Flood paradigm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, but you've been unable to even articulate a plausible mechanism by which 100,000+ layers of fine laminae like those found at the bottom of lake Suigetsu could have been deposited by any sort of catastrophic process, whether it involved a global catastrophic flood or not. Nor have you provided any plausible hypothesis by which such fine laminae could have been confined to lakebeds, when your global catastrophic flood would have inundated the entire surface of the planet, and not just the lakebeds.

I think his idea is that it happened in phases. Presumably the Flood first laid the sedimentary rock that forms the rock from which Lake Suigetsu was hollowed (maybe by turbulence from the receding waters - where did they go?) - then "varves" were laid IN the lake by a series of subsequent large local floods (presumably something to do with the receding waters again - it's not really clear).

Which would of course mean that there should be large segments of the core samples with identical radiocarbon age, rather than the steady linear slope that we see, but I think we have to resort to massive scientific fraud to account for that.

Note that Dave has no arguments FOR his explanation, he relies merely on proclaiming the absence of arguments AGAINST them (well, as long as he can keep them at bay).

Arguments which he refuses to respond to or often even acknowledge , despite there having been numerous postings of such. It's just another davey playing the bluffoon. This is probably his great opus he's been so busy with.

Answer the hundreds of outstanding questions davey hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all). You know where they are, back where you left them unanswered all of the net.

[Dlx2]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.

[Dave Hawkins]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?

[Mike PSS]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?
All the tripe you have printed on the page and all your concerned about is image. How trite.

Since when do you get off listing this write-up as a "final note"? Your misrepresentation of all the discussions related to this subject is so blantently clear how can you delude yourself into even for one moment believing that the subject even remotely supports a young earth position?

Let's take one silly statement from your conclusion...
Probably the majority of the laminations were laid during the year of the Global Flood of Noah, with much of the balance being laid during the ensuing Ice Age and the Global Warmup and Melt which followed that several hundred years later.
Now, go to Kitagawa and tell me, in your words, HOW the data from the tables supports this contention?

You can't do it! And you know you can't! Yet you are deluding yourself into this position.

[Constant Mews]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?
All the tripe you have printed on the page and all your concerned about is image. How trite.

Since when do you get off listing this write-up as a "final note"? Your misrepresentation of all the discussions related to this subject is so blantently clear how can you delude yourself into even for one moment believing that the subject even remotely supports a young earth position?

Let's take one silly statement from your conclusion...
Probably the majority of the laminations were laid during the year of the Global Flood of Noah, with much of the balance being laid during the ensuing Ice Age and the Global Warmup and Melt which followed that several hundred years later.
Now, go to Kitagawa and tell me, in your words, HOW the data from the tables supports this contention?

You can't do it! And you know you can't! Yet you are deluding yourself into this position.

Keep in mind that as Dave has been censured for lying here, at ATBC, at RD, at IIDB, etc. he must now post lies on his own blog where, with comments disabled, he no longer has to listen to people far smarter and better educated than Dave pointing out that he is lying.

The very fact that Dave had to resort to this desperate measure is a sign of how shaky his ability to even discuss Suigetsu had gotten. JB, like Glenn Morton before him, destroyed every claim Dave made. Once Dave was unable to find any counter arguments, he simply stopped responding.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Probably the majority of the laminations were laid during the year of the Global Flood of Noah, with much of the balance being laid during the ensuing Ice Age and the Global Warmup and Melt which followed that several hundred years later.

Dave, if most of these layers were laid in the same year, why do they have empirically measured pMC values that decrease exponentially with depth?

If they majority were laid at the same time from the same material, why do they have different pMC values at all?

Same question you've been avoiding for six months at least now. It will probably never catch "why do the C14 cal curves agree", but it won't go away either. Might as well deal with it. :)

[Febble]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?

Sure. But do it in the Media forum, not here.

[RAFH]

Oh crap, another opportunity for davey to pimp his blog. Does he not have any pride at all?

[damitall]

Dear Constant Mews

Please send by return deails of your life, so that I may model my own upon it as Hawkins suggests

Thanks in advance

Damitall

[ck1]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?
Dlx2 is the 3rd person to complain about your web design.

[Mike PSS]

I see Dave refuses to address criticisms of his blog write-up. Between this, and closing comments, we can see that Dave is close-minded to information and analysis.

Not exactly news, just one more data point.

[David M]

At least the Quigley quote now says "engineers", thats a tiny step towards the fact that the quote has no relevance towards how geologists classify varves.

[Dave Hawkins]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?
Dlx2 is the 3rd person to complain about your web design.Ok. Give me your suggestions. Are there any stock Wordpress themes you like better?

[Lucretius III]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it? I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?
Dlx2 is the 3rd person to complain about your web design.

I don't know if I am one of these 3, but I have complained in the past about the grey letters on a black background as being a presentation problem ,although I think it was suggested that black letters on a black background could hardly be worse in terms of actual factual content :D

[Febble]

Dave, if you want to discuss your blog design, please start a thread in the Media forum. Any more discussion of this aspect of your blog will be split to TCH. Please address the OP, i.e. the content, not the color-scheme.

[Lucretius III]

Sorry Febble.
Anyway back to the OP I would like to ask Dave why he ,after presumably reading all the relevant posts on different fora ,has just re-iterated his original evidence free assertions ?
There appear to be several of the usual Creationist types of words in the blog entry (sorry I couldn't think of any other phrase that didn't seem to give it at least the appearance of science which it does not deserve) "probably ","should expect " and lots of "if this happened ...then this would happen " type arguments WITHOUT ever showing that the first condition actually occured.
Not to mention the continued statements alleging fraud or incompetence regarding dating methods
I am sorry Dave but you appear to have shown comprhesion or even a willingness to try and comprehend what has been said to you

[Black5]

Dave, no one really cares how your blog looks. Given your *repeated lack of honesty you've lost all respect of everyone here. You refuse to discuss issues honestly. You refuse to act like a mature person. You whore your blog of lies. If you refuse to participate like a mature rational person what else is there to do but comment on your blog color scheme?

I think everyone would be more interested (but only slightly because no one really cares about your blog) if you would open your blog to comments. You said you wouldn't censor comments on your blog. Locking a thread from comments is censorship. Specially when you got your ass handed to you on that topic earlier and then resurrect it on your blog as if the previous ass handing had not happened.

Be honest and prove me wrong Dave. Open all threads on your blog to comments. Demonstrate an iota of honesty Dave. Baby Jesus would happier if you did.

--
* Lack of honesty demonstrated by tactics such as but not limited to:

Ignoring questions
Putting people on ignore
Giving irrelevant answers to questions thereby trivializing them and the author
Quote mining
Calling others (individuals and all scientists) dishonest without supporting evidence
Complaining when you are called dishonest when supporting evidence is given

[ninewands]

It's good to know that Dave's web design is just as bad as his argumentation.

This fits my theory that all creationists have terrible web design.Man ... you're the 2nd person to say that. What's wrong with it?
To start with the color combination (background/text) is WAY too low in contrast. Makes it too hard to read. In case you haven't noticed, almost ALL the "A list" bloggers use dark text on a lighter (usually white, in fact) background. Black backgrounds are so 1997 unless you're running a seriously Goth website.
I like it a lot. But ... my "customers" come first. I guess I should take a poll. Can I do that, Febble?
You might also give more of an impression the truth really DOES matter to you if you allowed comments ... both supportive AND in opposition. Otherwise your "blog" becomes nothing more than an attention whore's "look at ME" site.

[ninewands]

Ok. Give me your suggestions. Are there any stock Wordpress themes you like better?
Why not design your own? That's what the "A listers" do.

[Jet Black]

5) KATO’S SEDIMENT CORE AND KITAGAWA’S CORE DO NOT MATCH UP … THEYR’E NOT EVEN CLOSE. Kitagawa analyzed several cores, one of them SG2, a piston core, which was also later analyzed by Kawakami (A new opportunity to detect paleo-earthquake events dating back to the past 10 millennia: a record, S Kawakami, H Fukusawa, Y Kanaori - Engineering Geology, 1996 - Elsevier). Kato analyzed a different core, SGP-12 (see citation above). Kato claims that the 1662 earthquake layer is at ~102cm below the top of her core while Kitagawa puts his 1662 earthquake layer at ~29cm, roughly a 70 cm difference. Remember, we’re talking about two cores taken from the same lake fairly close to one another. Does this much variation over such a small area speak of slow, steady, annual deposition? To me, it does not. To me it argues strongly for episodic deposition driven by periodic heavy rains and even an occasional tsunami or earthquake. Japan is an extremely earthquake-prone country.

Another red herring argument. The cores are aligned by the common layer associated with the 1662 Kanbun turbidite which is present in both samples. The amount of material above this alignment layer (between the Kanbun turbidite and the lake surface) is immaterial to the 40,000+ varves that exist below this layer.


What makes it worse is that I have explained this one to dave many times now and he ignores me every single time. The cores are different cores. The lake bottom is very soft and it is difficult to preserve the top sections of the soils - it's even difficult to find when to "drop" the corer (they don't know precisely where the bottom of the lake is when they drop it), and so the distance from the top of the core to a given layer is not a good indicator of anything. This just goes to show dave's poor line of argumentation over this and it is very depressing that people will read and get sucked in by his nonsense.

as we can see from this site on piston corers (http://www.whoi.edu/instruments/viewInstrument.do?id=8087), there is a gravity corer (or just a weight) to the right which will sink into the mud, and then when the tripping arm reaches a certain point the corer is dropped. if the mud is soft then the weight can sink different distances into the mud depending on the speed at which the weight is lowered and so on. 70cm isn't much difference in this sort of thing when we're looking at the masses of those corers. The mackereth corer is slightly different, but again involves a big weight at the bottom which is placed on the lake bed before the corer is dropped.

here's a mini mackereth:

http://www.duncanandassociates.co.uk/images/mackereth.jpg

which is only 1m long. Corers that take several metres of sample have much bigger weights....

here's a big 'un

http://www.d.umn.edu/llo/images/Mackereth_sm.jpg

....... oh but I forget, clay doesn't compress does it? so I'm sure that regardless of the weight and speed that the corer is dropped, it will rest perfectly on the bottom of the lake every single time.

[SteveF]

By way of interesting anecdote, the man who invented the Mackreth corer was killed by one. He was out on Windermere one winter, testing a new design. It shot out of the water, knocked his boat over and he died of hypothermia.

[Dave Hawkins]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

[Febble]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

And what about this:

Another red herring argument. The cores are aligned by the common layer associated with the 1662 Kanbun turbidite which is present in both samples. The amount of material above this alignment layer (between the Kanbun turbidite and the lake surface) is immaterial to the 40,000+ varves that exist below this layer.

Dave, it is becoming pretty obvious that you are avoiding the hard issues by dancing around the irrelevant ones.

Prove me wrong by addressing Mike's point.

[Jet Black]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

oh I acknowledged that there was an error ages ago and I know they are both poston cores, but as I said, the top of the sediment is very soft and hence differences in drop speed/core weight will make a big difference, and 70 cm in this context isn't much given that we are talking soft unconsolidated sediments at the bottom of the lake, and a big piece of metal weighing hundreds of kilos. I can vary the depth of my footprint in sand by several centimetres just by varying the impact speed.

[Jet Black]

Dave, it is becoming pretty obvious that you are avoiding the hard issues by dancing around the irrelevant ones.

Prove me wrong by addressing Mike's point.

precisely. he keeps saying that 70cm is a big difference and ignoring the actual layer counts, which is the reason that people look at varve sequences - the number of layers offers a measure independent of things like sedimentation rates, which can and do vary with lake position and time. It's pretty sad that dave has resorted to saying "it's a big difference... really huge, like 70cm you know!!!!111eleven" when he doesn't actually know anything about the conditions of the lake or the coring techniques involved.

all dave is doing is poking what he perceives as holes and then declares victory. Most of his points are red herrings, and of those that aren't they are either flat out wrong or hopelessly crude analyses. Not once does he actually present any positive argument as to how these formed, or why we get the correct numbers of varve layers between historically recorded event layers, not does he address the diatom variations, or the frustrule variations, of the pyrite/siderite variations, or the change in salinity or any of the other various issues and explain them from his own perspective.

as we see:

To me it argues strongly for episodic deposition driven by periodic heavy rains and even an occasional tsunami or earthquake.

he is still making weak comments about what might have happened without any serious explanation, and he is still chucking in tsunamis, even though tsunamis would consist of seawater, which obviously has not invated the suigetsu lake prior to the 1664 channel construction. "heavy rains" I bet he is talking about floods, but carefully avoiding the embarassing point that the only flood that he has named to date was downhill of suigetsu. and earthquakes... yeah, we see earthquakes in the tephra layers, separated by exactly the number of varves that we would expect to.

[RAFH]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

I guess davey, so used to his comfy chair, has never been in a natural lake and walked about in the muck that forms the bottom. It's very rare to find a hard bottom. Ships that have sunk in the Great Lakes, which have been accumulating muck for only about 12,000 years, sink up to 7 meters into the muck.

[ericmurphy]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

Big difference for what, Dave? A 30-foot column of core? No, it's not a "big" difference." Especially when you're counting from the top of the core, which a) is ill-defined, and b) is irrelevant anyway, because the bottom of the lake is not perfectly flat. What, you think it's amazing or hard to explain that one part of the lake might have 28 inches more sediment deposited over 300 years than another part?

You're ignoring the part that's the death of your argument, Dave, as usual. When you come to a particular layer in one core that can be tied to a known event—such as a volcanic eruption—you can tie that event to all cores, and measure them from a known baseline. NOT an unknown baseline like the poorly-defined top of the core.

How idiotic do you think your audience is here, Dave?

[RAFH]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

Big difference for what, Dave? A 30-foot column of core? No, it's not a "big" difference." Especially when you're counting from the top of the core, which a) is ill-defined, and b) is irrelevant anyway, because the bottom of the lake is not perfectly flat. What, you think it's amazing or hard to explain that one part of the lake might have 28 inches more sediment deposited over 300 years than another part?

You're ignoring the part that's the death of your argument, Dave, as usual. When you come to a particular layer in one core that can be tied to a known event—such as a volcanic eruption—you can tie that event to all cores, and measure them from a known baseline. NOT an unknown baseline like the poorly-defined top of the core.

How idiotic do you think your audience is here, Dave?

Well, the only person here he has intimate knowledge of is himself. So I suppose he judges everyone by what he is.

[Jet Black]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

I guess davey, so used to his comfy chair, has never been in a natural lake and walked about in the muck that forms the bottom. It's very rare to find a hard bottom. Ships that have sunk in the Great Lakes, which have been accumulating muck for only about 12,000 years, sink up to 7 meters into the muck.

yeap, in the lake I worked in, it was a real pain when people fell in. It was only a metre and a half or so deep and so no real danger of drowning, but when people stood on the bottom their feet would sink into the silt and get stuck and it was often hard to pull them back out again. and that was 2-5 years of sedimentation.

[Dave Hawkins]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

oh I acknowledged that there was an error ages ago and I know they are both poston cores, but as I said, the top of the sediment is very soft and hence differences in drop speed/core weight will make a big difference, and 70 cm in this context isn't much given that we are talking soft unconsolidated sediments at the bottom of the lake, and a big piece of metal weighing hundreds of kilos. I can vary the depth of my footprint in sand by several centimetres just by varying the impact speed.Several yes, but not 70. How much difference can there possibly be in drop speed/core weight? Have you ever waded around in a muddy lake? I have as a kid ... we had a shallow muddy one near our house. Yes, your feet would sink in, but only about 6 inches or so. Remember, we're talking about 28 inches here. And you can't say "Oh well, Kitagawa's piston sank in 28 inches and Kato's didn't sink in at all." No, both will sink in some. Sure there may be some difference, but even if one is a heavier weight, it would be logical that it's footprint would be larger also, diminishing any increase in depth that it would sink.

EDIT: Just noticed your later discussion of walking in muddy lakes.

[Febble]

Several yes, but not 70. How much difference can there possibly be in drop speed/core weight? Have you ever waded around in a muddy lake? I have as a kid ... we had a shallow muddy one near our house. Yes, your feet would sink in, but only about 6 inches or so. Remember, we're talking about 28 inches here. And you can't say "Oh well, Kitagawa's piston sank in 28 inches and Kato's didn't sink in at all." No, both will sink in some. Sure there may be some difference, but even if one is a heavier weight, it would be logical that it's footprint would be larger also, diminishing any increase in depth that it would sink.

EDIT: Just noticed your later discussion of walking in muddy lakes.

I'm glad you noticed that. It's certainly pretty obvious that you don't have much experience of mud. My own experience as a child was with the mud in a shallow tidal estuary, and it was pretty scary when I was only four feet tall. And yes, I know it was tidal, and no, it didn't have varves.

http://www.visitcumbria.com/wc/moricambe-8832b.jpg


But it is also very obvious that you are still avoiding Mike PSS's point:

Another red herring argument. The cores are aligned by the common layer associated with the 1662 Kanbun turbidite which is present in both samples. The amount of material above this alignment layer (between the Kanbun turbidite and the lake surface) is immaterial to the 40,000+ varves that exist below this layer.

[SAWells]

Dave, why is 70cm such a critically impossible value for variation in depth of sediment? Because you once played in a muddy pool?

[Jet Black]

Several yes, but not 70.

bear in mind this is sand that settled in ooh, three hours when the tide went out, with the water drained out. As has already been pointed out to you, clays are far more compressible.
How much difference can there possibly be in drop speed/core weight?

they can vary quite substantially. you don't think those two pics of mackereth corers I showed weigh the same do you? and drop speed.... how different can the speed of two bungee jumpers with incorrectly measured ropes be as they hit the ground?

Have you ever waded around in a muddy lake? I have as a kid ... we had a shallow muddy one near our house. Yes, your feet would sink in, but only about 6 inches or so. Remember, we're talking about 28 inches here. And you can't say "Oh well, Kitagawa's piston sank in 28 inches and Kato's didn't sink in at all." No, both will sink in some. Sure there may be some difference, but even if one is a heavier weight, it would be logical that it's footprint would be larger also, diminishing any increase in depth that it would sink.


no, mass does not nescessarily vary linearly with radial area, the thickness of the core weight, plus additional weight of the corer also vary things - for example for a sphere, the mass varies as the cube of the radius, whereas the cross sectional area only varies as the square. Since force is pressure*area, this can of course become really substantial. The force per kilo of course would end up varying as the square of any velocity differences on impact (Ke = 1/2*mv^2).

additionally, the corers were most likely not even "resting" on the lake bottom. It is far more likely given how corers work that they hang them slightly suspended in the sediment and then drop the corer. If they left slack in the cable, the corer wouldn't work, because the cable is attached to the piston.

....And given that you don't even know how hard the sediments are at the bottom of the lake (remember we've seen figure of 60% water for some of these lake bottom sediments) I think you're just trying to defend your red herring to avoid the point that everyone keeps making, and that is that the important points are the identified tephra layers and the numbers of varves between them. I notice that in your summary you never mentioned varve count. not even once, despite that being the whole point of varve studies..... mighty suspicious don't you think, all that omission of data? I can't really see how you're giving your followers an honest appraisal of the data... all you're doing is presenting a few percieved "holes" and ignoring everything else.... very bad dave, very bad.

[Jet Black]

Dave, why is 70cm such a critically impossible value for variation in depth of sediment? Because you once played in a muddy pool?

it's just too damn big I tells ya. it has to be.

[Febble]

bear in mind this is sand that settled in ooh, three hours when the tide went out, with the water drained out. As has already been pointed out to you, clays are far more compressible.

If you meant my pic, actually, it's mud. Very very fine silt. When the tide goes miles of wet mud is exposed, but you have to be really careful. You can be on a relatively firm part for a while, then suddenly you are in over your gum boots, and starting to panic.

And when the tide is in, you can go aground in your dinghy, get out to push, and find yourself over your head!

[Jet Black]

bear in mind this is sand that settled in ooh, three hours when the tide went out, with the water drained out. As has already been pointed out to you, clays are far more compressible.

If you meant my pic, actually, it's mud. Very very fine silt. When the tide goes miles of wet mud is exposed, but you have to be really careful. You can be on a relatively firm part for a while, then suddenly you are in over your gum boots, and starting to panic.

And when the tide is in, you can go aground in your dinghy, get out to push, and find yourself over your head!

no no, my anecdote :) I was talking about this beach:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41953000/jpg/_41953708_grace_10_scarborough_416.jpg

[Febble]

^ Ah.

[Lucretius III]

I'm glad you noticed that. It's certainly pretty obvious that you don't have much experience of mud. My own experience as a child was with the mud in a shallow tidal estuary, and it was pretty scary when I was only four feet tall. And yes, I know it was tidal, and no, it didn't have varves.


Just pleased that I recognized Morecambe Bay in the picture without cheating :)

[Pappy Jack]

......Have you ever waded around in a muddy lake? I have as a kid ... we had a shallow muddy one near our house. Yes, your feet would sink in, but only about 6 inches or so. Remember, we're talking about 28 inches here. And you can't say "Oh well, Kitagawa's piston sank in 28 inches and Kato's didn't sink in at all." No, both will sink in some. Sure there may be some difference, but even if one is a heavier weight, it would be logical that it's footprint would be larger also, diminishing any increase in depth that it would sink.

EDIT: Just noticed your later discussion of walking in muddy lakes.
It's not clear whether your ETA is meant to ackowledge that your argument preceding it regarding how far one may or may not sink into a muddy lake is, in fact, erroneous as generalizing far too freely and unthinkingly from the particular to the general. If so, fair enough.

If not, I fail to see how you can extrapolate your personal experience of 'wad[ing] around in a muddy lake ... as a kid' to a broad conclusion about how far it is likely that piston corers can sink into the sediment at the bottom of any given lake. If you believe you can, it seems to me that you are at the very least yet again confusing one with some with many with all. More seriously, I do not really see how you can compare a small child with a piston corer and expect not to be told that you are making a ludicrous comparison.

As others have said of their own personal experience, I can assure you that I too have experienced walking in muddy sediment where sinking in to a depth of six inches would only be the beginning. Again, though, children (and people) are not piston corers.

[Mike PSS]

No, Jet Black ... you morphed your argument. First, you claimed that Kitagawa's core was a drill core and this explained the difference. When i pointed out to you that this was wrong and that they were both piston cores, then you started trying to argue about the soft lake bottom and such. But here's the problem with your current argument ...

70 cm is a BIG difference. It's like 28 inches (for all you Americans).

One could possibly swallow this argument for a 6 inch difference ... but 28 inches?

oh I acknowledged that there was an error ages ago and I know they are both poston cores, but as I said, the top of the sediment is very soft and hence differences in drop speed/core weight will make a big difference, and 70 cm in this context isn't much given that we are talking soft unconsolidated sediments at the bottom of the lake, and a big piece of metal weighing hundreds of kilos. I can vary the depth of my footprint in sand by several centimetres just by varying the impact speed.Several yes, but not 70. How much difference can there possibly be in drop speed/core weight? Have you ever waded around in a muddy lake? I have as a kid ... we had a shallow muddy one near our house. Yes, your feet would sink in, but only about 6 inches or so. Remember, we're talking about 28 inches here. And you can't say "Oh well, Kitagawa's piston sank in 28 inches and Kato's didn't sink in at all." No, both will sink in some. Sure there may be some difference, but even if one is a heavier weight, it would be logical that it's footprint would be larger also, diminishing any increase in depth that it would sink.

EDIT: Just noticed your later discussion of walking in muddy lakes.
Dave,
Did both cores reveal the same Kanbun earthquake layer?

IF they did, can both cores then be aligned with this layer?

IF they can, can both cores then be counted BELOW the earthquake layer regardless of what occurred above this layer?

Dave?

[Lucretius III]

We could of course always tape Dave to a piston corer and drop it into a lake to see what would happen :D

[Pappy Jack]

We could of course always tape Dave to a piston corer and drop it into a lake to see what would happen :D
Wearing or not wearing gumboots? ;)

[Pappy Jack]

Dave,
Did both cores reveal the same Kanbun earthquake layer?

IF they did, can both cores then be aligned with this layer?

IF they can, can both cores then be counted BELOW the earthquake layer regardless of what occurred above this layer?

Dave?
And these are the crunch questions which Dave has persistently avoided answering (but then see my sig :D).

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave,
Did both cores reveal the same Kanbun earthquake layer?

IF they did, can both cores then be aligned with this layer?

IF they can, can both cores then be counted BELOW the earthquake layer regardless of what occurred above this layer?

Dave?
And these are the crunch questions which Dave has persistently avoided answering (but then see my sig :D).

AFDave's Fourth Law: (http://www.rantsnraves.org/usernote.php?u=782) Unanswerable questions are invisible.


There's one for every occasion. ;)

[Jet Black]

We could of course always tape Dave to a piston corer and drop it into a lake to see what would happen :D
Wearing or not wearing gumboots? ;)

European or African gumboots?

[RAFH]

Dave, why is 70cm such a critically impossible value for variation in depth of sediment? Because you once played in a muddy pool?

Well, of course, the only valid experience is davey's experience. Any other is meaningless. His and only his experience, particularly that of his childhood, is the defining experience of all time for all circumstances. You must have known that already.

[Febble]

We could of course always tape Dave to a piston corer and drop it into a lake to see what would happen :D
Wearing or not wearing gumboots? ;)

European or African gumboots?

Wellies

[RAFH]

We could of course always tape Dave to a piston corer and drop it into a lake to see what would happen :D
Wearing or not wearing gumboots? ;)

Oh, wearing, definitely wearing. The kind that are chest high. They make for the best gumboot diplomacy.

[Jet Black]

Dave, why is 70cm such a critically impossible value for variation in depth of sediment? Because you once played in a muddy pool?

Well, of course, the only valid experience is davey's experience. Any other is meaningless. His and only his experience, particularly that of his childhood, is the defining experience of all time for all circumstances. You must have known that already.

bizarre isn't it?

I'm kind of confused by his logic though:

"when I was a kid, I stood in a shallow pool and only sank 6 inches into the sediment, therefore when two people suspend two non-identical mackereth piston corers into a lake with very soft sediment at the bottom, the difference in distance between two identifiable layers from the top of the cored material must be less than 70cm."

[ninewands]

Well, I waded around in a pretty large, very muddy lake as a child. The bottom was made up mostly of clay and silt, and it was quite firm ... but my experience does nothing to validate Dave's wild-ass guessing about the texture of the sediments on the bottom of Suigetsu or Bladeggersee because there was a measurable current through the lake at all times. You see it was formed by damming the Arkansas River. The current in the main channel is probably 3-4 miles per hour and in the main tributary streams it is probably close to that, say 2-2.5 mph. Makes for some very "interesting" swimming conditions and it also keeps the bottom scoured down to some relatively firm mud.

[Lucretius III]

Wearing or not wearing gumboots? ;)

European or African gumboots?

Wellies

Wellies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SguYlpm3ffQ)

[Pappy Jack]

Wearing or not wearing gumboots? ;)

European or African gumboots?

Wellies
Or even galoshes. ;)

[Lucretius III]

European or African gumboots?

Wellies
Or even galoshes. ;)

Ah now you see where I come from galoshes are used as a synonym for those old fashioned Gym Shoes (a.ka. pumps/plimsolls ) witha canvas top and rubber soles

[Jet Black]

Well, I waded around in a pretty large, very muddy lake as a child. The bottom was made up mostly of clay and silt, and it was quite firm ... but my experience does nothing to validate Dave's wild-ass guessing about the texture of the sediments on the bottom of Suigetsu or Bladeggersee because there was a measurable current through the lake at all times. You see it was formed by damming the Arkansas River. The current in the main channel is probably 3-4 miles per hour and in the main tributary streams it is probably close to that, say 2-2.5 mph. Makes for some very "interesting" swimming conditions and it also keeps the bottom scoured down to some relatively firm mud.

what you just demonstrated was that different lakes are.........wait for it..........different. see, you didn't sink at all into your silt, but dave sank several inches into his.

[Jet Black]

Wellies
Or even galoshes. ;)

Ah now you see where I come from galoshes are used as a synonym for those old fashioned Gym Shoes (a.ka. pumps/plimsolls ) witha canvas top and rubber soles

I don't know why, but I've always had this odd feeling about the word "plimsolls". It's the "plim" bit that just doesn't seem.... right somehow. and it bothers me.

[Febble]

Or even galoshes. ;)

Ah now you see where I come from galoshes are used as a synonym for those old fashioned Gym Shoes (a.ka. pumps/plimsolls ) witha canvas top and rubber soles

I don't know why, but I've always had this odd feeling about the word "plimsolls". It's the "plim" bit that just doesn't seem.... right somehow. and it bothers me.

Well, of course if you load over the plimsoll line, you may well find yourself stuck in the mud.

[Jet Black]

really, plimsolls should be something else. not footwear.

[damitall]

Plimsolls - seems like a word for something worn only by very earnest people at a christian camp (or by camp christians?)
Whatever. Not, definitely not, for normal adults.

[Febble]

Plimsolls - seems like a word for something worn only by very earnest people at a christian camp (or by camp christians?)
Whatever. Not, definitely not, for normal adults.

I dunno. In the end I always wore plimsolls for mudlarking, because I got into less trouble when I came home having left one of them stuck in the mud.

For normal children, perhaps.

[Pappy Jack]

Plimsolls - seems like a word for something worn only by very earnest people at a christian camp (or by camp christians?)
Whatever. Not, definitely not, for normal adults.

I dunno. In the end I always wore plimsolls for mudlarking, because I got into less trouble when I came home having left one of them stuck in the mud.

For normal children, perhaps.
Swallows & Amazons? Famous Five? Didn't they all wear plimsolls? A word much more redolent of the Empire than trainers could ever be. I can imagine Sanders of the River wearing plimsolls at some point in his career, but trainers? Never!

[Febble]

Swallows & Amazons? Famous Five? Didn't they all wear plimsolls? A word much more redolent of the Empire than trainers could ever be. I can imagine Sanders of the River wearing plimsolls at some point in his career, but trainers? Never!

Sure they did. I was a Swallows and Amazons child. Spent my holidays messing about in sailing dinghies on lochs and estuaries, losing my plimsolls in the mud. And we wore rolled-up dungarees or shorts, not jeans.

Happy days.

[Jet Black]

I'm going to split this plimsolls discussion off and force you all to watch reruns of Hovind's videos forever.

[Susannah]

......Have you ever waded around in a muddy lake? I have as a kid ... we had a shallow muddy one near our house. Yes, your feet would sink in, but only about 6 inches or so. Remember, we're talking about 28 inches here ....

As others have said of their own personal experience, I can assure you that I too have experienced walking in muddy sediment where sinking in to a depth of six inches would only be the beginning. Again, though, children (and people) are not piston corers.

Adding mine. I fell in a frog pond when I was about 12. Slipped off the log, and ended up waist-deep in mud. In a pond at most a hand's-breadth deep.

[RAFH]

Well, I waded around in a pretty large, very muddy lake as a child. The bottom was made up mostly of clay and silt, and it was quite firm ... but my experience does nothing to validate Dave's wild-ass guessing about the texture of the sediments on the bottom of Suigetsu or Bladeggersee because there was a measurable current through the lake at all times. You see it was formed by damming the Arkansas River. The current in the main channel is probably 3-4 miles per hour and in the main tributary streams it is probably close to that, say 2-2.5 mph. Makes for some very "interesting" swimming conditions and it also keeps the bottom scoured down to some relatively firm mud.

what you just demonstrated was that different lakes are.........wait for it..........different. see, you didn't sink at all into your silt, but dave sank several inches into his.

And gee, I've been in all sorts of lakes that all varied as to how deep and soft the bottom was. I remember a muddy pond a niece fell into, it appeared to be quite deep as she was up to her neck, maybe 30", without touching bottom, but when I jumped in I nearly got stuck myself in what seemed bottomless thick muck starting at about 31" down. On the other end of the scale, the Nydiver Lakes in the Sierras, at about 10,000 feet and extraordinarily cold (as in ice floating in them), had granite bottoms with maybe a half inch of mud, if that. Tahoe (another rather cold lake, at least below the top 36" or so) had thick sand at Sand Harbor (of course) down to about 10' with massive boulders scattered about, then below that it was small to large house size boulders down as far as I could see, maybe 100' or more.