Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Ned, I've heard creationists say that waves cause multitude of varves per year. The opposite situation in the natual is why coral reefs have sandy beaches, instead of the sand being swept back out to the sea. The coral breaks the wave. They are using this natural phenomenom to reclaiming ocean front property.They build a structure in the water, not on land, to break the wave and the sediments settle quite quickly to give sandy beach front property, where just a few years before was jagged cliffs.Lake Suigetsu in japan would be just the opposite. Without structures to break the waves on windy days. The organic sediment and clays in the shallows would be sweep out into the deeper parts of the lake suigetsu on windy days.The organics would always settle quite quickly and the clays then settling ontop, until the next windy day. The only mystery is not how the varves formed, but your correlations in respect to Lake Suigetsu.Your probably a degree'd scientists that can easily point out the errors of beach erosion sciences. It appears what happens in the natural contradicts what your saying is happening in Lake Suigetsu.http://www.utdallas.edu/~msweet/oc-unit5.htmlhttp://www.erosion.com/naturebui.aspThis message has been edited by Craig, 12-13-2004 11:05 PM

Ned, Lake Suigetsu is a really small lake, 10 k meters the circumference, and its bottom is around 34 meters deep. If it was a bigger lake it would likely be tapered as Razd's suggested. This is a very small but extremely deep lake, but its bottom is not tapered in the center, its shows its consitently 34 meters deep. Lake Suigetsu LinkFixed broken link. --AdminWhen its windy the waves would continually be sweeping diatoms, organics, and clay turbidites out into the center of the lake. This is because of the sweeping action of the undercurrents not being stopped by marsh grasses, or a underwater structure to break the circular column of the wave from sweeping the sediments away from the shore to the deeper area of the lake.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~msweet/oc-unit5.htmlThe undercurrent wave action would mix and sweep continually on a windy day. If it was a big lake I'd agree with Razd, that it would not move the sediments to the center of the lake. It's an extremely small lake and were not talking sand but diatoms, and clay settling out in the center of Lake Suigetsu.The link I gave on waves suggest the wave is a circular rotating column of water. It said when the water column hits the bottom it doesn't stop sweeping. The wave just becomes more eliptical in its shape as its sweeping across the bottom.Do you have any proof that Lake Suigetsu has dune grass breaking the wave so the sediments turbidites on windy days settling in the shallows. Instead of being swept out to the deeper part of this extremely small yet deep lake, by the undercurrent sweeping action of the waves.Razd's point of swamp grasses reminds me of how they protecting shorelines from water eroding lake shores. I don't see how that would protect the shallows from becoming quite turbid on windy days from being swept out continually by the circular action of the waves.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-14-2004 08:27 AMThis message has been edited by Admin, 12-14-2004 10:04 AM

Ned, The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form, the diatoms, organics settle first, then the clays. Do you have studies showing one annual varve forming consistently per year? Is this something new so your basing only on core correlation data on C-14 and not actual documented annual varves being deposited in controlled studies?I'm just making a point that in lake Suigetsu past multitudes of varves could of been laid down in very short amounts of time. The lakes bottom is 34 feet and not sloped in the center, suggesting that the sediments are stratifying not near the shores but in the very center of Lake Suigetsu.I just don't know enough about C-14, like is it diluted in water so affecting sea creatures ages differently than say a tree ring? If you error consistently would that not explain different lakes varve layers correlating with one another. If the same processes happened to all, an error would proportionally affect all?

TheLiteralist, I'm suspecting most of the varves were formed from the flood sediment glaciers that scoured out the kettle. Where I live its all flat, they said it was an old glacial lake bed. I'm just throwing in the wind/waves, it might actually be part of the problem. I'm suspecting additional varves are being added by wave wind actions over time, and have no problem that some are actually annual varves.I just don't know what to make of this correlations stuff, suspect some of the data might be somewhat accurate, thats able to correlate with tree rings. The varves older than 5,000 years might be assumed to be annual varves but could be laid down much quicker in all the lakes proportionally by the world flood. Yet be decided by the paleontologists to be given an age based off annual varves so that they can correlate a old date to all layers.I'm not satisfied yet that for the last 5,000 years only one varve has been laid down. I'm not sure how one could believe the C-14 could be that accurate in water, compared to trees that breathed in C-14.I just threw in my thoughts, its not like we have documented studies that only one annual varve is being laid down. Yet were supposed to agree that all varves are annual varves, in spite of other factors of how varves can form. That could of caused multitudes of varves in the past to form in an extremely short amount of time, that were told are annual varve.I'm leaning to bow out of this thread, suspect they errored but its proportional, so everything appears old.

Paulk, I agree that we need more information on the topography, than I could find on the internet. Like wind direction in respect to the shallows, watershed (any streams contributing to, channels), than what I could find on the internet.

Ned, If your dating leaves, there might be some correlations back 5,000 years. I've heard that C-14 is soluble so make me question annual varves farther back in time.Your not addressing glacial melt contributing multitudes of varves by natural sedimentation and natural erosion. I have no problem that your correlations would agree, because your assuming only one annual varve per year for long periods of time, and not factoring the melting glaciers.Razd correctly explained that when the wave is circular over water the water or sediments within stays within the circular column of water. The wave simply becomes elliptical and not circular causing the wave to rise as it hit the shallows.The problem with Razds and your belief the sediments can not be moved by the waves is disfuted by what happens in the natural. The Wave when it hits the shallows presses up, but its being sheared on the bottom of the wave where the wave hits the shallows. This is what is causing those undercurrents and its these undercurrents powered by the uplifting of the wave column that carries this warmer water as a current to the center of the lake.The wave become eliptical because part of the wave is breaking down causing undercurrents. I agree with you and Razd that most of the wave water energies is not moving out of the rotating column or water. Its only because it hits the shallows that undercurrents are being formed.

Razd, I calculated the lakes diameter as being only 1.4 miles? How much of that is shallows?Do you have a link to a topographic map of this lake, that would include watershed shed topography, possible water channels like creeks?Thanks in advance,
CraigThis message has been edited by Craig, 12-14-2004 03:25 PM

Ned, I asked some questions in post 55, still waiting for answers.

Coragyps, I thought kettle lakes were formed by large blocks of glacial ice forming the kettle shape, before these large blocks of ice melted. http://www.msu.edu/user/lebaron1/i.htmCould you explain how you believe the Kettle lakes form, and how it was not formed by a glacier.Thank you,
Craig

PaulK, I suspect without knowing the topography of the lake, the watershed it hard to beable to calculate. This was why I asked Ned if there was any controlled studies done to determine that actually only one annual varve is being laid down in a given year. This does not mean that in the past varves were not laid down much quicker by the creationists flood model.I was always told that C-14 is not all that accurate after 5,000 years. It seems your correlations are only based upon C-14 in kettle lake sediments. I'm not sure, but are you in essense calibrating the C-14 beyond 5,000 years based on the one annual varve per year?

PaulK, I suspect without knowing the topography of the lake, the watershed it hard to beable to calculate. This was why I asked Ned if there was any controlled studies done to determine that actually only one annual varve is being laid down in a given year. This does not mean that in the past varves were not laid down much quicker by the creationists flood model.I was always told that C-14 is not all that accurate after 5,000 years. It seems your correlations are only based upon C-14 in kettle lake sediments. I'm not sure, but are you in essense calibrating the C-14 beyond 5,000 years based only on the one annual varve theory per year?This message has been edited by Craig, 12-14-2004 04:40 PM

Ned, I just wanted a yes or a no, to know whats happening. So were on the same page. Re: Lake Suigetsu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ned, The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form, the diatoms, organics settle first, then the clays. Do you have studies showing one annual varve forming consistently per year? Yes____No_____Is this kettle lake correlations something new? Yes____No____so are you basing your correlations only on core correlation data on C-14? Yes_____No_____ and not actual documented annual varves being deposited in controlled studies? Yes____No_____
I'm just making a point that in lake Suigetsu past multitudes of varves could of been laid down in very short amounts of time. The lakes bottom is 34 feet and not sloped in the center, suggesting that the sediments are stratifying not near the shores but in the very center of Lake Suigetsu.I just don't know enough about C-14, like is it diluted in water so would it be affecting sea creatures ages differently than say a tree ring? Yes_____No_____ If you error consistently would that not explain different kettle lakes layers correlating with one another? Yes_____No______ If the same natural processes happened to all, would not an error proportionally affect all? Yes____No____

Jonf,Craig said: The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form,Jon said: No. Turbidites and varves settle very differently.-------------------------------------------------------------------I disagree with this, organics would always settle quicker than the clays. The clays actually could be continually settling between windy days. There might only be a few windy days in some given years capable of producing counterfeit varves today. It might of been very different in times past. I'm looking forward to undercurrents being proven not factual. It just seems to straight forward that erosion of shorelines is a fact, then some varves not all were formed because of undercurrent produced by the waves.I'm kind of waiting to see if someone will showup with topographic maps, challenge the undercurrents in the natural not being factual.If no one can challenge the undercurrent phenomenom, then many of the lower varves were probably laid down much quicker by initial erosion when the lake was formed. Everyone says kettle lakes are not formed by glaciers, so I'm waiting how they feel kettle lakes formed.I would be interested in those controlled studies you said were done on Lake Suigetsu annual varves. I'm going to wait for everyone to respond, without topographic watershed maps of Lake Suigetsu and how it formed, where the shallows are, to see what light it sheds.Thanks in advance,
Craig

Ned, You've already agreed that your calibrating the C-14 dating methods by your assumption that only one annual varve has been laid going back to whenever the kettle formed.You seem to be saying its been proven that this is a fact, when in fact undercurrents prove turbidites could be swept from the shallows to the quickly dropping off kettle.I feel I've explained undercurrents as well as can be explained. How its the undercurrents that are carrying on shoreline erosion. I've also explained how in reverse people are causing sediments to be deposited by breaking the wave before it arrives on shore. I've explained this is why sandy beaches and coral reefs go hand in hand. If you take the coral reefs away, your sandy beaches is carried back away from the shore. The kettle lakes have no reefs, the sediments can only be carried back into the kettle.Have you checked out my links, that show what happens in the natural doesn't support your assumption that the sediments on the bottom of kettle lakes are only annual varves. In fact the physical sciences suggest just the opposite of what you seem to be pressing that I'm suppose to agree with you that only annual varves form. This conflicts with the natural sciences.Are you a scientist or just a lurker. I ask this because you never answered questions I posted to you without prompting. Its kind of funny cause you keep requesting I answer questions. Its like your calling the kettle black, or pointing the finger where you have three fingers pointing back at you.If you don't know what your talking about, I'd suggest you keep quiet. I'm not trying to be nasty, just trying to be helpful. You will not beable to prove the undercurrent is not happening. Razd realizes that the water particle and solids only remain in the wave in open water but are being release as the wave breaks down into those undercurrents, in the shallows. I believe he understood that undercurrents is not a wave. I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about. When you keep mentioning the wave when you need to think of undercurrents, that are being driven by the wave, but is not a wave.Don't get mad if I don't respond to your posts, if I keep posting you will all cause the topic to drift back to your assumption that I accept all varves are annual varves. In fact I've already agreed that if you base off annual varves to calibrate C-14 beyond tree ring correlations that your correlations should agree one with the other.

adminjar, If one assumes all varves are annual varves past the tree ring correlations, they should agree one with the other.The issue is not glaciers, but if the sediments on the bottom is sediments on the bottom of kettle lakes are derived by undercurrents sediment shore and shallow erosion.If one would assume the varves past the tree ring dating are not annual varves, the correlations would still agree with each other.The issue is the varves being used to calibrate the C-14 past the tree ring correlations to calibrate C-14 is truly annual varves. This is the error of the correlations thread, is that undercurrents in the natural are supporting sediments can be transported into the kettle on windy days.Razd, Note: Fixed by changing text size.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-14-2004 10:46 PM