alternate varve formation possibilities

[Jet Black]

Since Dave doesn't seem to be playing, how about we play devil's advocate regarding varves. Lets say the general scientific consensus already exists, but we want to demonstrate that varves such as suigetsu are not annual features, but nor are they a feature constructed by any vindictive God who wants to fool people. What are the alternate possible models that could result in an evenly laminated set of layers like these. At the moment the resemblance need only be crude, but so long as we have a set of ideas down, then we can see where they match and where they fail. perhaps some of the professional geologists could chime in too.

so firstly, what mechanisms can generate alternating layers of sediment.

[David B]

Rainstorms, perhaps.

Water flowing into our local ponds is pretty clear in times of low rainfall, but very brown and sediment heavy after heavy rain.

David B

[VoxRat]

Weather fluctuations on a days/weeks (as opposed to annual) time scale? For instance, distinct layers of diatoms resulting from a sunny warm week followed by a cloudy cold week?

[Mike PSS]

Diatoms Blooms = Food + Environment

Food = Nutrients + Minerals

So a layerring of diatoms implies the availability of both of these items in large quantities during the bloom. IF you had enough inputs of nutrients and minerals into the lake then you can support either constant or episodic blooms depending on environment conditions.

My Hypothesis:
A large stream carrying mud/silt from a volcanic mud vent into the lake. The mud vent is percolating through a very thick and ancient peat bog forming a "pea soup" of minerals and nutrients. Episodic rain increases the stream loading to feed the lake.

[Jet Black]

thanks. Please also feel free to suggest other possibilities that have actually been published.

[Dave Hawkins]

Here's a nice summary of the history of varve theories on another famous formation ... Bretz’ ‘outrageous hypothesis’ was vindicated in the 1960s when more than just a few geologists actually examined the area. The evidence was obvious and overwhelming. Nevertheless, not just content with one gigantic flood, uniformitarian geologists could not help but postulate more than one. The Lake Missoula floods then became uniformitarian events.

The tradition started with Bretz himself, who at age 70 returned for fieldwork in eastern Washington, and postulated possibly up to seven floods.12 Up until 1980, most investigators postulated one or a few floods. In that year, Richard Waitt proposed a succession of about forty Lake Missoula floods.13 His evidence was primarily based on a series of about 40 rhythmites in Burlingame Canyon within the Walla Walla Valley of southeast Washington (Figure 3). This valley is located in a backwater basin that was inundated after the flood water ponded behind a constriction at Wallula Gap, forming a lake about 250 m deep. Waitt postulated that each rhythmite was laid down by one Lake Missoula flood. He based his conclusion especially on the existence of a supposedly subaerial ash layer on top of the thirteenth rhythmite from the top.

In 1986, the number of floods jumped to about 90, based on 89 rhythmites separated by what are believed to be varves, which were discovered in Sanpoil Valley in northeast Washington.14 Each rhythmite was related to one Lake Missoula flood. A total of 3,000 varves were claimed, intermingled within the flood rhythmites. So the whole sequence of about 90 Lake Missoula floods was thought to have occupied a period of 3,000 years. This is more than ten times too much time for the deglacial phase of the post-Flood Ice Age, based on melting equations over snow and ice during a cooler ice age climate.15

Lately, more geologists are swinging full circle back to fewer, or even one, Lake Missoula Flood. ...
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5066/So it's not just creationists proposing alternate interpretations of supposed 'varves.' Mainstream geologists are too. Why don't they do so with Lake Suigetsu?

[Occam's Aftershave]

So it's not just creationists proposing alternate interpretations of supposed 'varves.' Mainstream geologists are too. Why don't they do so with Lake Suigetsu?

They very well may have 100 years ago. But then a plethora of evidence was gathered that the varves at Suigetsu were annual. That's how science works Dave - gather data, discard erroneous hypotheses.

That evidence still exists, and you've been shown a good bit of it.

Tell me Dave, do you think aerospace engineers should go back and look at alternate interpretations of the supposed "breaking the sound barrier"?

[VoxRat]

Here's a nice summary of the history of varve theories on another famous formation ... Bretz’ ‘outrageous hypothesis’ was vindicated in the 1960s when more than just a few geologists actually examined the area. The evidence was obvious and overwhelming. Nevertheless, not just content with one gigantic flood, uniformitarian geologists could not help but postulate more than one. The Lake Missoula floods then became uniformitarian events.

So it's not just creationists proposing alternate interpretations of supposed 'varves.' Mainstream geologists are too. Why don't they do so with Lake Suigetsu?Why indeed?
No good reason, obviously.
Clearly they should!
I mean, the fact that theories about these Missoula floods changed when more than just a few geologists actually examined the area obviously means that it's all a question of fashion, and intellectual bullying, and analysis of the data has nothing whatsoever to do with it. And probably no more than a few geologists have studied Suigetsu, right?

But as long as you've brought it up, Dave...
What do we know about radiodating of these Missoula varves/rhythmites? And do we have anything equivalent to the annual cycle of diatoms, like in Suigetsu?

Surely you've looked into this, no? I mean, you wouldn't just be passing on the selective bits of information your creationist source has spoonfed you, would you?

[Dave Hawkins]

Yes, Occam, I think that would be an excellent project well suited for you. Run along now and get busy and tell us what you find.

[Faid]

Yes, Occam, I think that would be an excellent project well suited for you. Run along now and get busy and tell us what you find.

Is dave turning to Jorge of Theology Web fame?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Yes, Occam, I think that would be an excellent project well suited for you. Run along now and get busy and tell us what you find.
Nah Dave, I think I'll stay here and point out the gaping holes in your logic, reasoning, and knowledge of science. :wave:

Any chance you'll explain why those varves at Suigetsu have empirically measured pMC values that decrease exponentially with depth?

[JonF]

Here's a nice summary of the history of varve theories on another famous formation ... Bretz’ ‘outrageous hypothesis’ was vindicated in the 1960s when more than just a few geologists actually examined the area. The evidence was obvious and overwhelming. Nevertheless, not just content with one gigantic flood, uniformitarian geologists could not help but postulate more than one. The Lake Missoula floods then became uniformitarian events.

The tradition started with Bretz himself, who at age 70 returned for fieldwork in eastern Washington, and postulated possibly up to seven floods.12 Up until 1980, most investigators postulated one or a few floods. In that year, Richard Waitt proposed a succession of about forty Lake Missoula floods.13 His evidence was primarily based on a series of about 40 rhythmites in Burlingame Canyon within the Walla Walla Valley of southeast Washington (Figure 3). This valley is located in a backwater basin that was inundated after the flood water ponded behind a constriction at Wallula Gap, forming a lake about 250 m deep. Waitt postulated that each rhythmite was laid down by one Lake Missoula flood. He based his conclusion especially on the existence of a supposedly subaerial ash layer on top of the thirteenth rhythmite from the top.

In 1986, the number of floods jumped to about 90, based on 89 rhythmites separated by what are believed to be varves, which were discovered in Sanpoil Valley in northeast Washington.14 Each rhythmite was related to one Lake Missoula flood. A total of 3,000 varves were claimed, intermingled within the flood rhythmites. So the whole sequence of about 90 Lake Missoula floods was thought to have occupied a period of 3,000 years. This is more than ten times too much time for the deglacial phase of the post-Flood Ice Age, based on melting equations over snow and ice during a cooler ice age climate.15

Lately, more geologists are swinging full circle back to fewer, or even one, Lake Missoula Flood. ...
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5066/So it's not just creationists proposing alternate interpretations of supposed 'varves.' Mainstream geologists are too. Why don't they do so with Lake Suigetsu?
I don't see any indication that anybody ever thought those were varves.

But what goes on at other sites isn't really relevant to Suigetsu. What is relevant is the copious evidence that the Suigetsu layers are varves (none of which you have addressed except for your un-evidenced claims of a worldwide conspiracy of 14C daters) , and the total lack of any evidence that they are not (you've posted nine supposed items of evidence, and none of them were evidence at all). Come on, Davie, defend "Keep in mind that Green River is supposedly Eocene (33-56 myo) and Suigetsu supposedly sits in a Jurassic (145-200 myo) accretionary complex. ... IOW, it's supposedly older". I need my daily tard fix!

[JonF]

Yes, Occam, I think that would be an excellent project well suited for you. Run along now and get busy and tell us what you find.
Here's a good project for you, Davie:


A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at least 40,000 years old.
Well??? Are you sure you're right, or not? Do you have the cojones to test your claims? To look for the truth instead of making vague and unfounded allegations?

[deadman_932]

As you probably recall, Jon, I challenged Dave on this over a year ago at AtBC. I doubt you should expect anything different. There's a number of ways to achieve this, since archaeologists are always looking for ways to cut costs (a typical reaction would be: "More money for beer?!?! Hell, YES!" ) , samples can be had from pre-existing studies or ongoing ones.

I'd assume that Dave would want to be in on the gathering and quality-control aspects, so I could contact Ann Walters over at UCLA and find out who's working on what this season or last summer. From there, it's a simple matter of going to the site to gather samples or examining pre-existing samples that "need" dating.

North American stuff would be easy and since the associations are so well known in most cases, it'd be easy to give a general date range tied to seriation, faunal analysis or other "relative" or even absolute dating method.

The only thing that would then remain is to divvy up the samples and send them off to three labs. As others have mentioned, carbon dating is a business, and the scenario of techs deliberately falsifying dates is not conducive to being in business long.

[VoxRat]

I don't see any indication that anybody ever thought those were varves.No, I don't either.
Mind you, they may have. But Dave has chosen to not share that information with us.
Or maybe his source has chosen to not share that information with Dave.

Too bad. Because we could get into questions like:
Who thought so? If, in fact, anyone did, why did they think so? What was the evidence? What evidence disproved it? What overlap is there between the "bad" evidence that made someone(?) think the Missoula rhythmites were varves and the evidence in Suigetsu? What overlap is there between the evidence that disproved the varviness of the Missoula rhythmites and the evidence words that have been brought up questioning the varviness of Suigetsu's?

Call me cynical, but I have a sneaking suspicion that creationists don't really want to get into those questions.

[SteveF]

Here's a nice summary of the history of varve theories on another famous formation ..

It's also a nice summary of one of the reasons why I don't bother dealing with you Dave; you're dishonest. I already posted on this at RnR. You said at the time:

Now there coming back around to thinking there was only ONE flood after all. Hmmm. Read about that HERE.

I replied:

Hmmm, Oard mentions John Shaws research. Indeed it's a pretty central part of the essay. He cites Shaw's 1999 paper except, curiously, he doesn't mention this:

Recent sedimentary investigations of some sites in the Missoula basin, and in the Channeled Scabland, support a single large late Wisconsin flood, as opposed to multiple floods proposed for this time period. Sediment in the Glacial Lake Missoula basin records rapid infill by jokulhlaups draining into Lake Missoula from upstream, punctuating a long period of normal varve sedimentation.

Shaw, J. et al. (1999) The channeled Scabland: Back to Bretz? Geology, 27, 605-608.

Also, I take it Oard has written a more recent article pointing out recent research on the number of floods. For example:

Clague, J.J. et al. (2003) Paleomagnetic and tephra evidence for tens of Missoula floods in southern Washington. Geology, 31, 247-250.

Palleomagnetic secular variation and a hiatus defined by two tephra layers confirm that tens of floods from Glacial Lake Missoula, Montana, entered Washington's Yakima and Walla Walla Valleys during the last glaciation. In these valleys, the field evidence for hiatuses between floods is commonly subtle. However, paleomagnetic renumence directions from waterlaid silt beds in three sections of rhythmically bedded flood deposits at Zillah, Touchet, and Burlingame Canyon display consistent secular variation that correlates serially both within and between sections. The secular variation may further correlate with paleomagnetic data from Fish Lake, Oregon, and Mono Lake, California, for the interval 12,000-17,000 C-14 yr B.P. Deposits of two successive floods are separated by two tephras derived from Mount St. Helens, Washington. The tephras differ in age by decades, indicating that a period at least this long separated two successive floods. The beds produced by these two floods are similar to all of the 40 beds in the slack-water sediment sequence, suggesting that the sequence is a product of tens of floods spanning a period of perhaps a few thousand years.

and

Smith, L.N. (2006) Stratigraphic evidence for multiple drainings of glacial Lake Missoula along the Clark Fork River, Montana, USA. Quaternary Research, 66, 311-322.

Glacial Lake Missoula, a source of Channeled Scabland flood waters, inundated valleys of northwest Montana to altitudes of similar to 1265 in and to depths of > 600 m, as evidenced by shorelines and silty lacustrine deposits. This study describes previously unrecognized catastrophic lake-drainage deposits that lie stratigraphically beneath the glacial-lake silts. The unconsolidated gravelly flood alluvium contains imbricated boulder-sized clasts. cross-stratified gravel with slip-face heights of 2-> 35 m, and 70- to 100-m-high gravel bars which all indicate a high-energy, high-volume alluvial environment. Gravel bars and high scablands were formed by catastrophic draining of one or possibly more early, high lake stands (1200-1265 m). Most glacial-lake silt, such as the Ninemile section, was deposited stratigraphically above the earlier deposits, represents a lower lake stand(s) (1050-1150 m), and was not deposited in lake(s) responsible for the highest discharge events. The glaciolacustrine silt-covered benches are incised by relict networks of valleys formed during the drainage of the last glacial lake. Significant erosion associated with the last lake draining was confined to the inner Clark Fork River canyon.

Gold plated evidence of why you are only worth ignoring.

[JonF]

As you probably recall, Jon, I challenged Dave on this over a year ago at AtBC. I doubt you should expect anything different. There's a number of ways to achieve this, since archaeologists are always looking for ways to cut costs (a typical reaction would be: "More money for beer?!?! Hell, YES!" ) , samples can be had from pre-existing studies or ongoing ones.

I'd assume that Dave would want to be in on the gathering and quality-control aspects, so I could contact Ann Walters over at UCLA and find out who's working on what this season or last summer. From there, it's a simple matter of going to the site to gather samples or examining pre-existing samples that "need" dating.

North American stuff would be easy and since the associations are so well known in most cases, it'd be easy to give a general date range tied to seriation, faunal analysis or other "relative" or even absolute dating method.

The only thing that would then remain is to divvy up the samples and send them off to three labs. As others have mentioned, carbon dating is a business, and the scenario of techs deliberately falsifying dates is not conducive to being in business long.
Hey, Dead, welcome!

No, I don't remember your challenge at AtBC. It's all a blur ...

But let's get real about this. We want stuff that the lab wouldn't immediately recognize as being about X years old, so we can provide a significant lie about the age. We don't want the labs to think there's anything special about the samples, just "ho-hum, here comes another sample from Dr. so-and-so" ... but it would be nice if we could get a cut rate based on some old-boys network without leaking any relevant information. I agree Davie would like to be in on the gathering; we would cut cost if we could find somebody collecting near him. Got any good contacts?

[deadman_932]

Jon: sure, there's lots of CRM (Cultural Resource Management) people I know (http://www.shovelbums.org/)...archaeologists tend to go into that, especially in California where developers have to submit reports when required (which is a LOT).

Bone frags or charcoal samples can't commonly be recognized as anything but detritus. To get cut rates, I'll ask around and see if I could "bundle in " some samples. Gah, the problem there might be that most people don't send out to multiple labs. I'll see if anyone I know is working near Missouri. I know folks working in Texas and Florida/Georgia doing CRM work, but nothing closer that I can think of.

[Dave Hawkins]

JonF ... I don't see any indication that anybody ever thought those were varves.
Extract from my article which JonF was responding to ... In 1986, the number of floods jumped to about 90, based on 89 rhythmites separated by what are believed to be varves, which were discovered in Sanpoil Valley in northeast Washington.14 Each rhythmite was related to one Lake Missoula flood. A total of 3,000 varves were claimed, intermingled within the flood rhythmites.:dunno:

[Dave Hawkins]

JonF (Accoster of Tard) ... But what goes on at other sites isn't really relevant to Suigetsu. Right. And we don't study other humans with diseases to try and understand human diseases.

Maybe all these years, I've been misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'accoster.' :confused:

[Dave Hawkins]

SteveF ... It's also a nice summary of one of the reasons why I don't bother dealing with you Dave; you're dishonest.Right, Steve. And you were going to 'retire' from dealing with my types 6 months ago. Face it. You're still reading my posts because you are interested. And you are interested because you see some things there that just might be true.

[Dave Hawkins]

Yes, Occam, I think that would be an excellent project well suited for you. Run along now and get busy and tell us what you find.
Here's a good project for you, Davie:


A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at least 40,000 years old.
Well??? Are you sure you're right, or not? Do you have the cojones to test your claims? To look for the truth instead of making vague and unfounded allegations?I have something even easier in mind. I'll make the contact this week and I'll let you know if I make any progress with it.

[SteveF]

SteveF ... It's also a nice summary of one of the reasons why I don't bother dealing with you Dave; you're dishonest.Right, Steve. And you were going to 'retire' from dealing with my types 6 months ago. Face it. You're still reading my posts because you are interested. And you are interested because you see some things there that just might be true.

I pretty much have retired - I just drop in occasionally, with this one instance being the result of your dishonesty.

Dave I'm going to break it to you - you have extraordinary delusions of grandeur. Your delusions span the whole gamut of ego from I and other scientists caring what you think to the ultimate in crackpottery; that geologists care what Morris and Whitcomb think. The latter case is hilarious and your attempts to take on the entirety of modern science are simply laughable. Sorry champ.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Occam's Aftershave]

JonF ... I don't see any indication that anybody ever thought those were varves.
Extract from my article which JonF was responding to ... In 1986, the number of floods jumped to about 90, based on 89 rhythmites separated by what are believed to be varves, which were discovered in Sanpoil Valley in northeast Washington.14 Each rhythmite was related to one Lake Missoula flood. A total of 3,000 varves were claimed, intermingled within the flood rhythmites.:dunno:

Uh Dave...that is a quote from an ICR article,

Oard, M.J., An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 1990.

not the primary scientific literature.

Wanna try again?

[deadman_932]

SteveF ... It's also a nice summary of one of the reasons why I don't bother dealing with you Dave; you're dishonest.Right, Steve. And you were going to 'retire' from dealing with my types 6 months ago. Face it. You're still reading my posts because you are interested. And you are interested because you see some things there that just might be true.

I pretty much have retired - I just drop in occasionally, with this one instance being the result of your dishonesty.

Dave I'm going to break it to you - you have extraordinary delusions of grandeur. Your delusions span the whole gamut of ego from I and other scientists caring what you think to the ultimate in crackpottery; that geologists care what Morris and Whitcomb think. The latter case is hilarious and your attempts to take on the entirety of modern science are simply laughable. Sorry champ.

Welcome to my ignore list.
That's pretty much a summary of how I feel about Little Davey. I'd be more than willing to deal with him if he'd take up the double-blind carbon dating issue. I'd be willing to deal with him in person to do so. But as I reminded Davey a few times back at AtBC when I told him I'd take him to gather samples from the Grand Canyon or datable coal or radiocarbon samples, he'd better not try to pull his shit on me in person. This, amusingly, led to him nearly wetting himself claiming that I'd "threatened" him. All I asked is that he be decent and respectful in dealing with me in person and I'd return the same. That seems to be a big problem with him, and why I don't even bother with him now in general.

Dave's a VERY small minnow in a very big pond, and there are larger fish to fry. What I enjoyed was slapping around Walt Brown through Dave. I liked people taking on Baumgardner at Theology Web and making him run away. I liked Cornelius Hunter showing up at AtBC and getting his nonsensical claims utterly trashed. I enjoy Behe getting embarassed by ERV until he cried... by Dembski getting smacked around so much that he can't even raise his head or publish (even in their little vanity publications) his papers that he was supposed to put out and that he withdrew once the holes were shown in them pre-publication.

There's lots of big battles and little ones -- and Davey is one of the least significant. So I applaud your position, SteveF. I should also add that I see nothing wrong at all in people taking amusement in Little Dave. He's a hoot in his delusions.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

SteveF ... It's also a nice summary of one of the reasons why I don't bother dealing with you Dave; you're dishonest.Right, Steve. And you were going to 'retire' from dealing with my types 6 months ago. Face it. You're still reading my posts because you are interested. And you are interested because you see some things there that just might be true.

Is it not remotely possible that people are fascinated by you and your behavior in the same way, and for the same reason, that they slow down and gawk at spectacular traffic accidents?

In researching your posting history on the web I've seen no signs of you posting anything that might be
1) true
2) and relevent
3a) and supportive of your poorly-defined [and I'm being extremely generous here] position
3b) or particularly damaging to the modern scientific consensus

So I think the evidence supports my 'spectacular wreckage' hypothesis.

Dr. Nelson C. Amradingo
and Nurse Durkin

[Faid]

JonF (Accoster of Tard) ... But what goes on at other sites isn't really relevant to Suigetsu. Right. And we don't study other humans with diseases to try and understand human diseases.

Maybe all these years, I've been misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'accoster.' :confused:
So dave, If a human has skin lesions from a blow with a blunt instrument, are all skin lesions the result of blunt force?

Of course not. And how do we know?

By examining the features these lesions have.

Thanks for making our point for us. Again.

(Are you going to apologise to Kirk Bertsche, dave?)

[Faid]

And dave, those "long periods of varve sedimentation" (that proponents of the single Flood Hypothesis for Misula mention, as Steve quoted) wouldn't be refering to (gasp!) VARVES, now would they?

Funny how a formation can have BOTH varves, AND flood-induced rhythmites penetrating them, eh dave?

BTW, I noticed that, in your eagerness to delve into Steve's psyche, you once again neglected to answer to his post, that successfully refuted your quote.

How about correcting that now, as a parting gift to Steve for a long story of failed attempts to have an actual conversation with you?

[JonF]

JonF ... I don't see any indication that anybody ever thought those were varves.
Extract from my article which JonF was responding to ... In 1986, the number of floods jumped to about 90, based on 89 rhythmites separated by what are believed to be varves, which were discovered in Sanpoil Valley in northeast Washington.14 Each rhythmite was related to one Lake Missoula flood. A total of 3,000 varves were claimed, intermingled within the flood rhythmites.:dunno:
Whoops, you're right. I missed that. Don't know how.

OK, what's the relevance to Suigetsu? As VoxRat put it:


Who thought so?
If, in fact, anyone did, why did they think so? What was the evidence?
What evidence disproved it?
What overlap is there between the "bad" evidence that made someone(?) think the Missoula rhythmites were varves and the evidence in Suigetsu?
What overlap is there between the evidence that disproved the varviness of the Missoula rhythmites and the evidence words that have been brought up questioning the varviness of Suigetsu's?
And ... how 'bout dat lab test, Davie? And the professional review of Snelling's "paper"?

[JonF]

JonF (Accoster of Tard) ... But what goes on at other sites isn't really relevant to Suigetsu. Right. And we don't study other humans with diseases to try and understand human diseases.

Maybe all these years, I've been misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'accoster.' :confused:
Poor analogy, Davie. To run with it, you're proposing that we study the symptoms of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis by studying randomly chosen humand. We're proposing that we study the symptoms of ALS in humans with ALS.

Situations that have been established by evidence and reasoned argumentation to be similar to Suigetsu are relevant. "Has layers with are or have been considered to be varves" is far too broad a category. Try again.

[JonF]

Yes, Occam, I think that would be an excellent project well suited for you. Run along now and get busy and tell us what you find.
Here's a good project for you, Davie:


A professional collects samples of carbon of "known expected" age, ensuring that they are not something obviously recognizable as being a particular expected age, while you watch. We submit the samples to a dating lab and lie about the expected ages, exact content and amount of lies TBD. You can watch as much of the procedure as the dating lab will let you. Other than that, all communication among the particiopants and the lab to be by email with all participants copied. If the lab reports the same or near the same made-up ages that we put on the submission form, I'll admit publically and in writing that carbon dating is untrustworthy. If the lab reports the "known expected" age, differing from the made-up ages that we put on the submission form but close to the age mainstream science expects from those samples before testing, you stop claiming fraud on the part of the dating labs (in any forum) and admit publically and in writing that the Suigetsu varves are at least 40,000 years old.
Well??? Are you sure you're right, or not? Do you have the cojones to test your claims? To look for the truth instead of making vague and unfounded allegations?I have something even easier in mind. I'll make the contact this week and I'll let you know if I make any progress with it.
Let's hear your proposal.

Face it, Davie. You couldn't design a scientific test if your life depended on it. Remember when you proposed we jointly fund K-Ar dating of lavas that don't contain xenoliths as a test to validate or invalidate Snelling's tests of Ngauruhoe 's chock full o' xenoliths lava? That was another classic tard moment.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Here's a good project for you, Davie:


Well??? Are you sure you're right, or not? Do you have the cojones to test your claims? To look for the truth instead of making vague and unfounded allegations?I have something even easier in mind. I'll make the contact this week and I'll let you know if I make any progress with it.
Let's hear your proposal.

Face it, Davie. You couldn't design a scientific test if your life depended on it. Remember when you proposed we jointly fund K-Ar dating of lavas that don't contain xenoliths as a test to validate or invalidate Snelling's tests of Ngauruhoe 's chock full o' xenoliths lava? That was another classic tard moment.

C'mon, what about his 1" of sand in a 2" full waterglass breakthrough research?

Credit where credit is due. :p

[Constant Mews]

SteveF ... It's also a nice summary of one of the reasons why I don't bother dealing with you Dave; you're dishonest.Right, Steve. And you were going to 'retire' from dealing with my types 6 months ago. Face it. You're still reading my posts because you are interested. And you are interested because you see some things there that just might be true.

Is it not remotely possible that people are fascinated by you and your behavior in the same way, and for the same reason, that they slow down and gawk at spectacular traffic accidents?

In researching your posting history on the web I've seen no signs of you posting anything that might be
1) true
2) and relevent
3a) and supportive of your poorly-defined [and I'm being extremely generous here] position
3b) or particularly damaging to the modern scientific consensus

So I think the evidence supports my 'spectacular wreckage' hypothesis.

Dr. Nelson C. Amradingo
and Nurse Durkin

I think your last point requires emphasis. No creationist - least of all Dave Hawkins - has, in the last century, contributed a single new idea to science that I am aware of. Not one recent creationist has been able to 'shine a light on something' that has led actual scientists to any new discoveries.

Dave has made the same claim over and over - whenever any particular statement of his has been shown to be incorrect, he states that he is merely trying to draw the attention of real scientists to some anomaly in the scientific data. But he has never succeeded in this. No creationist has in the last century.

In fact, creationist thinking has never contributed anything to science that I am aware of. Various interesting scientific breakthroughs have been done by creationists, but NEVER while using a creationist paradigm. Except, perhaps, inadvertently.

[Pappy Jack]

JonF ... I don't see any indication that anybody ever thought those were varves.
Extract from my article which JonF was responding to ... :dunno:

Uh Dave...that is a quote from an ICR article,

Oard, M.J., An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 1990.

not the primary scientific literature.

Wanna try again?
And, as noted before, Oard was a meteorologist with no science qualifications later than 1973, no background in geology in general or varves in particular and no apparent field research into or other experience in the science of varves. Yet Dave values his opinion over those of researchers specializing in varve studies across the globe. Well, what do you expect?

[Jet Black]

hold on people, remember this thread is about trying to actually assess whether Suigetsu is not varved by taking alternate theories and putting them to scrutiny.

so put forth other theories and we'll scrutinize them (dave, what you put forward was not a theory)

[Dave Hawkins]

hold on people, remember this thread is about trying to actually assess whether Suigetsu is not varved by taking alternate theories and putting them to scrutiny.

so put forth other theories and we'll scrutinize them (dave, what you put forward was not a theory)You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are. One of the best things we can do is observe other instances which have occurred in historic times. And we have done this ... remember what Quigley said? 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.26

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.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607Combine this quote with the article referenced in my sig and you have a powerful case for a complete re-evaluation of Lake Suigetsu in terms of catastrophism.

[Pappy Jack]

hold on people, remember this thread is about trying to actually assess whether Suigetsu is not varved by taking alternate theories and putting them to scrutiny.

so put forth other theories and we'll scrutinize them (dave, what you put forward was not a theory)You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are. One of the best things we can do is observe other instances which have occurred in historic times. And we have done this ... remember what Quigley said? 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.26

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.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607Combine this quote with the article referenced in my sig and you have a powerful case for a complete re-evaluation of Lake Suigetsu in terms of catastrophism.
Holy sh*t. Unf*ckingbelievable. I would comment further, but it hardly seems worth it.

[Occam's Aftershave]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.
No Dave, we don't know your theory.

Tell us specifically when the varves in Suigetsu were laid down, how long the entire process took, and the specific mechanism for the layering.

We've supplied all that and more for our explanation of the Suigetsu varves. It's time you did the same.

[Constant Mews]

hold on people, remember this thread is about trying to actually assess whether Suigetsu is not varved by taking alternate theories and putting them to scrutiny.

so put forth other theories and we'll scrutinize them (dave, what you put forward was not a theory)You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are. One of the best things we can do is observe other instances which have occurred in historic times. And we have done this ... remember what Quigley said? 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.26

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.
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607Combine this quote with the article referenced in my sig and you have a powerful case for a complete re-evaluation of Lake Suigetsu in terms of catastrophism.

Not in the slightest. It has already been pointed out to you that Quigley is referring to engineers, not geologists. It has already been pointed out to you that Quigley's quote is irrelevant to Suigetsu since Suigetsu does contain varves.

Why you continue to quite authorities whose position does not in any way support your claims is an interesting question.

And JB is right. You have never presented a theory. Saying "the layers in Suigetsu were laid down by one or more catastrophes by mechanisms I can't describe at times I can't describe" is not a theory.

Do you even understand what a scientific theory is? Apparently not.

[Jet Black]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.

Not really. look dave, this is a new forum not just a carry over from another forum, and the whole point of this is to actually investigate the ideas. You say that your theory is not easy to test, but often the difficulty in testing is only percieved. Just as much thought and significance goes into methods of testing as into the theories themselves, and often the most significant of ideas are clever ways to check whether something is right or not.

So lets look at a sample theory, lets say that the theory is that the suigetsu sediments were deposited from the sea by a big tsunami - well almost immediately we can see that this is wrong, because the deeper sediments are lacustrine and not brackish as they should be if all the sediments were tsunami laid, and the amounts of pyrites and siderites found in the sediment are incompatible with a oceanic origin because the chemistry of seawater is different to freshwater. Straight away we have a serious problem that the tsunami model is inadequate to explain, so there is one historical theory that was incredibly easy to test. You see, history leaves traces and we can see whether a suggestion that something happened in the past or not is true by whether what was left in history agrees with that suggestion.

Also do note that you're telling us how hard it is to test historical theories, while simultaneously claiming that you have tested the suigetsu sediments are varved or not and that you have found that it is unlikely that they are varved. In short, you're contradicting yourself because you're not putting your own ideas up to the same level of scrutiny as you are the accepted scientific models. When you question the scientists, you're sure you're right but when the scientists question you, your theories are hard to test.

[Pappy Jack]

... remember what Quigley said.....

Not in the slightest. It has already been pointed out to you that Quigley is referring to engineers, not geologists. It has already been pointed out to you that Quigley's quote is irrelevant to Suigetsu since Suigetsu does contain varves.

Why you continue to quite authorities whose position does not in any way support your claims is an interesting question.....
It is interesting also that Dave relies on the 25-years old 'authority' of Quigley based on lifting the quote in its entirety from an AiG article by retired meteorologist Michael J Oard, whose background in the field he is writing about is unspecified. Furthermore, Oard misrepresents the quote he uses from Quigley, introducing it with this misleading comment:
Quigley stated that many presumed varves are actually turbidites and that researchers in the past have simply assumed that a laminated sequence is a series of annual varves:
Source here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/lake-van-rhythmites#fnMark_1_26_1). My bolding.

So for Oard (and Dave), 'engineers' (Quigley's term) are, by unscrupulous sleight of pen, transformed into 'researchers' (Oard's term, which Dave accepts uncritically and unthinkingly).

Has Oard read any more of Quigley than he needed to to find this cherry-picked observation to misrepresent? Who knows? Has Dave Hawkins of kids4truth and truthmatters.info? Who knows? Did Quigley elaborate what Oard and Dave have quoted him saying? Who knows? One thing, though, I'm pretty sure Dave doesn't.

[Febble]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.

Actually, no, I don't know your theory. And it isn't true that historical theories are generally hard to test. Theories about historical events that are unlikely to have left much trace (was my great great grandmother unhappily married?) may be difficult, if not impossible to test because of the unlikelihood of finding any relevant data. But theories about events that had a large effect (the origin of the universe; a global Flood that wiped out almost all living things and reshaped the entire earth's surface) should be perfectly possible to test. Whether something is testable or not simply depends on whether we have access to relevant data.

Unless the theory itself is not a scientific theory (i.e. is a theory that cannot in principle be tested).

Please state your theory. I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to what created the laminated sediments underneath Lake Suigetsu.

[Jet Black]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.

Actually, no, I don't know your theory. And it isn't true that historical theories are generally hard to test. Theories about historical events that are unlikely to have left much trace (was my great great grandmother unhappily married?) may be difficult, if not impossible to test because of the unlikelihood of finding any relevant data. But theories about events that had a large effect (the origin of the universe; a global Flood that wiped out almost all living things and reshaped the entire earth's surface) should be perfectly possible to test. Whether something is testable or not simply depends on whether we have access to relevant data.

Unless the theory itself is not a scientific theory (i.e. is a theory that cannot in principle be tested).

Please state your theory. I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to what created the laminated sediments underneath Lake Suigetsu.

good point. Creationists often have this angle that historical theories are hard to test mainly to excuse their own inadequacies. The difficulty as you point out is related to the amount of evidence and not the historicity. Superstring theory for example, while saying that everything is made of tiny little strings, is hard to test because it is hard to get at the evidence that would support or falsify it.

[Febble]

[

good point. Creationists often have this angle that historical theories are hard to test mainly to excuse their own inadequacies. The difficulty as you point out is related to the amount of evidence and not the historicity. Superstring theory for example, while saying that everything is made of tiny little strings, is hard to test because it is hard to get at the evidence that would support or falsify it.

Yes, and the situation isn't helped by scientists' use of the word "predictions". Some people think (correctly) that a good theory must make testable "predictions, but infer (wrongly) that this means science cannot be applied to historical events. The reason it is wrong, of course, is that what a good theory predicts is what we will find when we look. So the finding of Tiktaalik , in the strata in which it was in fact found, was predicted by the ToE, even though Tiktaalik was fossilized a very long time ago. Similarly astronomical predictions are about what we will see when we look, even though what we see when we look is necessarily evidence of what happened in the past, right back to the very dawn of time.

So this idea that history is immune from normal scientific methodology, and requires what Creationists sometimes call "Origins Science" as opposed to "Operational Science" needs to be thorough debunked for the nonsense it is. There aren't two kinds of science, there is only one, and it can be applied equally to theories about future and past events. All that is required is data.

[Obd]

[

good point. Creationists often have this angle that historical theories are hard to test mainly to excuse their own inadequacies. The difficulty as you point out is related to the amount of evidence and not the historicity. Superstring theory for example, while saying that everything is made of tiny little strings, is hard to test because it is hard to get at the evidence that would support or falsify it.

Yes, and the situation isn't helped by scientists' use of the word "predictions". Some people think (correctly) that a good theory must make testable "predictions, but infer (wrongly) that this means science cannot be applied to historical events. The reason it is wrong, of course, is that what a good theory predicts is what we will find when we look. So the finding of Tiktaalik , in the strata in which it was in fact found, was predicted by the ToE, even though Tiktaalik was fossilized a very long time ago. Similarly astronomical predictions are about what we will see when we look, even though what we see when we look is necessarily evidence of what happened in the past, right back to the very dawn of time.

So this idea that history is immune from normal scientific methodology, and requires what Creationists sometimes call "Origins Science" as opposed to "Operational Science" needs to be thorough debunked for the nonsense it is. There aren't two kinds of science, there is only one, and it can be applied equally to theories about future and past events. All that is required is data.

I've always thought of this distinction as making the prosecution of criminals pretty much impossible. Let's say we take the hypothesis that person A killed person B with weapon W at location L 30 days ago. Now this hypothesis refers to a 'historical event' i.e. something that supposedly happened in the past. Does that make it 'hard to test'? No. There are a lot of predictions that if they turn out to be false falsify this hypothesis such as:
-Person A was at location L 30 days ago. (verifiable by witnesses, DNA material, etc.)
-Person B was at location L 30 days ago. (verifiable by witnesses, DNA material, etc.)
-Person B has used weapon W. (verifiable by ownership, DNA material, etc.)

[Pappy Jack]

Thinking out loud, for me the problem with any alternative theory of varve-like laminae formation that doesn't engage with the distinctly seasonal features that varves display is that it has to explain those seasonal features in another plausible way for which some supporting evidence can be found. The theory also has to provide a way in which the varve-like laminae can be formed in a variety of widely differing environments across the world. For me, the proof that varves are annual can be found in the organic evidence of pollen grains, for example. Pollen grains from varves in Switzerland demonstrate systematic stratification according to the blooming season for the relevant plants. Poplar and camphor blossoms (from spring) are followed by poplar and elm seeds (from summer), then camphor, grape and date-plum (autumn). Similar seasonal layers can be found in varve formations wherever they exist, are repeated again and again and are strongly supportive of a seasonal interpretation, an interpretation which, I suggest, Dave fully understands the implications of - and lies at the heart of his recent attempt to argue that seasons only began on Earth after YOGF.

For my part, I have no alternative theory to offer that makes any sense to me and that has not been already proposed. As Dave is the only one here who has problems with the accepted, evidenced theory, it behooves him to provide a detailed explanation of the theory he supports, what evidence makes it plausible, and how it explains the formation of varve-like laminae in a wide variety of differing environments, something that several other posters have already asked him to do without success.

[David B]

In this thread http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=856 I, in my capacity as an interested layman, make the hypothesis that markers of climatic events understood from evidence other than varves might be found in the varve record.

I've been quickly looking for evidence of such markers being found, and have yet to find anything relevant to the approx 535 AD climatic event mentioned in the link.

So far I come up with this:- http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/04-18.htm

Annually laminated lake sediments, varves, have the potential of providing an extended and high-resolution record of past climate changes. In one such site, Massada in the Near East, such an initiative for reconstructing the past climate was undertaken by scientists from Israel, the U.S., and Germany. The studied sediments were deposited in palaeolake Lisan (the late glacial precursor of the Dead Sea) in the time interval 17.7-26.2 cal. k.y. BP. Counting of the laminae in combination with radiometric dates indicated that these sediments were varves. Each varve comprises a dark and light colored sublaminae, which were deposited during different seasons. The dark sublaminae include material brought in by the rivers and surface runoff during the winter season. During the summer season the mineral aragonite is precipitated from the surface waters in the lake. With a view to reconstruct the past climate, the mineralogy, grain size, and thickness of the seasonal sublaminae were studied. Our studies show that drier periods in the Near East, lasting a few decades or even centuries, were common in the studied time interval. A comparison of the drier events in the Lisan record with the oxygen isotope data from the Greenland ice cores (a proxy for past temperature) indicates that cooler temperatures in Greenland were coincident with drier climate in the Near East. Our studies also show that the discharge of large ice armadas into the North Atlantic (Heinrich events) were coincident with prominent droughts in the Near East. Time-series analyses of the data suggest a strong solar forcing of the Near East climate in the studied time interval, with drier events occurring during times of reduced solar activity.

I don't know if finding markers of the 535 event in a varve record would be possible, but I would claim that if such markers were to be found of this, or other known climatic events, were to be found in the varve record than that would provide confirmation that the varves were indeed annual.

Dave - would you deny that?

ETA this looks as if it might be interesting, but I can't access the paper.

http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/921

David B (is off to try different keywords in Google)

[Dave Hawkins]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.

Not really. look dave, this is a new forum not just a carry over from another forum, and the whole point of this is to actually investigate the ideas. You say that your theory is not easy to test, but often the difficulty in testing is only percieved. Just as much thought and significance goes into methods of testing as into the theories themselves, and often the most significant of ideas are clever ways to check whether something is right or not.

So lets look at a sample theory, lets say that the theory is that the suigetsu sediments were deposited from the sea by a big tsunami - well almost immediately we can see that this is wrong, because the deeper sediments are lacustrine and not brackish as they should be if all the sediments were tsunami laid, and the amounts of pyrites and siderites found in the sediment are incompatible with a oceanic origin because the chemistry of seawater is different to freshwater. Straight away we have a serious problem that the tsunami model is inadequate to explain, so there is one historical theory that was incredibly easy to test. You see, history leaves traces and we can see whether a suggestion that something happened in the past or not is true by whether what was left in history agrees with that suggestion.

Also do note that you're telling us how hard it is to test historical theories, while simultaneously claiming that you have tested the suigetsu sediments are varved or not and that you have found that it is unlikely that they are varved. In short, you're contradicting yourself because you're not putting your own ideas up to the same level of scrutiny as you are the accepted scientific models. When you question the scientists, you're sure you're right but when the scientists question you, your theories are hard to test.Alright. Let's flesh out my theory as best we can, given that we are amateur geologists.

1) My theory is that there was a Global Flood--the literary and physical evidence for which is overwhelming. The mechanism for the Flood which I favor at present is the Hydroplate Theory. According to the HPT, there was a Rupture Phase in which the FOTD erupted powerfully, a Flood Phase in which all the previously existing continents were flooded, a Contintental Drift Phase, a Recovery Phase and a single Ice Age. More details HERE (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html).

2) Much sediment would have been laid in successive waves of deposition during the Flood Phase, maybe 45m worth? We obviously cannot say for sure now.

3) By the end of the Continental Drift Phase, I assume that the Japanese Islands would have assumed their present form, but the sea level would have been about 400 feet lower.
http://www.history.emory.edu/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Ice_age.jpeg
Ice Age Map of Japan (http://www.history.emory.edu/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Ice_age_map.html).

4) So from this point forward we have fresh water sediment deposition including glacial melt and this would have continued until 1664 when the canal was built.

5) Earthquakes and volcanoes would have been much more frequent in the early post-Flood years as the earth was recovering from the convulsions of the Flood year. This is significant because we would expect a much higher frequency of episodic inflows to the lake due to these events than is occurring today. How much sediment would be laid in the first 1000 post-Flood years? Another 20m on top of the first 45m? Again, I can only guess at this point. All we know now is that cyclic laminae (which often has been erroneously called varves) can form quite rapidly. I have given many examples in the past and I point again to the statement by Quigley (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607).

OK, so that's my theory. I agree it's not fleshed out very much, but that's OK. You have to start somewhere.

[Dave Hawkins]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.

Actually, no, I don't know your theory. And it isn't true that historical theories are generally hard to test. Theories about historical events that are unlikely to have left much trace (was my great great grandmother unhappily married?) may be difficult, if not impossible to test because of the unlikelihood of finding any relevant data. But theories about events that had a large effect (the origin of the universe; a global Flood that wiped out almost all living things and reshaped the entire earth's surface) should be perfectly possible to test. Whether something is testable or not simply depends on whether we have access to relevant data.

Unless the theory itself is not a scientific theory (i.e. is a theory that cannot in principle be tested).

Please state your theory. I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to what created the laminated sediments underneath Lake Suigetsu.

good point. Creationists often have this angle that historical theories are hard to test mainly to excuse their own inadequacies. The difficulty as you point out is related to the amount of evidence and not the historicity. Superstring theory for example, while saying that everything is made of tiny little strings, is hard to test because it is hard to get at the evidence that would support or falsify it.The problem is not the inadequacies of the creationists. You are revealing a mindset of "creationists" vs. "non-creationists." This is not the real situation and should not be so. The real situation is that there are geologists, biologists and everything else. A minority of these professionals are creationist in their view on origins and their viewpoint has had an oversized impact on the scientific community at large. Rather than have an adversarial attitude, you should consider carefully the things that they say. Throw out the bath water if you like, but don't throw out the baby with it. You just might miss something really important.

[Febble]

Yes, it's a start. Thanks.

[Febble]

The problem is not the inadequacies of the creationists. You are revealing a mindset of "creationists" vs. "non-creationists." This is not the real situation and should not be so. A minority of these professionals are creationist in their view on origins and their viewpoint has had an oversized impact on the scientific community at large.

Please give an example of a creationist scientist who has had an "oversized impact on the scientific community at large."

Rather than have an adversarial attitude, you should consider carefully the things that they say. Throw out the bath water if you like, but don't throw out the baby with it. You just might miss something really important.

I'm all for a non-adversarial attitude. But my point stands. There is no difference between the methology used to test hypotheses about historical or any past event and that used to test hypotheses about future events.

The only thing that can render a scientific hypotheses about the past (or future) untestable is lack of relevant data.

I take it you agree?

[Pappy Jack]

Yes, it's a start. Thanks.
You are much more generous than I would be in describing this as a start insofar as Dave's opening argument at Point (1) consists entirely of PRATTs. Do we have to spend page after page pointing out yet again how and why the 'literary and physical evidence' that Dave insists is 'overwhelming' exists only in his own imaginings? People explain what is wrong with each 'evidence' that Dave produces, but he neither listens nor understands but merely returns to the same old arguments on different fora as if in some way a new forum reinvigorates the validity of the arguments. There's an AFDave law for this, isn't there?

Point (2) depends entirely on Point (1), as do Points (3) and (5), except that (3) seems to be based on non-creationist science co-opted without any obvious evidence to a creationist argument. Point (4) is relatively uncontroversial, except for the debate as to what constitutes the 'point' in 'from this point forward' and how Dave can establish where it lay in time without depending on the Bible as evidence.

[Jet Black]

Actually, no, I don't know your theory. And it isn't true that historical theories are generally hard to test. Theories about historical events that are unlikely to have left much trace (was my great great grandmother unhappily married?) may be difficult, if not impossible to test because of the unlikelihood of finding any relevant data. But theories about events that had a large effect (the origin of the universe; a global Flood that wiped out almost all living things and reshaped the entire earth's surface) should be perfectly possible to test. Whether something is testable or not simply depends on whether we have access to relevant data.

Unless the theory itself is not a scientific theory (i.e. is a theory that cannot in principle be tested).

Please state your theory. I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to what created the laminated sediments underneath Lake Suigetsu.

good point. Creationists often have this angle that historical theories are hard to test mainly to excuse their own inadequacies. The difficulty as you point out is related to the amount of evidence and not the historicity. Superstring theory for example, while saying that everything is made of tiny little strings, is hard to test because it is hard to get at the evidence that would support or falsify it.The problem is not the inadequacies of the creationists. You are revealing a mindset of "creationists" vs. "non-creationists." This is not the real situation and should not be so. The real situation is that there are geologists, biologists and everything else. A minority of these professionals are creationist in their view on origins and their viewpoint has had an oversized impact on the scientific community at large. Rather than have an adversarial attitude, you should consider carefully the things that they say. Throw out the bath water if you like, but don't throw out the baby with it. You just might miss something really important.


That has nothing to do with anything I said. Do you mind not keep doing that - this is about the 2nd or 3rd time you've responded to me with irrelevant comments in the past day or so.

[Dave Hawkins]

That has nothing to do with anything I said. Do you mind not keep doing that - this is about the 2nd or 3rd time you've responded to me with irrelevant comments in the past day or so.I find it odd that you are concerned about me posting irrelevancies. Do you not see the veritable tsunami of irrelevancies posted every day on these threads by others?

You want me to address the substance of your post? What was the substance? That creationists are light on evidence? Maybe in some areas, but not in the area of Flood geology. Evidence for that is overwhelming and plenteous. There. Are you happy that I addressed your point better?

I also responded to your call for more details of my Lake Suigetsu Theory. Do I get no kudos for that? Only negativism for my "irrelevancies"?

[Febble]

Yes, it's a start. Thanks.
You are much more generous than I would be in describing this as a start insofar as Dave's opening argument at Point (1) consists entirely of PRATTs. Do we have to spend page after page pointing out yet again how and why the 'literary and physical evidence' that Dave insists is 'overwhelming' exists only in his own imaginings? People explain what is wrong with each 'evidence' that Dave produces, but he neither listens nor understands but merely returns to the same old arguments on different fora as if in some way a new forum reinvigorates the validity of the arguments. There's an AFDave law for this, isn't there?

Point (2) depends entirely on Point (1), as do Points (3) and (5), except that (3) seems to be based on non-creationist science co-opted without any obvious evidence to a creationist argument. Point (4) is relatively uncontroversial, except for the debate as to what constitutes the 'point' in 'from this point forward' and how Dave can establish where it lay in time without depending on the Bible as evidence.

It's a start because it's an actual theory of sorts. We can derive testable predictions from it.

[Pappy Jack]

You are much more generous than I would be in describing this as a start.....

It's a start because it's an actual theory of sorts. We can derive testable predictions from it.
Well, yes, I agree with what you say in this respect, but the 'testable predictions' derived from YOGF and hydropants' 'theories' have been shown wanting every time they have been raised and looked at in detail elsewhere, not least because the starting points are pretty much nothing more than assumption and assertion. My point is, do we want to go through big rips, two miles of sedimentary rock worldwide everywhere, short-life ice age, etc, etc all over again? Aren't we just pandering to Dave's desire to witness to all us heathens and heretics? And if the initial premise is an evidence-free assumption/assertion anyway, what possible predictive value can it have?

Still, if everyone else is happy, bring on the testable predictions and let's see how well they stand up yet again to examination by the scientists.

[Ray Moscow]

^^I think scientists here are being trolled by Dave and Guz. They never post anything that is even slightly useful or factual.

Why do our scientists and other smart folks put up with it? Just for the entertainment of trashing stupid ideas?

[Occam's Aftershave]

I also responded to your call for more details of my Lake Suigetsu Theory. Do I get no kudos for that? Only negativism for my "irrelevancies"?
Wow Dave, heck of a hypothesis (not a theory) you've got there. Any idea how we'd go about testing it? What do you say we take cores from the lake bed and examine them. We find that the measured pMC values for each layer decreases exponentially with depth, all the way to the lower limits of our detection equipment (60,000-70,00 layers)

How does your Suigetsu idea explain the empirical pMC data? In your scenario, why do the lower 45m worth of layers have different pMC values at all since they were all laid at the same time?

Time to start thinking Dave.

[Lucretius III]

The phone rang just as I was about to point out that Dave's post is at best a hypothesis and I come back to find Occams has beaten me to it.
So with the second word my doubts start
Then we have this supposed overwhelming evidence of the Global Flood ,which to be honest I have never seen (Not even in literature never mind the scientific aspects )

Need I go on ?

[Jet Black]

That has nothing to do with anything I said. Do you mind not keep doing that - this is about the 2nd or 3rd time you've responded to me with irrelevant comments in the past day or so.I find it odd that you are concerned about me posting irrelevancies. Do you not see the veritable tsunami of irrelevancies posted every day on these threads by others?

ues, and I have asked people to stop that several times too. I'm not a mod here though.

You want me to address the substance of your post? What was the substance? That creationists are light on evidence? Maybe in some areas, but not in the area of Flood geology. Evidence for that is overwhelming and plenteous. There. Are you happy that I addressed your point better?

well the evidence for a global flood is neither overwhelming nor plentiful, and that doesn't answer what I was talking about with Febble either.

I also responded to your call for more details of my Lake Suigetsu Theory. Do I get no kudos for that? Only negativism for my "irrelevancies"?

well done. Is that better?

[Jet Black]

You already know my theory, but it's really hard to test, as many historical theories are.

Not really. look dave, this is a new forum not just a carry over from another forum, and the whole point of this is to actually investigate the ideas. You say that your theory is not easy to test, but often the difficulty in testing is only percieved. Just as much thought and significance goes into methods of testing as into the theories themselves, and often the most significant of ideas are clever ways to check whether something is right or not.

So lets look at a sample theory, lets say that the theory is that the suigetsu sediments were deposited from the sea by a big tsunami - well almost immediately we can see that this is wrong, because the deeper sediments are lacustrine and not brackish as they should be if all the sediments were tsunami laid, and the amounts of pyrites and siderites found in the sediment are incompatible with a oceanic origin because the chemistry of seawater is different to freshwater. Straight away we have a serious problem that the tsunami model is inadequate to explain, so there is one historical theory that was incredibly easy to test. You see, history leaves traces and we can see whether a suggestion that something happened in the past or not is true by whether what was left in history agrees with that suggestion.

Also do note that you're telling us how hard it is to test historical theories, while simultaneously claiming that you have tested the suigetsu sediments are varved or not and that you have found that it is unlikely that they are varved. In short, you're contradicting yourself because you're not putting your own ideas up to the same level of scrutiny as you are the accepted scientific models. When you question the scientists, you're sure you're right but when the scientists question you, your theories are hard to test.Alright. Let's flesh out my theory as best we can, given that we are amateur geologists.

1) My theory is that there was a Global Flood--the literary and physical evidence for which is overwhelming. The mechanism for the Flood which I favor at present is the Hydroplate Theory. According to the HPT, there was a Rupture Phase in which the FOTD erupted powerfully, a Flood Phase in which all the previously existing continents were flooded, a Contintental Drift Phase, a Recovery Phase and a single Ice Age. More details HERE (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html).

2) Much sediment would have been laid in successive waves of deposition during the Flood Phase, maybe 45m worth? We obviously cannot say for sure now.

3) By the end of the Continental Drift Phase, I assume that the Japanese Islands would have assumed their present form, but the sea level would have been about 400 feet lower.
http://www.history.emory.edu/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Ice_age.jpeg
Ice Age Map of Japan (http://www.history.emory.edu/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Ice_age_map.html).

4) So from this point forward we have fresh water sediment deposition including glacial melt and this would have continued until 1664 when the canal was built.

5) Earthquakes and volcanoes would have been much more frequent in the early post-Flood years as the earth was recovering from the convulsions of the Flood year. This is significant because we would expect a much higher frequency of episodic inflows to the lake due to these events than is occurring today. How much sediment would be laid in the first 1000 post-Flood years? Another 20m on top of the first 45m? Again, I can only guess at this point. All we know now is that cyclic laminae (which often has been erroneously called varves) can form quite rapidly. I have given many examples in the past and I point again to the statement by Quigley (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607).

OK, so that's my theory. I agree it's not fleshed out very much, but that's OK. You have to start somewhere.

well that is your overarching model of how the world has developed over the past ~6000 years, however it can be basically applied to anywhere. What I am looking for is mechanisms for varve formation (hence the title of the thread), and the model you describe there does not address varve formation at all. Varve formation is a big problem to your overarching model because your model to date has no explanation as to how such structures with high numbers of layers with certain features can form. saying ""cyclic laminae" can form quite rapidly is somewhat useless if the features of those laminae do not match the features of annual lacustrine non-glacial varves.

[SteveF]

Wow Dave, heck of a hypothesis (not a theory) you've got there. Any idea how we'd go about testing it? What do you say we take cores from the lake bed and examine them. We find that the measured pMC values for each layer decreases exponentially with depth, all the way to the lower limits of our detection equipment (60,000-70,00 layers).

Without wanting to sound too pedantic, the dates go from around 7500 radiocarbon years to around 35,000 radiocarbon years.

[Lucretius III]

Not really. look dave, this is a new forum not just a carry over from another forum, and the whole point of this is to actually investigate the ideas. You say that your theory is not easy to test, but often the difficulty in testing is only percieved. Just as much thought and significance goes into methods of testing as into the theories themselves, and often the most significant of ideas are clever ways to check whether something is right or not.

So lets look at a sample theory, lets say that the theory is that the suigetsu sediments were deposited from the sea by a big tsunami - well almost immediately we can see that this is wrong, because the deeper sediments are lacustrine and not brackish as they should be if all the sediments were tsunami laid, and the amounts of pyrites and siderites found in the sediment are incompatible with a oceanic origin because the chemistry of seawater is different to freshwater. Straight away we have a serious problem that the tsunami model is inadequate to explain, so there is one historical theory that was incredibly easy to test. You see, history leaves traces and we can see whether a suggestion that something happened in the past or not is true by whether what was left in history agrees with that suggestion.

Also do note that you're telling us how hard it is to test historical theories, while simultaneously claiming that you have tested the suigetsu sediments are varved or not and that you have found that it is unlikely that they are varved. In short, you're contradicting yourself because you're not putting your own ideas up to the same level of scrutiny as you are the accepted scientific models. When you question the scientists, you're sure you're right but when the scientists question you, your theories are hard to test.Alright. Let's flesh out my theory as best we can, given that we are amateur geologists.

1) My theory is that there was a Global Flood--the literary and physical evidence for which is overwhelming. The mechanism for the Flood which I favor at present is the Hydroplate Theory. According to the HPT, there was a Rupture Phase in which the FOTD erupted powerfully, a Flood Phase in which all the previously existing continents were flooded, a Contintental Drift Phase, a Recovery Phase and a single Ice Age. More details HERE (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html).

2) Much sediment would have been laid in successive waves of deposition during the Flood Phase, maybe 45m worth? We obviously cannot say for sure now.

3) By the end of the Continental Drift Phase, I assume that the Japanese Islands would have assumed their present form, but the sea level would have been about 400 feet lower.
http://www.history.emory.edu/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Ice_age.jpeg
Ice Age Map of Japan (http://www.history.emory.edu/RAVINA/PROJECT/Maps/Ice_age_map.html).

4) So from this point forward we have fresh water sediment deposition including glacial melt and this would have continued until 1664 when the canal was built.

5) Earthquakes and volcanoes would have been much more frequent in the early post-Flood years as the earth was recovering from the convulsions of the Flood year. This is significant because we would expect a much higher frequency of episodic inflows to the lake due to these events than is occurring today. How much sediment would be laid in the first 1000 post-Flood years? Another 20m on top of the first 45m? Again, I can only guess at this point. All we know now is that cyclic laminae (which often has been erroneously called varves) can form quite rapidly. I have given many examples in the past and I point again to the statement by Quigley (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607).

OK, so that's my theory. I agree it's not fleshed out very much, but that's OK. You have to start somewhere.

well that is your overarching model of how the world has developed over the past ~6000 years, however it can be basically applied to anywhere. What I am looking for is mechanisms for varve formation (hence the title of the thread), and the model you describe there does not address varve formation at all.

I honestly think thsat Dave believes he has covered this with section 2) and his "mechanism " for varve formation is the highlighted part .

2) Much sediment would have been laid in successive waves of deposition during the Flood Phase, maybe 45m worth? We obviously cannot say for sure now.

[Febble]

I honestly think thsat Dave believes he has covered this with section 2) and his "mechanism " for varve formation is the highlighted part .

2) Much sediment would have been laid in successive waves of deposition during the Flood Phase, maybe 45m worth? We obviously cannot say for sure now.

Well, no, we cannot. But we can form a hypothesis and test it against data.

So, Dave: what kind of deposition process might have laid thousands of fine alternating layers of freshwater diatom rich and freshwater diatom poor sediment during the postulated Flood Phase?

[Dave Hawkins]

[QUOTE=Dave Hawkins;20907][QUOTE=Jet Black;20804]well that is your overarching model of how the world has developed over the past ~6000 years, however it can be basically applied to anywhere. What I am looking for is mechanisms for varve formation (hence the title of the thread), and the model you describe there does not address varve formation at all. Varve formation is a big problem to your overarching model because your model to date has no explanation as to how such structures with high numbers of layers with certain features can form. saying ""cyclic laminae" can form quite rapidly is somewhat useless if the features of those laminae do not match the features of annual lacustrine non-glacial varves.What? You're looking for mechanisms for varve formation? I don't think so. I think you already have those well in mind. I suppose what you really mean is that you are looking for mechanisms for non-varve rhythmite formation? That is, you want to know how layers that look like varves to you, may actually not be. Right?

OK, well first, I think you need to let the weight of Quigley's words (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607) sink into your mind. I get the feeling that you have dismissed him and that you really think that most layers like Suigetsu ARE in fact true varves. Until you can get comfortable with the growing realization among geologists that many so called 'varves' are not really, you will have a tough time with this discussion.

And that brings me to my final point here ... I've already shown you many examples of layers like Suigetsu which are known NOT to be true varves (and you should be able to find them on your own also (just go to AiG or CMI and search the word 'varve' ... go on, it won't kill you). I show you these and you hand wave them away. You hand wave away the Scheiber paper also and say it's irrelevant. So I am left wondering if there is ANYTHING that will be convincing to you.

[Jet Black]

if you're not going to follow the point of the thread as outlined in the OP, then just don't, ok?

[Occam's Aftershave]

And that brings me to my final point here ... I've already shown you many examples of layers like Suigetsu which are known NOT to be true varves (and you should be able to find them on your own also (just go to AiG or CMI and search the word 'varve' ... go on, it won't kill you). I show you these and you hand wave them away. You hand wave away the Scheiber paper also and say it's irrelevant. So I am left wondering if there is ANYTHING that will be convincing to you.
Well Dave, you could try giving us your explanation for the observed physical evidence, like the exponentially decreasing with depth pMC values in the varves, and the known annual nature of the pollen found in each layer.

Little things like that would go a long way in helping your case, ya know?

[VoxRat]

...
1) My theory is that there was a Global Flood--the literary and physical evidence for which is overwhelming. ...So you keep asserting.

Yet you have never presented any - let alone "overwhelming" - evidence for such a thing.

(And, no, folk-tales and myths do not constitute "evidence")

[Dave Hawkins]

Since Dave doesn't seem to be playing, how about we play devil's advocate regarding varves. Lets say the general scientific consensus already exists, but we want to demonstrate that varves such as suigetsu are not annual features, but nor are they a feature constructed by any vindictive God who wants to fool people. What are the alternate possible models that could result in an evenly laminated set of layers like these. At the moment the resemblance need only be crude, but so long as we have a set of ideas down, then we can see where they match and where they fail. perhaps some of the professional geologists could chime in too.

so firstly, what mechanisms can generate alternating layers of sediment.OK. JB thinks I'm avoiding the OP. Let's see if I can fix that. Possible alternate models? Well here's one that I gave a long time ago ...

Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

Journal of PaleolimnologyPublisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0921-2728 (Print) 1573-0417 (Online)
Issue Volume 17, Number 4 / May, 1997
DOI 10.1023/A:1007910732353
Pages 437-449
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Brian K. Hammer1 Contact Information and Eugene F. Stoermer1 Contact Information
(1) Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–2099, USA

Abstract Sediment stratigraphy and diatom succession were studied in an 80.5-cm core taken from the deepest part of Third Sister Lake, a small kettle hole in a recently urbanized landscape of southeastern Michigan. Alternating light clay and dark organic bands documented sporadic inputs of clay from outside the basin during rain events, rather than annual laminations. Urban construction activity also disrupted the inflow stream bed and facilitated transport of clay into the lake to generate non-rhythmic banding in the lake''s deep hole. Diatom analysis revealed dramatic changes in predominant taxa with sediment depth verifying the non-annual nature of the sediment bands. Observation of halophilic diatom taxa also documented effects of human activity such as road salting on this small, urban lake.Alternate models? Sporadic rain events. Now ... some kudos please for addressing your OP precisely?

[SteveF]

Well Dave, you could try giving us your explanation for the observed physical evidence, like the exponentially decreasing with depth pMC values in the varves, and the known annual nature of the pollen found in each layer.

Since I'm in uber pedantic mode, there's no reported annual pollen signal in the Suigetsu varves.

:p

[VoxRat]

You want me to address the substance of your post? What was the substance? That creationists are light on evidence? Maybe in some areas, but not in the area of Flood geology. Evidence for that is overwhelming and plenteous. There. Are you happy that I addressed your point better?Is this pure trolling?
Or is that Dave's honest idea of "addressing substance"?
To repeat - yet again - an unsupported and unsupportable assertion?

[Febble]

What? You're looking for mechanisms for varve formation? I don't think so. I think you already have those well in mind. I suppose what you really mean is that you are looking for mechanisms for non-varve rhythmite formation? That is, you want to know how layers that look like varves to you, may actually not be. Right?
Right.

OK, well first, I think you need to let the weight of Quigley's words (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=607) sink into your mind. I get the feeling that you have dismissed him and that you really think that most layers like Suigetsu ARE in fact true varves.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are. What matters is the evidence that the layers in any given lake are true varves, and different sets of evidence have been given to you that layers in several lakes are true varves, including lakes in which they can be observed forming today. And the evidence that the Suigetsu layers are true varves has been recently well summarised by RAFH. Quigley's warning to engineers not to misuse the terms is irrelevant. Of course no-one should misuse the term, but the fact that some engineers apparently do has no relevance to whether the varves in lakes "like Suigetsu" are true varves. What IS relevance is the evidence that they are.

Until you can get comfortable with the growing realization among geologists that many so called 'varves' are not really, you will have a tough time with this discussion.

Any scientist is perfectly "comfortable" with the idea that data may contradict their models. The point is that you have presented no evidence that the Lake Suigetsu data contradict the varve model, while there are many converging lines of evidence to suggest that they are.

And that brings me to my final point here ... I've already shown you many examples of layers like Suigetsu which are known NOT to be true varves (and you should be able to find them on your own also (just go to AiG or CMI and search the word 'varve' ... go on, it won't kill you). I show you these and you hand wave them away. You hand wave away the Scheiber paper also and say it's irrelevant. So I am left wondering if there is ANYTHING that will be convincing to you.

None of the examples you have given of "layers like Suigetsu" that are not varves are in fact "layers like Suigetsu". They are all of layers quite unlike Suigetsu, in various ways, as has been pointed out to you. One, IIRC was of a tidal estuary with complex currents. If you can find an example of a set of sedimentary layers which:


Have finely alternating bands of freshwater annually blooming diatoms
In which layer-count is linearly correlated with radiocarbon dating
In which depth is linearly correlated with radiocarbon dating


and for which there is also evidence that they were formed non-annually, please cite it.

[Dave Hawkins]

Here's another one, JB ... An ice-contact rhythmite (turbidite) succession deposited during the November 1996 catastrophic outburst flood (jökulhlaup), Skei&z.eth;arárjökull, Iceland

Andrew J. Russella, * and Óskar Knudsenb
a Department of Earth Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK
b Klettur, Bíldshöf&z.eth;a 12, IS 112 Reykjavík, Iceland
Received 4 December 1998; accepted 19 March 1999. Available online 24 August 1999.

Abstract

This paper presents new evidence of coarse-grained deposition from a turbulent suspension within a low-energy ‘slack-water' location during a recent well-documented, volcanically related, high-magnitude glacier outburst flood or jökulhlaup, Skei&z.eth;arárjökull, Iceland. This study uses established spatial and temporal constraints on processes observed during the November 1996 jökulhlaup to interpret resultant flood sediments. Coarse-grained sediments were deposited within flood slack-water conditions from suspension load by repeated turbulent flow pulses with durations of seconds–minutes. Depositional processes are thought to be analogous to turbidity currents. A minimum thickness of 15 m of rhythmites record suspended sediment dynamics at a conduit mouth during the late rising and early falling stages of the jökulhlaup. The morphology and sedimentology of deposits in a large ice-walled chamber are consistent with previous models proposed for bar deposition during cataclysmic floods. Flood flows within subglacial conduits and ice-walled open channels were sufficiently powerful to carry material up to boulder size in suspension. Macro-turbulent flows carried huge quantities of suspended sediment to high levels within the main outlet channel. High-frequency, short-duration flow pulses entering a complex ice-walled channel geometry generated highly unsteady and non-uniform flows capable of both erosional and depositional work. This study lends support to the deposition of multiple rhythmites per flood under main flow slack-water conditions. Identification of high-magnitude jökulhlaups in the ice-marginal sedimentary record will depend on the identification and correct interpretation of feeder channel and slack-water turbidite sediments. The results described here may also have application to rhythmic deposits formed by large turbulent flows in other environmental settings.

[Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo]

...
1) My theory is that there was a Global Flood--the literary and physical evidence for which is overwhelming. ...So you keep asserting.

Yet you have never presented any - let alone "overwhelming" - evidence for such a thing.

(And, no, folk-tales and myths do not constitute "evidence")

Worse, he has never addressed any of the counters to the pitiful claims for evidence he has produced.
I have in mind the 2+ miles of sediment over China and Egypt
The impossibility of the hydroplate theory given the impossibility of the physical processes it proposes (300 trillion nuclear explosions? yeah, right)
The absence of flood myths in many ancient cultures
The irreconcilability of the flood myths across those cultures which do have them
etc.

Further, dave seems to sincerely believe [insofar as he is sincere about anything, which I am coming to question] that all he has to do is find weaknesses or "flaws" in the standard theory for his nonsense to prevail.
He fails to understand that theories are only ever supplanted by better theories, and he doesn't have one. Not a theory, not even a hypothesis, because he has no data that is not better explained by many alternatives.
His view is the worst possible choice for explaining the data, both because of what it does not explain and cannot explain, and because of the conflicts between the purported explanation and those things which we do, in fact, know.

Dr. Nelson C. Armadingo
and Nurse Durkin, who especially liked the 2+ mile thick sediment layer episode when we found that one

[Dave Hawkins]

And yet another one ... Geology; July 1999; v. 27; no. 7; p. 605-608

The Channeled Scabland; back to Bretz?

John Shaw, Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Brian Sawyer, Claire Beaney, Jerome-Etienne Lesemann, Alberto Musacchio, Bruce Rains, and Robert R. Young

University of Alberta, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Edmonton, AB, Canada

The Channeled Scabland, Washington State, United States, is only partly the result of erosion by the catastrophic drainage of Glacial Lake Missoula: there were other sources of meltwater. Recent sedimentary investigations of some sites in the Missoula basin, and in the Channeled Scabland, support a single large late Wisconsin flood, as opposed to multiple floods proposed for this time period. Sediment in the Glacial Lake Missoula basin records rapid infill by jokulhlaups draining into Lake Missoula from upstream, punctuating a long period of normal varve sedimentation. This was independent of sedimentation in the main Scabland tract, where proximal and distal rhythmic beds are explained as resulting from multiple pulses, or surges, within a single flood. Geomorphic and sedimentary evidence supports the conclusion that drainage from the Cordilleran trunk valleys was important, and pulses were probably related to the drainage of these valleys.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/journal_of_creation/vol14/5066fig3.jpg

Prior to this, as many as 3000 varves were claimed by this study ...

Atwater, B.F., Pleistocene glacial-lake depostis of the Sanpoil River Valley, northeastern Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1661, Washington D.C., 1986. Return to text.

*******************************

You want mechanisms? You've got them.

What you really need is a burning desire for the truth. Do you have this?

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.

[VoxRat]

Since Dave doesn't seem to be playing, how about we play devil's advocate regarding varves. Lets say the general scientific consensus already exists, but we want to demonstrate that varves such as suigetsu are not annual features, but nor are they a feature constructed by any vindictive God who wants to fool people. What are the alternate possible models that could result in an evenly laminated set of layers like these. At the moment the resemblance need only be crude, but so long as we have a set of ideas down, then we can see where they match and where they fail. perhaps some of the professional geologists could chime in too.

so firstly, what mechanisms can generate alternating layers of sediment.OK. JB thinks I'm avoiding the OP. Let's see if I can fix that. Possible alternate models? Well here's one that I gave a long time ago ...

Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

Journal of PaleolimnologyPublisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0921-2728 (Print) 1573-0417 (Online)
Issue Volume 17, Number 4 / May, 1997
DOI 10.1023/A:1007910732353
Pages 437-449
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Brian K. Hammer1 Contact Information and Eugene F. Stoermer1 Contact Information
(1) Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–2099, USA

Abstract Sediment stratigraphy and diatom succession were studied in an 80.5-cm core taken from the deepest part of Third Sister Lake, a small kettle hole in a recently urbanized landscape of southeastern Michigan. Alternating light clay and dark organic bands documented sporadic inputs of clay from outside the basin during rain events, rather than annual laminations. Urban construction activity also disrupted the inflow stream bed and facilitated transport of clay into the lake to generate non-rhythmic banding in the lake''s deep hole. Diatom analysis revealed dramatic changes in predominant taxa with sediment depth verifying the non-annual nature of the sediment bands. Observation of halophilic diatom taxa also documented effects of human activity such as road salting on this small, urban lake.Alternate models? Sporadic rain events. Now ... some kudos please for addressing your OP precisely?Great! Kudos! That actually does pertain to the OP.

But it's just a first step.

That same paper goes into the criteria by which the Third Sister Lake rhythmites were distinguished from (annual) varves. Now: let's apply those very criteria apply in Suigetsu, shall we?

Here's another one, JB ... An ice-contact rhythmite (turbidite) succession deposited during the November 1996 catastrophic outburst flood (jökulhlaup), Skei&z.eth;arárjökull, Iceland

Andrew J. Russella, * and Óskar Knudsenb
a Department of Earth Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK
b Klettur, Bíldshöf&z.eth;a 12, IS 112 Reykjavík, Iceland
Received 4 December 1998; accepted 19 March 1999. Available online 24 August 1999.

Abstract

This paper presents new evidence of coarse-grained deposition from a turbulent suspension within a low-energy ‘slack-water' location during a recent well-documented, volcanically related, high-magnitude glacier outburst flood or jökulhlaup, Skei&z.eth;arárjökull, Iceland. This study uses established spatial and temporal constraints on processes observed during the November 1996 jökulhlaup to interpret resultant flood sediments. Coarse-grained sediments were deposited within flood slack-water conditions from suspension load by repeated turbulent flow pulses with durations of seconds–minutes. Depositional processes are thought to be analogous to turbidity currents. A minimum thickness of 15 m of rhythmites record suspended sediment dynamics at a conduit mouth during the late rising and early falling stages of the jökulhlaup. The morphology and sedimentology of deposits in a large ice-walled chamber are consistent with previous models proposed for bar deposition during cataclysmic floods. Flood flows within subglacial conduits and ice-walled open channels were sufficiently powerful to carry material up to boulder size in suspension. Macro-turbulent flows carried huge quantities of suspended sediment to high levels within the main outlet channel. High-frequency, short-duration flow pulses entering a complex ice-walled channel geometry generated highly unsteady and non-uniform flows capable of both erosional and depositional work. This study lends support to the deposition of multiple rhythmites per flood under main flow slack-water conditions. Identification of high-magnitude jökulhlaups in the ice-marginal sedimentary record will depend on the identification and correct interpretation of feeder channel and slack-water turbidite sediments. The results described here may also have application to rhythmic deposits formed by large turbulent flows in other environmental settings. I think you'll find that the relevance to Suigetsu is nonexistent.
You need to address alternating layers of hydrologically indistinguishable diatoms. Alternating layers of siderites and pyrites.
Uniform, monotonic, decrease of pMC (i.e. increasing radiocarbon dates) with depth.among other issues.

C&P'ing abstracts of tangential, at best, relevance doesn't cut it.


ETA:
Oh, look!
An example of posts crossing: polite and substantive participant Febble posted virtually the same post (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=21068&postcount=72) as vapid, vandalistic heckler VoxRat, while I was typing this up!

[Occam's Aftershave]

Well Dave, you could try giving us your explanation for the observed physical evidence, like the exponentially decreasing with depth pMC values in the varves, and the known annual nature of the pollen found in each layer.

Since I'm in uber pedantic mode, there's no reported annual pollen signal in the Suigetsu varves.

:p

You're right, I meant to say algae blooms. My bad.

[BWE]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.

Honest question here. My own experience with varves leads me to conclude that geologists typically aren't the ones measuring them. There is a long list of caveats relating to my knowledge of varve formations so I don't claim to know for sure but boats equipped with core drills (that aren't looking for oil) don't normally have any USGS insignias on them.

Is there a strong overlap with geology?

[JonF]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.
Studying similar formations is productive. "Has alternating layers" is not sufficient evidence of productive similarity. "Has alternating layers of silt/diatoms that bloom seasonally, which same alternating layets contain alternating siderites/pyrites, and which contain organic material with 12C/14C ratios exponentially decreasing with depth" is probably sufficient.

[SteveF]

Honest question here. My own experience with varves leads me to conclude that geologists typically aren't the ones measuring them. There is a long list of caveats relating to my knowledge of varve formations so I don't claim to know for sure but boats equipped with core drills (that aren't looking for oil) don't normally have any USGS insignias on them.

Is there a strong overlap with geology?

The USGS aren't synonymous with geology!

[Occam's Aftershave]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.

Let's see if we an find evidence that AFDave Hawkins is a criminal.

Here's a 1955 case where an ex Air Force pilot robbed a bank!

Oh look, here's another case where an ex Air Force pilot stole a car!

Wait! Here's another case where an ex Air Force embezzeled money from his church!

So by studying other similar cases of ex Air Force pilots we can tell a lot about your behavior, right Dave?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, how would you test your hypothesis that the layers in Suigetsu formed 10-100 per year?

What evidence would falsify your hypothesis?

THINK Dave! It's SCIENCE!

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.
Studying similar formations is productive. "Has alternating layers" is not sufficient evidence of productive similarity. "Has alternating layers of silt/diatoms that bloom seasonally, which same alternating layets contain alternating siderites/pyrites, and which contain organic material with 12C/14C ratios exponentially decreasing with depth" is probably sufficient.IOW, you are looking for an EXACT duplicate of Suigetsu, except one that we have a videotape of the layers being formed. Righto! Comin' right up. I've also got a bridge I will sell you.

[VoxRat]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.Dave, "real geologists" will want to account for (a) the similarities, and (b) the differences.

You don't seem to get that.

[VoxRat]

Febble ... Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.
Studying similar formations is productive. "Has alternating layers" is not sufficient evidence of productive similarity. "Has alternating layers of silt/diatoms that bloom seasonally, which same alternating layets contain alternating siderites/pyrites, and which contain organic material with 12C/14C ratios exponentially decreasing with depth" is probably sufficient.IOW, you are looking for an EXACT duplicate of Suigetsu, except one that we have a videotape of the layers being formed. Righto! Comin' right up. I've also got a bridge I will sell you.Dave, you're being obtuse; your IOW is a distortion of the obvious intent of the post. Why must you always do this?

The examples you've come up with have pretty much nothing in common with Suigetsu, except that "layers" exist. How about an example that has at least something relevant in common with Suigetsu?

[Febble]

Febble ... It doesn't matter what anyone thinks that "most layers like Suigetsu" are.Really, Febble? So studying other, similar formations is not productive for helping us to determine how they were formed? Why don't you tell that to the real geologists. They will beg to differ with you.

Let me put this more clearly: most people with a height of 3 feet are children. However, some people with a height of 3 feet people are adults with some kind of growth deficiency. Knowing that the most frequent cause of being 3 feet tall is being a child has no relevance to the question as to the cause of being 3 feet tall in regard to a person who is clearly not a child.

In this thread we are looking for alternative non-annual explanations for sedimentary laminae in which layers of annually blooming diatoms alternate.

[BWE]

Honest question here. My own experience with varves leads me to conclude that geologists typically aren't the ones measuring them. There is a long list of caveats relating to my knowledge of varve formations so I don't claim to know for sure but boats equipped with core drills (that aren't looking for oil) don't normally have any USGS insignias on them.

Is there a strong overlap with geology?

The USGS aren't synonymous with geology!

Goddmmit. I know that. I was trying to figure a shorthand way of making my point.

I'll try harder next time.

Here: I've never met a geologist who studies varves. Is it common?

[Febble]

IOW, you are looking for an EXACT duplicate of Suigetsu, except one that we have a videotape of the layers being formed. Righto! Comin' right up. I've also got a bridge I will sell you.

What I want from you is a single example of NON-annually formed layers of alternating annually blooming diatom species.

If you can provide that, I'll take the bridge too.

[SteveF]

Goddmmit. I know that. I was trying to figure a shorthand way of making my point.

I'll try harder next time.

Here: I've never met a geologist who studies varves. Is it common?

Well, it may define how you define geologist. A substantial number of people who study varves are Quaternary Scientists. For various historical reasons, there is a bit of a distinction between quaternary people and the rest of the geologic community. This distinction is especially acute in the UK, less so in the rest of the world.

You probably wouldn't refer to the Suigetsu people, for example, as geologists. This is, to some extent, a matter of semantics, however there are some differences in training between people who study Quaternary geology and those who look at