Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

You are confused. While all varves are laminations, not all laminations are varves. There are scientist who devote careers to studying these things.And as far as Brethault and Julien are concerned, this is nothing new. It is Geology 101 stuff. It has no bearing on varves or even a real sedimentary environment. Why would a flume experiment using sand-sized particles have anything to do with low-flow regime lacustrine deposition? These are the questions YECs need to, but won't, ask.

The point is that laminations in sediments deposited by a debris flow are not varves. You seem to equate the two. Again, different geological setting, different grain-sizes, different sediment influx, different current velocities... You remain confused. These laminations that Brethault and other see would not be called varves by any geologist. I know from the general geological setting, the grain sizes, the sedimentary textures and the composition of the grains. What Brethault and others are using would never be found in varves. I know it's a mystery to you, but your professional YECs are preying upon your ignorance of this subject.

Please explain.

If you don't know the terminology, how can you teach me anything? Yeeees... You are equating a volcanic mudflow with lacustrine sedimentation. That makes no sense. Alluvial fan, pelagic, etc., etc. Really, how can you criticize mainstream science when you haven't a clue as to what they are talking about? Self-explanatory. You are wasting my time. Rate of addition of sediment. Not all currents are the same speed. The all come together in a depositional model. Actually, all I've done is exposed your ignorance of the topic. Just as professional YECs have exploited it. There is no big mystery here.

I suggest you look at another interpretation. This from Glenn Morton: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htmIt would appear that your source prefers to count all laminations rather than just the varves. That is exactly why we recommend that YECs not try to do this at home. Let the professionals handle this.

This is the best reasoning you've got? So tell us how this is different from your own position? What really makes your scenario better?I hate to rain on your parade, but the only reason we assume an old earth is that it has been verified again and again by previous work. Don't you think it's time to move on? Or do also think that it's a bit dangerous to assume that the Wright brothers were correct? Sorry C, but your arguments seem to be reaching.

Tell us then, why we can show observations up to the limit of radiocarbon dating at 50ky? Why is it such a bad assumption that processes were similar prior to that? Why must they have occurred? Your word? Why is that? Do you really believe that a fossil will leave no traces? What about foot prints? Do they break down also? You have already been shown that Brethault is a fraud. Why do you keep going back to him? Is this all you've really got? Why not address my issues with the flume experiments? (Never mind, I actually know why) Maybe you should get a quote directly from them regarding their viewpoint on varves. Counting layers is not the same as counting varves. We have been over this before. Hey, you've convinced me! Millions of them, eh? What does the bible say about that? You realize this makes you an uber-uniformitarian, don't you? YOu seem to have a hard time with assumptions. My question is, how do you get through life without making any assumptions? Well, if you want to take a quack's word for it, I suppose so. He hasn't convinced very many people, though. But you were easy, I guess.

And again, if only you knew how unspeakably ignorant this statement seems. If you compared a proximal volcanic setting to a pelagic depositional setting, you wouldn't be taken serious in kindergarten. But then, you obviously haven't read earlier responses on this subject, so it is to be expected. This is very inconsiderate of you. Why are you wasting our time? Oh never mind...

Already addressed by Glen. But, if you actually read the quote, you would know that. And why do you think that they use the term "varves" in stead of varves? Hmmm? It is because they know that some of the layers are not varves. As Glenn points out, varves can be best counted in the depocenter in a distal lacustrine environment. Heh, yeah, I agree. Especially for a YEC! Ya know, I always recommend that YECs don't try this without an adult present. Yes, and I do not recognize one here. Oard is not a geochronologist or a geologist. I seriously doubt his ability to judge the validity of varve counts. In the meantime, please explain the concordance of varve counts with radiocarbon data from Lake Suigetsu.

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?

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.

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.

(snipped for incoherrencey) Reall??? I couldn't tell! And the hills are still rising and the valleys still lowering... So, where's the flood? Meaning, ummm, just what? How is this different from mainstream science? Heh, heh. This is getting better all the time. Ummm, ever hear of a thing called the Misssissippi River Delta? So you are saying the flood is happening now because the Hudson Canyon is underwater? Your arguements are wandering and confused. Please try to focus. Have you ever read any mainstream ideas on the Hudson Canyon? You mean all of those mined quotes of evolutionists questioning evolution are fake? Thanks for clearing that up. Ummm, whatever you say RS. Have you ever seen a kettle lake? How many flood-sized waves did you see on them? The only source of methane around here is not the kettle-lakes, RS. Please try to stay focused in the future. Okay. Thanks. You are wandering again RS. Disjointed, rambling, self-righteous rants are not evidence.