Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

All the dates were on terrestrial stuff like that - none on diatoms themselves.

Paulk, I agree that we need more information on the topography, than I could find on the internet. Like wind direction in respect to the shallows, watershed (any streams contributing to, channels), than what I could find on the internet.

Your hypothosis is kinda dented by the comparison to the other lake. It is also unable to explain the correlation between the varves and C14. It also is unable to explain the correlation between this and other methods.It doesn't much matter which way the wind blew. Or can you give some clue as to how it world with respect to these points?

Ned, If your dating leaves, there might be some correlations back 5,000 years. I've heard that C-14 is soluble so make me question annual varves farther back in time.Your not addressing glacial melt contributing multitudes of varves by natural sedimentation and natural erosion. I have no problem that your correlations would agree, because your assuming only one annual varve per year for long periods of time, and not factoring the melting glaciers.Razd correctly explained that when the wave is circular over water the water or sediments within stays within the circular column of water. The wave simply becomes elliptical and not circular causing the wave to rise as it hit the shallows.The problem with Razds and your belief the sediments can not be moved by the waves is disfuted by what happens in the natural. The Wave when it hits the shallows presses up, but its being sheared on the bottom of the wave where the wave hits the shallows. This is what is causing those undercurrents and its these undercurrents powered by the uplifting of the wave column that carries this warmer water as a current to the center of the lake.The wave become eliptical because part of the wave is breaking down causing undercurrents. I agree with you and Razd that most of the wave water energies is not moving out of the rotating column or water. Its only because it hits the shallows that undercurrents are being formed.

Razd, I calculated the lakes diameter as being only 1.4 miles? How much of that is shallows?Do you have a link to a topographic map of this lake, that would include watershed shed topography, possible water channels like creeks?Thanks in advance,
CraigThis message has been edited by Craig, 12-14-2004 03:25 PM

Ned, I asked some questions in post 55, still waiting for answers.

How big do waves get in a 3 kilometer diameter lake, Craig?This lake has never been within 1000 km or more of a glacier, either. You can count that out.

Interesting but there is, TTBOMK, no evidence that Japan had glaciers even during the last few ice ages. Hard to have glacial melt without glaciers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Ned, If your dating leaves, there might be some correlations back 5,000 years. I've heard that C-14 is soluble so make me question annual varves farther back in time.

---

The C14 tied up in organic samples, such as insects and leaves, is not soluble. If it were soluble those samples would not even exist. Also, even if C14 were moving out of the samples it would not distort the ratio of C14 to C12, the two isotopes that are used to date the sample. That is, if C14 is soluble then so is C12 and so the date would not be effected.

quote:

---

Your not addressing glacial melt contributing multitudes of varves by natural sedimentation and natural erosion.

---

Even if glacial melts created layers, they would not be able to explain the thickness of the diatom layers. The lake can only sustain a certain number of diatoms. Each annual layer of diatoms reflects the annual carrying capacity for these diatoms. Therefore, the lake would have to be producing 10 or 100 fold more diatoms to create these layers if they hapened more than once a year.Also, if there was a sudden increase in sediments entering the lake, then we would expect a mixture of diatoms and clay, more than what we currently see in the diatom layers. Those diatoms will settle out during the summer no matter what, and at a high rate given the difference in density between diatoms and clay particles. Therefore, glacial melts would be marked by a clay layer, a mixture of clay and diatoms, and then diatoms alone, and then clay. Instead, what we actually see, is completely separate diatom and clay layers. Glacial melts are inadequate for explaining these layers, as are waves for the same exact reasons.

Actually I'd like to see some evidence that your proposed mechanism can plausibly produce the results you need (which I estimate at a minimum of 10 pairs per year). Without even that you're just speculating - and speculating against the evidence of the corrolations with carbon dating for the material from Suigetsu itself and from other sources.

Coragyps, I thought kettle lakes were formed by large blocks of glacial ice forming the kettle shape, before these large blocks of ice melted. http://www.msu.edu/user/lebaron1/i.htmCould you explain how you believe the Kettle lakes form, and how it was not formed by a glacier.Thank you,
Craig

But your speculations don't matter, they don't explain the facts as seen. You haven't touched on those issues.

PaulK, I suspect without knowing the topography of the lake, the watershed it hard to beable to calculate. This was why I asked Ned if there was any controlled studies done to determine that actually only one annual varve is being laid down in a given year. This does not mean that in the past varves were not laid down much quicker by the creationists flood model.I was always told that C-14 is not all that accurate after 5,000 years. It seems your correlations are only based upon C-14 in kettle lake sediments. I'm not sure, but are you in essense calibrating the C-14 beyond 5,000 years based on the one annual varve per year?

PaulK, I suspect without knowing the topography of the lake, the watershed it hard to beable to calculate. This was why I asked Ned if there was any controlled studies done to determine that actually only one annual varve is being laid down in a given year. This does not mean that in the past varves were not laid down much quicker by the creationists flood model.I was always told that C-14 is not all that accurate after 5,000 years. It seems your correlations are only based upon C-14 in kettle lake sediments. I'm not sure, but are you in essense calibrating the C-14 beyond 5,000 years based only on the one annual varve theory per year?This message has been edited by Craig, 12-14-2004 04:40 PM

Ned, I just wanted a yes or a no, to know whats happening. So were on the same page. Re: Lake Suigetsu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ned, The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form, the diatoms, organics settle first, then the clays. Do you have studies showing one annual varve forming consistently per year? Yes____No_____Is this kettle lake correlations something new? Yes____No____so are you basing your correlations only on core correlation data on C-14? Yes_____No_____ and not actual documented annual varves being deposited in controlled studies? Yes____No_____
I'm just making a point that in lake Suigetsu past multitudes of varves could of been laid down in very short amounts of time. The lakes bottom is 34 feet and not sloped in the center, suggesting that the sediments are stratifying not near the shores but in the very center of Lake Suigetsu.I just don't know enough about C-14, like is it diluted in water so would it be affecting sea creatures ages differently than say a tree ring? Yes_____No_____ If you error consistently would that not explain different kettle lakes layers correlating with one another? Yes_____No______ If the same natural processes happened to all, would not an error proportionally affect all? Yes____No____