Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

In respect to a kettle lake you have the topography like a bowl like say lake suitisu. I suspect more kettle lakes would have varves similar to lake suitsu only because of their topography in respect to how varves are being expressed do to the waves sweeping organics diatoms etc... from the watershed everytime you have a storm, so multitude of varves support the creationists young earth senerio because they are not all annual varves.I think here your looking that all are annual varves however due to the topography it more like a miners bowl as the waves roll to shore how would not the currents not sweep pollen clays toward the center to be expressed as multitudes of varves as they sorted by liquefaction over the years. When the flood waters washed off the continents until the plants restablished the earth you could only have the watershed contributing to the varves being formed so what your looking at is the majority of those varves are not annual varves the last 5400 years since the biblical flood no doubt contributed additional varves.The problem to me is you believe all varves are annual varves. Percy said particles sort by particle size all the time I suspect thats a truth all creationists believe however when geologists start saying all varves are annual varves they are stretching the truth but thats what to me is being done a stretching of the truth, etc...Everytime you would have a storm the waves crashing on shore would be sweeping organics, diatoms, etc to the kettle increasing the varves, but thats never considered going back in time which is part of their delusion because that would likely be problematic for all varves to be annual varves since the biblical flood.I think the problem is what is a varve here is a picture what is called a varve but notice its not a kettle lake varve but still its called a varve.File:Varve1.gif - Wikipedia

I'm sorry but you still have not presented a mechanism to explain over 4 million alternating finer and coarser, darker and lighter layers of silt which cannot settle out except in still water.The conventional explanation does.Until you can provide something that explains what is seen better than the current model, you are just shoveling shit.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Your Word salads simply are an example of delusion perhaps I hit to close to the bone, some cherished bone you like to chew on, kind of like santa claus(a cherished delusion perhaps)?Conventional explanation by saying all varves are annual varves yet your camp interestingly not providing certain information of the varves: like percent water, colloidal or not, humic acids mineralization within varves, leachate (methane, Co2, volatile acids, humic acids, etc....is just a Word Salad to say those few ascribing its science or is it more shit you seem to trying to pawn off as science, like they successfully pawned off Nebraska man, etc...P.S. Some of us care about truth and not Word Salads, pawned off as truth, etc.. however rotflmao !!!!!!!!!!!Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

You should know by know I don't play your games.What is the explanation for over 4 million alternating layers of lighter and darker, coarser and finer silt deposits.That's it whatever, none of your dancing or attempts to palm the pea, what is the mechanism that explains over 4 million (in some cores over 20 million) alternating varves?The conventional model explains them, we can actually see the model producing the same type layers today. No magic, no suppositions needed.So what is your model whatever? Until you can present the model that explains what is seen better than the conventional model, you are just shoveling more shit as usual.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

RS, please explain the concordance of varve counts with radiometric dates, ice core laminations and dendrochronology.

You have the russian study of siberian tropical plants living in the yucon pennisula, all dating less than 9760 years. Then you have the purdue university study expressing the artic sea temp not air temp was once 73 degrees F. thats only approximately 7 degrees cooler than the oceanwater at the equator today. The links if your interested are on Razd correlations thread but the point is Greenland ice cores could not of existed 9,760 years because tropical plants were thriving up in the Artic circle and nothing older than 9760 years was dated by 14 C dating in the yucan pennisula.Its not as if the mountain of ice in greenland where the ice cores are taken is held up by granite mountains like ice capped mountains you might see in Seattle Washington, etc... The russian study and the purdue study raises questions how a mountain of ice could of existed if near tropical temperatures of the waters of the ocean even north of Greenland, etc...P.S. I suspect those stories that the vickings inhabited a Greenland are more correct than the scientific myths that greenlands been a mountain of ice for 100's of thousands of years.---------------------------------------------------------------------For the last decade, archeologists in Iceland have been studying a cluster of abandoned Viking settlements near Lake Myvatn, on the island's north side. Carbon 14 dating of specimens from the digs and other evidence suggest these sites were some of the earliest farms in Iceland.Not Found | WBUREdited by reversespin, : No reason given.Edited by reversespin, : No reason given.

Since your post as absolutely nothing to do the quote that you referenced. Absolutely NOTHING!.You will focus your attention of the topic of this thread. You will answer posts put to you in the discussion.You will NOT ramble or you will be suspended (and not just for hours).

The definition of a varve is an annual sedimentary layer, so by definition all varves are annual varves. I think what you probably mean to say is that you believe some sedimentary layers have been interpreted as annual when they are not.There are two prime indicators that mark a series of sedimentary layers as annual:

• The same pattern of sub-layers in each layer. One very common pattern is of larger particles (indicating more active water, such as the runoff from glacial melt) beneath smaller particles (indicating very still water, possibly under a cover of ice). Another very common pattern is a sub-layer of spring pollen and seeds beneath a sub-layer of summer pollen and seeds beneath a sub-layer of fall pollen and organic detritus. Many varve layers possess both patterns.
  ​
• Increasing radiocarbon age with increasing depth at a rate very, very close to one year per varve.

Sedimentary layers which don't fit the above criteria (except for fossil varves, which cannot be radiocarbon dated) are not considered varves. That list is, of course, not a complete list of criteria, but I think they are by far the primary ones.In order for a flood scenario to work you have to explain how a flood could perform these steps in order:

1. First lay down a spring sub-layer of spring pollen and seeds with organic material along with particles of a larger size than the top of the underlying winter layer and of a slightly younger radiocarbon age.
   ​
2. Then lay down on top of the spring sub-layer a summer sub-layer consisting of summer pollen and seeds with the largest particle size of the varve layer and with a very slightly younger radiocarbon age.
   ​
3. Then lay down a sub-layer of fall pollen and detritus and smaller particle size and again a very slightly younger radiocarbon age.
   ​
4. Then lay down the thinnest sub-layer consisting of almost no organic material (no pollen or seeds) and very small particulate size and a yet again very slightly younger radiocarbon age.

Then, after the flood has deposited these sub-layers to create a single varve layer, it has to repeat these 4 steps some thousands of times to create the rest of the varve layers.It feels to everyone here that such a thing is impossible, and all your arguments are beside this one major point that dooms your idea.--Percy

I can accept annual varves for the last 5,400 years after the genesis world biblical flood. Notice after 5,000 years the 14c is not uniform raising the flag these are not annual varves but varves formed by liquefaction like you said not all varves are annual varves.I'm more questioning these varves asking questions if methane, humic acids, volatile acids, Co2, 14C, percent water, in what concentrations in the leachate, are the varves colloidal in nature, what are the physical properties of the varves the last 5400 varves verse those > than 5,400. Notice how fudgy the lines become after approximately 5,400 years. Perhaps in time they will have answers to whats in the leachate, is anaerobic digestion taking place just find it interesting the 5,400 years shows something changed around the time of the Creationists biblical flood.P.S. Percy, It appears Ned's losing his cool again, Oh well I've got better things tournament to go to much more fun than trying to show how falitious annual varves past 5,400 years, ice varves, and walking some imaginary line whats on topic when like Ned is demanding that I answer questions that are off topic yet stay on topic. Wish you well however, etc...Happy New Year all,reversespin [qs] < !--UB < !--UB < !--UB < !--UB < !--UB --> < !--UB < !--UB < !--UB < !--UB < !--UE--> --> < !--UB < !--UB < !--UB < !--UE--> --> < !--UB < !--UB < !--UE--> --> < !--UB < !--UE--> --> < !--UE--> Edited 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, : The pea being the varve notice on the chart unknown, unknown meaning they are clueless and when one request more information they have none, etc... !!!!!!!

So you can't support you claims.Worse you are dishonest enough to try to pretend you just choose not to.You are suspended for a week!

Remember fundies, when your absurd statements are challenged and despite all attempts to change the subject, you find you don't have a way out, just do the Anti-Truth Two Step.Here are the steps:1. Declare victory2. Run awaySee you next time, Whatever. To everyone else, keep your eye on that pea. Happy New Year.

---

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

This is wrong according to your own creationist sources. Says Creation Wiki, "According to the Biblical chronology the global flood occurred approximately 4500 years ago." The ¹⁴C points on the graph form as nearly perfect a straight line as one could ever expect from real world data. Your answer to a detailed explanation of why a flood can't deposit varves is a simple, "Could too"? Breathtaking!By the way, you've made a garbled reading of what I wrote. I certainly never said that not all varves are annual varves. I said that by definition a varve is annual, because a varve is an annual sedimentary layer. As I suggested earlier, if these questions truly interest you then look them up. They have nothing to do with your key point that a flood could create thousands of varve layers that look identical in every respect to the varve layers we see forming annually today, including the radiocarbon signature.Perhaps Ned will reconsider the suspension. You're not being disruptive, just trying to hold off the inevitable by tenaciously avoiding the central issue. But the strength of a position is measured by the supporting evidence and arguments, not by personal tenacity.If a great flood truly created many of the varve layers, then the way to convince people that that's what happened is to explain how it happened, forthrightly and with evidence, and if you can't explain it, then to seek evidence until you can. Arguing without evidence has only one possible outcome, as you've proven a number of times here.--Percy

Without Reversespin's presence this discussion is at an end, but I thought I'd add a short note about something that just struck me.The thermodynamic argument is one of the most effective in the creationist repertoire because it just makes so much sense. The universe is running down and order cannot spring from disorder, therefore life could not have originated on its own and complexity cannot evolve from simplicity.The task for the science side once this argument enters the discussion? Explain thermodynamics to someone who has no apparent science background and probably can't find Korea on an unmarked map.But it occurs to me that a flood producing repeated ordered layers with strict sorting of lifeforms and radiometrically datable material is precisely the kind of order springing from disorder that the creationist thermodynamic argument says is impossible. So when creationists argue that evolution could never have happened because order can never spring from disorder, we no longer have to deliver a mini-course on thermodynamics that will never be understood anyway. All we have to do is point out the inherent contradiction in their view of thermodynamics, that if it were really true that order could never spring from disorder, then the ordered layers in the Grand Canyon and in varves and so forth could never spring from a chaotic flood, so obviously they don't understand how thermodynamics really works.Once they realize that there's something wrong with the creationist thermodynamic argument, then instead of actually explaining thermodynamics all we have to do is explain what is really possible while still following thermodynamic laws. And that doesn't prevent us from actually going on to explain thermodynamics to any creationists who are really interested.--Percy

Still looking for another model to explain what is seen in the Green River, a series of over 4,000,000 (over 20,000,000 in some cores) alternating layers of darker finer material and lighter coarser material.We can see just such varves being created annually. Summer and Fall algae growth stains the silt a darker color but when it dies off during Winter a lighter silt is laid down and Spring runoff brings in a coarser material so at least one mechanism is known and can be shown to exist.What other mechanism might explain what is seen?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!