Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Yes, that is the point of the study.Now, read this very slowly, without calibration the correlation between the C14 dates and the varve counts is rather strong. (you did look at the charts didn't you?). That is not, in any way, explanable by your waves.This is NOT the only way in which the C14 is checked and calibrated. Your questions about waves do not explain away the cross checking.You are ignoring these issues. You are beginning to seem a little thick. If you want to carry on the discussion answer the relevant points that are being brought up. They do not go away just because you ignore them.(You do have a good question about checking the current laying down of varves. I don't know the answer. As noted though, if the varves are NOT annual then you have some very, very strange things going on which you have been ignoring.)

Hi, Literalist,You are new to this but seem to be "getting it". Can you help Craig? He seems to be off somewhere and not able to understand what he is reading.He misses the whole point of the correlations between varves and C14 in one lake AND the correlations between lakes AND the correlations between different methods. Can you explain it to him?Perhaps, you, since it is fresh to you have a way of explaining it that will work better. Thanks for any attempt.

There's a theoretical limit of at least 50,000 years (I've seen 100,000 suggested). We've got good calibrations against dendrochronology for 11,000 years and the lake Suigetsu measurements were one of the various ways in which scientists are trying to get better calibrations for older dates.Anyone who says that C14 dates are only good for the last 5,000 years is behind the times.On the subjest of varves, in the past I've seen claims of up to 5 varves a year forming - which is well short of an average of 10. And that only accounts for around half the sediment in the sample.And the calibration isn't circular either - since there are limits to the plausible effects of changes in the production rates - and because it is compared with other calibrations, so only a factor which systematically affects everything to the same degree could possibly upset the results to any great degree.

Most of your questions make no sense ... they are based on misunderstandings and incorrect sssumptions. No. Turbidites and varves settle very differently. Yes. New relative to what? Much newer than Newton's laws, much older than the discovery of Flores man. No. Documented annual varves deposited in controlloed studies are one of the many lines of evidence that lead to our conclusions. No, they could not have been ... unless you just want to make up stories that are based on your hopes rather than evidence, and that have no correlation to reality. You have not addressed the multiple reasons why they are annual. C-14 and C-12 are dissolved in water,usually in the form of carbon dioxide but also in other molecules. Sea creatures are typically not suitable for carbon dating, because their sources of carbon are often not in equilibrium with the current atmospheric concentrations. However, this is irrelevant to the current discussion. Yes but irrelevant. If pigs had wings then they could fly. If you have a proposed source of consistent error let's hear it. Note that real scientists are constantly trying to falsify their conclusions, and lots of people that are smarter than you or me and know a lot more about the subject have tried to find consistent errors and failed. That doesn't mean a consistent error is impossible, but it's incredibly unlikely. Yes, but irrelevant; the same natural processes (that affect varves) don't happen everywhere imultaneoulsy.

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

Craig,Have you paid attention to the postings pointing out that even if the wind, etc. can create false varves you still haven't explained what is shown.You seem to be going on and on about something that is clearly not going to help you. Would you mind responding to what has been posted?

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.

It's time you start reading and trying to understand the responses you are getting.The issue is one of correlations. Unless you can explain some other reason so many different methods correlate, you have nothing.Drop Glacial Melt. It has nothing to do with Lake S.Try to stick with the topic. You have been getting answers whether you like them or not. It's time to stop simply repeating the Mantra.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

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

an interesting though to actually get data before spouting off on ideas ... but as the thesis is yours, it is your job to do the research for it. Have fun with it -- you might learn something?I just did a quick mental 10 km circumference is 3+ km across (10/pi) and there are 1.6 km per mile ... so ~2 miles across. Later noticed that the article states the area of the lake, and that together with the circumference would give you an elliptical shape (and you can figure that out as well from the information available).Look up the definition of "kettle lake" and you will get an idea of how much is shallow.enjoy.added by edit:from the pdf article:"The lake is 10 km around the perimeter and covers an area of 4.3 km². It is a typical kettle-type lake with a nearly constant depth at the center, ~34 m deep."A 10 km circumference circle would have a diameter of 3.1831 km (1.977 mi) and an area of 7.96 km² so it is not going to be very round.ps:http://www.terrapub.co.jp/...s/JO/JOSJ/pdf/2902/29020047.pdf: enough for now ...This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-14-2004 11:04 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Just a few points to consider...

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

No. Not the opposite. Just different.

quote:

---

Are you a scientist or just a lurker.

---

I can guarantee that Ned is more of a geologist than you.

quote:

---

If you don't know what your talking about, I'd suggest you keep quiet.

---

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.htmBased 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.

In a previous response I mentioned an animation on the behavior of particles of water in a wave and how they actually move as compared to how the wave moves.the website is:
Page not found | Kettering University
and this is the one in particular that I was refering to: (if it is not animated here then go to the website to see the animation.You will notice that the particles of water oscillate in circles with decreasing motion with depth. I believe that at about 3x or 4x the wave height the motion is virtually non-existent.There is no way that waves can transport material -- you need current to do that.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12-15-2004 12:21 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why? Unless the varves are actually approximately annual why would the decay rate of the C14 match up well with the varve count? Remember it matchs up reasonably (<10% off) before the calibrations are included.Why would the varves match across different parts of the world if they are due to local storm events?It is these things that you aren't touching. It seems from your posts that you don't get the basic point at all. That is what we are waiting for.You keep going on about waves and mixing but have yet to give a clue how they could produce the results seen. I'm not answering "questions" about it because you haven't finished working out your hypothosis. It has glaring holes in it. When you plug them maybe some details can be looked at more closely. I see no way that your idea would produce the measured results.

Edge,Edge said: First of all, not all laminations are annual varves.Craig says: Finally a crack that not all laminations are annual varves.Edge said: 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.Craig says: Not necessarily, its not all based on storms, its winds that drive the undercurrents. Without undercurrents the sediments wouldn't of drifted to the center of the basin.The only problem I'm waiting for is the topography of Lake Suigetsu is because the creationists all believe in the world flood. This means Lake Suigetsu's shores could of been higher in the topography. The clays would of suspended settling evenly across the bottom of Lake Suigetsu arrived from shores now part of the watershed.I however agree that the bigger sediments from wind storms would show up drifting to the center, the clays because of suspension would of settled evenly across the bottom.Until I have information on the watershed topography of Lake Suigetsu, the actual lake topography, how circular is the lake, is there evidence that it was connected with other lakes in the area in the past.Too many questions to make an assumption that all the varves are annual varves to say its an old earth. The correlations if based off an young earth, would not the varve correlations still correlate.There is really no reason to discuss this more until we have more information on the topography of the present lake's size, and its watershed topography, and core samples of the watershed.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-15-2004 05:08 AM

check http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.note especially "no marked mixing occurs between the upper fresh water and the lower salt water" and that you can calculate the rough shape of the lake from the data available (it is simple math).rather than assume whether the layers are annual or not what would you expect to see if they were annual layers (and do you see that) and what would you expect to see if they were not annual layers (and do you see that)?that is how you evaluate the position, not just with speculations and impressions and opinions.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}