Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

Especially the correlation with varve count, depth of sediment and 14C age. From Message 259 of Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) ... which is also not answered by creationist. And 37,930 BP is where the solid line becomes dashed. The age gets an offset (due to different atmospheric levels of 14C) but the pattern of deposition of the samples and the varves still match for different rates of deposit of sediment in the varves.Explain that correlation while your mixing your magic mud samples.AND put this little wrinkle into the equations, the 14C age is calculated based on the exponential decay curve:How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t_1/2
where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t_1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.t = {ln (Nf/No)/-0.69315} x 5730
or
t = -8267 x ln (Nf/No)
Where No is the original level of the C-14 isotope in the sample (when it was alive and growing and absorbing atmospheric C-14), and Nf is the amount remaining. The value for No today is ~0.00000000010% of total organic carbon and Nf is smaller depending on how much time has passed.This means you need this kind of shape for the 14C raw data compared to the varve raw data:Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : curve informationEdited by RAZD, : -(2)

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Since you seem to have a hard time staying on topic, I will only try to address those items relevant to varves. I'm not sure why they couldn't. And, in fact, according to my reading of Glenn Morton, storm deposits are recognizable in the stratigraphy of lake sediments. Tell me, when do you think the last erosion event occurred on the bottom of Lake Huron? Thousands of years?? Correct. Even after decomposition, the character of the sediment at the site of the fossil fish has been altered. It is there until disturbed by quarrying or metamorphism. But they occurred instantaneously. And yet there they are, still present millions of years (thousands to you) later. Why should the organisms themselves be less well preserved if, as you say, they are there only for a few geological moments? Nothing Brethault has done is news to any Geo 101 student. It is readily explained by mainstream stratigraphy. For Brethault to come along and use sand-sized particles in a flume to compare a silt to clay-sized depositional environment is silly. For him to say that this is some kind of revelation that layers can be deposited rapidly is disgustingly self-aggrandizing. I saw pictures like this (in an actual deposit, not a flume) in my first Geology textbook. There is nothing new here. Oh, sure. Just as any geologist would expect. The point is that this does not represent the actual depositional environment of varves. I've gone over this before, but if you note carefully, the article talks about 'varves' and 'laminae', carefully clouding the distinction. All varves are laminations, but not all laminations are varves. Actually, it is hearsay and nowhere does it give the actual age of the earth. Please explain to me where it discusses many (thousands?) of catastrophes. None taken. Just so you understand that this puts you in a fringe position scientifically.

Eh, just a coincidence?

especially when you look at the curve of the 14C raw data that has to make this magic turn.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Seems he is saying that water is near incompressible so mud behaves like a fluid sorting by wave action providing pressure downward which causes water to press up that forms thousands perhaps millions of varves in short amounts of time.So after the creationists world flood covered the entire earth you'd have all this muddy waters being sorted by the wave action while the flood waters still covered the earth.Then after the flood you should have kettle lakes continually sorting and resorting due to the water pressure pressing down and up thru the lake bed mud sediments that would increase the expression of say thousands upon thousands of multitudes of varves.You also have springs in lakes that is water pressing upwards through the particles add waves on the surface gently pressing downward upon the muddied waters of the earth based on the scientific evidence how muddy waters form varves naturally by liquefaction explain your not looking at annual varves but simply how quickly multitude of varves form naturally.P.S. I'm not a mechanical engineer but seems to be how that link about liquefaction answers some perhaps all of the questions how varves can form suddenly.

Let me get this straight. You are taking Walt Brown's website seriously? Do you really think that Walt's aparatus comes close to resembling a real situation? Doesn't it seem odd that, although the process formed laminations, there are no photographs of the developing laminae?The water pressures in a saturated sediment are essentially hydro-lithostatic. They do not result in flow or cause the sediment package to "breath" in the fashion that Walt would like them to.Despite Walt's insistence that the water flows vertically through the section, his description of 'lensing' shows the opposite as the more porous layers grow laterally.Basically, everything I know and have seen about liquefaction shows that original textures are destroyed rather than created or enhanced. It is the very principle of breaking down structures and allowing material to be transported that makes liquefaction an important engineering process.Now, if you don't take Walt seriously, just disregard all reference to 'you' above.

Why would not water lensing follow the terraine of the lake bed kind of like how you have springs which run among the hills, etc...? akjv psalm 104:10 The moon causes the levels of the oceans to rise and fall why would not this too not cause all your lake bed lateral lenses for these water columns to rise and fall(breathe)just a bit.Given water is near incompressible a little force on one of your many lateral lake bed water lenses would be an example of liquefaction like hydraulics pressing the particles apart. Is this what you and Walt are talking about? Awesome !!!!!!!!I mean water has real weight so it should have a real force in waves hammering down on the shores on your lateral water lenses that should hydraulically press water causing the particles to press apart in respect to sorting and resorting explaining multiple varves.The waves pressing down on your lateral water lenses in the shallows of lake beds how would this real force too not help the lower varves breathe water as they press water down to these lower lake bed varves thru your lateral water lenses?Is it these lateral water lenses that cause springs on the bottom of the lake beds to bubble upwards thru the varves?----------------------------------------------------------------------Earth tides, small changes in the Earth's gravity affected by the moon and planets, can also change the water level in the index well by as much as half a foot.RESULTS RELATED TO YOUR SEARCH | Southwest Research InstituteEdited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

They then cite that a different formation deposited 5 layers per year after the construction of a man made object interfering with the natural water flow. It does show me that more than one layer per year can result due to varying conditions effecting the depositing of materials. At five layers per year however the varve is still a minimum of 800,000 years old. Thanks for the link. I better understand now what your issue is. I still see it as a problem for a young earth though. I would be tempted to believe however that they are yearly events that can be affected by local varying conditions. I see no reason to believe that these deposits are the result of a global flood that managed to create over 4 million layers of alternating fine and coarse silt in one year. Five layers in a year still leaves these varves much much older than ten thousand years. Sorry, I missed it. Can you show me again the 4 million alternating layers created in a year? I would like to repeat the experiment. Can you show me where it occurs with sea cucumbers or dung beetles? What difference does it make between a fish, bird, or human? You claimed "it takes a great deal of faith to beleive that these fish and birds layed there year after year with no decay and no scavangers to eat them" and then I showed that such conditions do happen, often enough to easily provide an example that even you are aware of (but apparently ignored). Now you suggest that there is some sort of difference between a bird, fish and human in such that humans will be preserved while birds and fish do not? So you and AiG are suggesting that the varves are six and a half days old. You missed my counter example. You also failed to recognise that your quote from AiG only supports your claims if you are saying the varve is only 6.5 days old. First you claim that catastrophic events are the cause for the four million layers. You then claim that the smoothness of the varves cannot be accounted for; erosion or disturbances would have ruined this effect in the millions of years following.I say you contradict yourself because you first say that "disturbances" would ruin the smoothness but claim catastrophic events are the cause. You also say that in millions of years disturbances and erosion would ruin the smoothness - as would thousands of years, weeks in fact. You are proposing a very young earth by your models.If this is not what you are saying then I would appreciate you present a model that allows for smooth varves in ten thousand years but not millions. I would also like a model that preserves fish and birds for thousands of years when your only quote states they can last mere days. I did not avoid the question. You simply failed to recognise that I had indeed given you my answer. All the information you have provided in an attempt to destroy an old earth model also destroys a thousand year old earth. You have limited the age of the earth to mere days. 6.5 days in fact.

Everything you and Walt say about liquefaction sounds like nonsense to me. Energetic water is going to carry much heavier particulate matter than just silt and clay, and the heavier particles will settle out first. Varve layers do possess seasonal variations, but nothing that would indicate energetic water.You have to keep in mind that these are Walt's personal ideas, not science. He hasn't participated in the process of scientific investigation by seeking review, replication and successful predictions. About whether rapid varve deposition is possible, it's interesting that Walt thinks so, but new ideas only become accepted as science when many other scientists think so, too, through a process of the aforementioned process of review, replication and successful predictions.Much more significant than the question of the validity of Walt Brown's liquefaction ideas are what we don't see in lake varves. You are not claiming that lake varves are evidence of a great flood 4500 years ago, but that lake varves in existence at the time should not contain any evidence of the flood, that layers laid down during the flood should precisely resemble those laid down before and after. No one in science is going to find such a position credible.Another impossible problem for the flood view is carbon dating, which agrees that varves are almost always laid down annually, both now and for as far into the past as we can measure.Creationists like you and Walt Brown are essentially arguing that the lack of evidence for a world wide flood should not be interpreted as evidence that it never happened, and I agree in principle. But it must also be agreed that if it did actually happen that the evidence for it must be extremely subtle and difficult to detect. Given that archeology has no problem detecting ancient local floods in places like Ur in roughly 2750 BC, the absence of any evidence of an immensely larger flood on a world-wide scale just 1800 years before seems rather conclusive that no such flood ever happened.--Percy

In lake beds how are the springs recharging themselves if not like thru water lenses as an extension of the watershed?You have other forces acting upon the varves other than the water pressure hydraulically pressing the particles apart, you have humic acids that have an affinity to bond to near all the elements of the periodic table, their humic acid remains and methane gases from their digestion within this humic acid liquid within the varves.How could this not only help particles sort based on density, pressure, and this variance of hydraulic pressures upon the water lenses would spread apart the particles with organic liquid humic acids that too would become expressed within the particles micro-sorting, via liquefaction.I'm not sure if Walt is expressing micro-varves but does not humic acids bond to almost every element its not much of a leap of faith that they are part of the varves under the lake beds like the glue holding the varves together (colloidals, etc...)All you have in your varves is some scientists that found multitude of varves in agreement with the biblical flood. The muddy waters sorting and micro-sorting, etc...Like all I hear about these varves but no one has much if any information etc... Are they colloidal in nature ? what is the percent water content ? Methane content ? Co2 content ? humic acid liquid content ? is these clays humic in nature, etc...--------------------------------------------------------------------
About Humic SubstancesAquatic scientists have been slower in appreciating their importance, but now realize that they may constitute as much as 95% of the total dissolved organic matter in aquatic systems and often are equal to or greater than the concentrations of inorganic ions present.http://www.hagroup.neu.edu/abouthafrm.htmEdited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

If you have a global flood and global 'muddy waters' as the mechanism that creates varves, then the earth should be covered in varves. Instead we observe metamorphic, igneous, and sedimentary rocks of all kinds including evaporites. Notice that it is quite difficult to create granite through 'wave action.'The same depositional environment makes the same deposit, in the lab or in the field. If you actually have a model that shows how all the different types of surface rocks were created from muddy water through wave action, please start a new topic.If you can't defend this assertion, then it is obvious that the diversity of the earth's surface geology was not solely caused by global muddy waters and wave action, which in turn would throw doubt on all of your geologic pronouncements, regardless of source.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I'll give God the credit for the granites due to the helium suggesting its only became granite 6,000 years ago... But Humphreys granites has nothing to do with varves kind of a different subject, etc.... If you want to understand limestone, granites, sedimentary rock, etc... you might check out the answers from genesis folk.Just look at like the Hudson canyon, the Amazon Canyon, massive evidence of water erosion on a global catastrophic scale but as far as the muddy waters in respect to lake varves thought that was the topic, like kettle lakes, springs on the bottom of lakes, how muddy waters in Walts 5 gallon jugs formed multiple varves simply by liquefaction.P.S. If you look closely at excavation through limestone you'll see horizontal markings. Are not these water lenses that Edge was talking about how after the flood waters receeded like say limestone particles lithified destroyed fine varve markings leaving the water lenses more visible, etc...Once the particles lithified you'd get sedimentary rock, limestone, but lake varves never lithified thus its not been turned to stone, etc...

Varves are annual sedimentary layers. You're proposing that a world wide flood could quickly deposit many sedimentary layers identical in all respects to varves we see deposited annually today, including ¹⁴C signatures (average increasing age of one year per layer). While I won't rule anything out as impossible, nothing you or Walt Brown have said makes this seem even remotely possible.You don't seem to be thinking in any common sense way about what you're claiming. As I said earlier, archeologists have had no trouble at all identifying large local floods in Ur thousands of years ago. What leads you to believe that a flood of unimaginable scale would leave the world looking just the same as if it had never happened.--Percy

I have no idea what you are talking about or why it might be even remotely relevant. Let the moon pass as quickly as a wave an see what happens. No. Water simply moves toward decreased pressure. If you look at the difference in pressure from one location to a cm away during a wave passing over a sediment, there is minimal difference. This difference is overwhelmed by the resistance to flow. Problem is that the pressure is hydrostatic. It pushes back in all directions. I do not have water lenses. Walt has made up some term that really sounds misplaces. Please rephrase. This is nonsense. No. And that is the point. Walt's model has no actual counterpart in the real world. I am sorry that you have been deceived by him.

Heh, heh. Go ahead and believe what you want. Just be prepared to have no one take you seriously. Walt Brown and Gentry are probably laughing at you along with me. Um, yeah, that'll do it. Heh. This is worse than I thought. No. Those are not varves. It is clear that you disregard anything counter to the heavy sediment of YEC effluent clogging your brain. No. It is sedimentary bedding. You have not been reading this thread, have you? Actually, some are lithified. You are so far off base here that I think 'reverse' is an appropriate part of your screenname. You have set science back at least a century. You are wasting time.