|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,875 Year: 4,132/9,624 Month: 1,003/974 Week: 330/286 Day: 51/40 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. | |||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Just a few points to consider...
quote: First of all, not all laminations are annual varves. Geologists trained in varves have learned to tell the difference. In fact, despite how easy YECs think it is to do geology, I wouldn't trust myself to count varves without training.
quote: No. Not the opposite. Just different.
quote: I can guarantee that Ned is more of a geologist than you.
quote: Good advice. Why not use it? In addition to some of the excellent points raised above, here are a few problems with your analysis. 1. If storms punctuate normal offshore deposition then there should be a steady rain of organics with varying amounts of clastics during the growing season. This is not the case. The organics turn off and on once per cycle, just as one would expect with season variation in a temperate climate. 2. Geologists have mapped storm deposits in some locations. They tend to thin and disappear toward the center of the basin. This implies that they can tell seasonal varves from storm laminations. According to you this is not possible. 3. There is evidence that the organic material (spores pollen, etc.) changes during the growing season, just as one would expect in a seasonally varying depositional environment (see Glenn Morton's site below). According to your model, all of the pollen should be mixed within each storm layer and some should be reworked from the near shore deposits. 4. In addition to annual variation, there is evidence of other cyclicities possibly relating to ENSO or Milankovitch cycles, etc. This should be almost impossible if random storm events caused varve formation. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm Based on these factors, I really don't see your argument holding much water. Sure there may be some mistaken storm events, but over all, I just don't see it as a large percentage of the varves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, geologists, unlike YECs consider all of the data. And we have nothing to hide.
quote: In that case, the storm-laid silts should show a nearly constant state of deposition. We do not see this.
quote: Doesn't have that much to do with it. What your model predicts, we do not see.
quote: That is not what is observed.
quote: Varves can form in any lake geography. All that is necessary is a relatively low clastic input.
quote: That is a self-serving statement from an absolutist. In reality, there will NEVER be enough data for you to hazard even a wild guess.
quote: No. Not under your scenario. The relationship would be completely random. That is not what we see.
quote: I have heard this many times from YECs. To be fair, you have to admit that you will never have enough information to reject your preconceived notions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Why only 5k? What changed and what is the evidence for a change in varve deposition?
quote: Whoa! Now THERE'S an authority. Do you really trust those folks after they've misled you so many times?
quote: The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of.
quote: Let me get this straight. You think that varves work back to a date of 5ka? Why the change of processes? What is the evidence for it? How do the older varves look different? These are the kind of questions you need to learn to ask.
quote: Berthault's demonstrations are meaningless. He has shown nothing that isn't taught in a Geology 101 class. Can you state one of Berthault's Laws for us?
quote: No. Those are not varves. You are conflating cross laminations of a storm deposit and varves. Berthault and AIG hope that you will continue to be confused.
quote: Is this Berthault again? Do you know what grain size of sediments he used in his demonstrations? Do you realizew that this has nothing to do with silt and clay sedimentation such as that at Lake Suigetsu?
quote: Are you just making this up as you go? You complain about others not doing 'real' science and the write something like this?
quote: Sorry, been there, done that. It is not convincing at all. But if you wish to believe the story, that's just fine with me. You might ask Wieland sometime just how far away the ice cores were collected from the airplane find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
e: Why only 5k? What changed and what is the evidence for a change in varve deposition? C: I've asked for information on the topography of the lake, watershed, core samples of the watershed. It appears all you have to base your varves is on a few core samples. The topography is not important. I seriously doubt that the topography is anything like other locations where varves are found such as Lake Gosiute. You are wasting your time on this. And where do you get this 'few core samples' idea from. Is AIG misleading you again? I really wouldn't have as much patience with them as you seem to have.
e: Whoa! Now THERE'S an authority. Do you really trust those folks after they've misled you so many times? C: Do you really believe you are not the one being misled? Yes. The evidence is obvious. There are so many facts that they leave out in any explanations to you. Not only are you being misled, but you are being intentionallly misled.
Answers in Genesis folks are just like you all looking at the natural evidences. No. They prefer to look at little snips of evidence and make up ad hoc explanations, all the while ignoring huge tracts of science; when looking at the formation of sedimentary laminations, for instance.
C: No one supplied evidence on this thread concerning how Lake Suigestu formed. Check back on this thread of the link supporting kettle lakes formed as extreme blocks of ice from the glaciers settled causing the kettle to form. Not relevant.
e: The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of. C: Do you realize how far beneath the ice this plane was found. Yes. Do you realize that it was not located at the same place as the core samples on the ice cap? Do you realize that not all of the Greenland ice cap has the same precipitation each year? Could this be another place where AIG has misled you? Think about it.
e: The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of. C: Was the cores done on the same glacieral ice flow. I thinks they wasnn't.
C: I heard it moved horizonal, but not vertical. If the cores were taken on the same ice flow where the planes were believed to be, then the varves are not bogus. If the cores would of been taken on another ice flow then they would not necessarily of been bogus, if it too measured the snow fall in the last 50 years. It would be interesting if a different ice flow was used, however if the ice core was not fractured that it moved vertical, if the entire flow moved, then I don't see the problem. After reading this paragraph, all problems seem insignificant.
e: Berthault's demonstrations are meaningless. He has shown nothing that isn't taught in a Geology 101 class. Can you state one of Berthault's Laws for us? C: I stated Berthault's Laws in a previous post. I agree it would likely agree with geology, its science is it not, that according to Berthault particles of different sizes will sort vertically, including settling in still water, and within moving water. Brethault used moving water and sand-sized particles. Please restate Brethault's Law. I cannot find it.
e: Is this Berthault again? Do you know what grain size of sediments he used in his demonstrations? Do you realizew that this has nothing to do with silt and clay sedimentation such as that at Lake Suigetsu? C: Why would it not include silt and clay sedimentation? Good question. Just the kind that you should ask of Brethault. The kind of question that AIG fails to deliver on.
e: Are you just making this up as you go? You complain about others not doing 'real' science and the write something like this? (No Response) How do you feel Lake Suigetsu formed? Is your answer I have no idea? Perhaps you should look to the people at AIG rather than stereotype them? My answer is that it is not material.
Its like your pointing your finger at them and have three fingers pointing back at you? Or it could be that all fingers point at AIG. They depend upon your continued ingorance.
C: Checked out their site and they believe Bethaults laws still apply in regards to green river, but they agree that it was a multiple catastrophy. Its not a direct parallel to how a kettle lake's formed. Bethaults law takes into account currents producing multiple varves in short amounts of time,... But there are no currents. Current ripples can be easily recognized in the field. This is silliness. If all you can refer to is a YEC website and ignore actual scientific explanations, you are hopelessly and willfully ignorant.
C: ... and at green river you have no indication of erosion between varves according to the AIG people. According to mainstream geologists also. What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The point if you believe these varves were all laid down one each year, or over millions of years, shouldn't there be evidence of erosion. Not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with very slow sedimentation. Unless you are a YEC, that is.
E: Good question. Just the kind that you should ask of Berthault. The kind of question that AIG fails to deliver on. I think the answer lies in the biblical flood, it provided the clays and the sediments. It supplied clays to Brethault? What are you talking about?
The silt and clays would of been rushing off the face of the earth. Then you need to explain huge shale deposits on continental crust...
The waters should of been quite turbid, because the sorting of the larger particles of the flood would lie primarily beneath the clays and silt because of Berthaults laws. Unfortunately, silts and clays have nothing to do with Brethault's demonstrations. His work is irrelevant to evolution or YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
It appears that there is some enrichment of radioactive elements associated with kimberlites:
http://emg.geoscienceworld.org/...content/abstract/8/1-2/137
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024