Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

Well, of course, some of them are formed annually. But that does not mean that all of them are. For instance, in the Mount St. Helens eruption, 25 ft. of fine layered sediment was put down in a single afternoon. To say that all varves are layed down annually is a fallacy. Experiments have been done to show that these layers can be put down quickly.http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1775All of these observations are consistent with a global flood.

And your point? It has everything to do with it, since varves are interpreted as laminations being laid down yearly, while these experiments clearly show that is not necessarily so. How do you know which are low-flow and which are not? Perhaps you can fill me in.

Perhaps you misunderstood my OP. I said no one denies that varves are not annual. Your mistake is in assuming that because we see varves being put down annually that all varves are put down that way. All you have proven is that you cannot think outside the uniformitarian box. Oooh. I don't know, you make it seem so hard.

My MY. Did I say geologists? Or did I just accuse uniformitarianists, which Nosy is undoubtedly one. Since Creationists admit that some varves are put down annually, the only one that seems to be lying is you. Your mistake is in assuming that no Creationists are biologists or geologists. All you have proven is that YOU are the one that is playing fast and loose with reason and the truth.

No, I don't mind your asking at all. No I do not. Do you?

Really? What would distinguish a varve that was put down annually from several that were put down quickly? Really? Why is this so? http://www.biblicalgeology.net/

Content such as what, what size difference, what material? Lots of assertions yet no evidence. Yes, I see your point.http://rcp.missouri.edu/geosci_shelton/research/geocol.htmGeologic column - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceNo reason to accept any of it as a scientific model. Well, good. Perhaps you will be interested in learning together. Who knows what you may learn if you are willing to give up your 'old earth presuppositions.'

What information? Actually, I think I have read all of it at one time or another, or at least something similar.

So, you're basing it on lighter/darker material? Or the substance that is in that material? The Green River varves present an even bigger problem for you, since the layers contain well preserved fossils of fish and birds. Of course you do. The evidence didn't tell you this. Your interpretation of the evidence based on your presupposition is where you got that. If you didn't have it, then you would accept the chart of the person that I gave you, since he explains his chart based on his presuppositions. It is every bit as scientific as you beloved geologic column is.http://biblicalgeology.net/...sources/geological_model_2.pdf

No, I ask the question so we can get away from generalities and get down to specific evidence, which you have not offered. I wonder if you have read any of it. Sorry, but I am not going to go back and read every single item in this thread. You are the one who challenged me to come over here. It is up to you to supply the evidence.

What particles? Do you even know? Would it be diatoms? Pollen? What? Did you really ask that? Yes, we shall learn much today. How could a fish or a bird lie on the bottom of the ocean for years and years and not decay or be consumed? Yes, you see the evidence as supporting your world view. I understand that. Well, I wouldn't have used that strong a word for your interpretation, but... BS, again. Your right that is more bs. Just where does it exist? That's not an example of anything. That is speculation based on uniformitarian assumptions. But that is inconsistent with the fossil evidence.

I'd be more inclined to believe you if you offered diatoms or pollen. Actually, you accept annual varves based on blind faith don't you? Even the bottoms of lakes have some oxygen. You did? Your above statement seems to suggest that you really interpreted the evidence based on your preconcieved notions of how old the earth is. Denial won't work. Of course. Experiments show that fine layers of sediment can be put down quickly. Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! | Answers in Genesis http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/ Yes, I know. Pity you can't or won't see the evidence right in front of you. Really? Perhaps you should discover how the geologic column is really defined.http://trueorigin.org/geocolumn.aspBTW, here is the uniformitarianists geologic column. No more scientific than walker's.Geologic ColumnEdited by Creationist, : No reason given.

See the latest posts.

What do you mean by debris flow? These sediments were put down by fluid flow. Geologic setting? Explain. Different grain sizes? Explain. Different sediment influx? Explain. Different current velocities? Explain. Explain how one can tell the difference between any of these and any other thin layer of sediment. So far all you have done is deepen the mystery.

Actually it does matter, since the interpretation of the evidence is affected by it. Let's say that it is true, not that it is, but that it is true in this case. It still doesn't explain any scavangers from eating it while it layed there for thousands of years. Call it what you want, but 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. Anyway the whole thing was put to rest by Buchheim and Biaggi in 1988. http://www2.nature.nps.gov/...gy/pub/grd4/nsp_paleo_vol4.pdf OUr position is quite clear. It is caused by a post flood catastrophe or a series of catastrophes. And some of it does contain ash. In fact it contains two volacanic ash layers. According to Paul Garner Green River Blues | Answers in Genesis The two ash layers are separted by 8.3 and 22.6 centimetres of shale layers. If your, and other uniformitarian's interpretations are correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same. However it isn't. Perhaps you can explain it.