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

(1) You are missing the fact that such waves induced varves would not correlate to the C₁₄ ages and to the other dating mechanisms. For such waves to be a problem you would need to explain why the same pattern of correlations happen.(2) Those varve systems where the waves cause problems are in systems where only clay varves are involved, and they involve underwater slides to create the multiple varves. In Lake Suigetsu you have clay sediment and diatom deposition in alternating layers. Any wave induced slide into the depths would mix up the bottom rather than lay down a layered pattern, especially it would mix up the C₁₄ data and this would show up on the graphs as points way off the curve. The samples were taken in different areas of the lake and had the same deposition patterns. The depth of this lake and the distance from the shore to the sample sites means that all diatoms in such wave froth would have settled to the bottom nearer the shore, and not deposited out where the samples were taken. The clay in suspension would not effect the results either.Again, the issue is not whether the varve dating is accurate, or whether the C₁₄ dating is accurate, or whether the tree ring dating is accurate, or whether the ice core dating is accurate, or whether all the other dating methods listed in the OT are accurate, but why do they give the same dates, ages and seasonal variations? Why do they correlate one to the other to the other to the other? What can cause all those systems to give the same results?Enjoy.ps - Another good way to keep sand on a beach is to have dune grass. It does the same to wind swept sand as the reefs do to water swept sand.

---

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

Nice attempt. But, you see, all sorts of things are considered before conclusions are drawn.You don't actually think that you're going to spend a few mintues and find a major problem with this do you?As RAZD notes you have to think the whole thing ALL the way through before you put forward a hypothosis. Yours falls over almost immediately.

Hi RAZD,Yes, my questions are about calibration because I am ignorant of this process and it seems to underlie the correlation issue, which I also am ignorant of. The calibration thing seems somewhat technical.Thanks for this particular reply. You've put quite a bit of work into it, but I'll need some time to digest it.

take your time. I appreciate the effort you are putting into studying the issue.

---

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

Hi Craig,Thanks for your response; I certainly appreciate your input and shall consider it. The thing about waves and varves is interesting to me. Stick around if you like. I don't know if there are any explanations for these phenomena from a Noah's Flood view point that I can access (whether due to availability of information or due to ability of my mind). However, I am going to give a good try to understand this issue as much as I can (there is a limit, of course, due to my having other things to do and such and/or going blind due to staring at a computer screen for hours on end).

Hi NosyNed,Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. For some reason, I tend to address mainly RAZD on this thread...I guess because it's his OP that has me hunting and fishing and trying to understand calibration and such.Anyway, I AM reading you.BTW, you said:

quote:

---

I'm assuming that your 4000 year range ( +/- 2000 is meant to be 40,000 btw

---

No, I mean that +/- 2000 years is a 4000 year range, but it can get knotty to understand sometimes exactly what I mean.I got it about the percentage thing though (or the error increasing with the count).

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

But, Craig, I don't see how you've explained the odering of diatom rich and clay rich layers. Which can be seen forming with the seasons now.It also does NOT explain the correlation between those layers and C14 age.It also fails to explain the correlation with this lake and others 1,000's of kms away.In other words the evidence wipes out this idea of waves.btw, your first links don't work.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2004 01:33 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?

I see one major problem with your argument and that is that it fails to deal with the quantities involved. To show that varves form as you suggest it must be the case that the amount of clay swept from the shore is sufficient to produce what appears to be an annual layer instead of a slightly greater concentration of clay within a layer.In short all you've got is a hypothesis which at this point still needs evidence to support it and only deals with part of the data. What you need to work out is how strong the waves need to be and how often such a situation occurs at Lake Suigetsu.I also note that neither of your links suggests that varves are naturally formed in the way you suggest. Does your hypothesis represent a situation which occurs anywhere in nature ?

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.

Come on Craig. This is a very deep lake for it's size. the bottom drops off fast to depth, and thus it is not tapered ... but I never said it was. The literature characterizes it as a "kettle" lake: That is from the second refernce I gave on the lake
PDF Article from www.sciencemag.org z SCIENCE z VOL. 279 z 20 FEBRUARY 1998 (click)This means that waves cannot continue to stir up the bottom away from the shore, and the actual behavior of waves means they cannot carry material with the wave: the water oscillates but doesn't move with the wave (I can show you a picture that I posted for whatever or someone similar on the ark issue regarding wave movement or you can look it up yourself). This means that waves are not able to carry material to the center of this lake, because the water isn't moving that way.Waves cannot hold diatoms in suspension either, which is why they would have settled out before reaching the sample sites.You don't adequately explain how your wave scenario results in false additional layers, and you don't explain how it results in correlations to not just other dating methods but seasonal variations that also show up in other dating methods. Without those kind of explanations, any critique of the varve system is just shooting from the hip and hoping something will stick: you must provide a complete explanation of an alternate scenario.please fix your urls so they don't mess up the display width, as it makes it hard to read the posts when you have to keep scrolling back and forth. neither of them worked for me, and your last one was a repeat of an earlier one that is irrelevant.(admin -- please do it if he won't or can't)btw -- since when is 3 km in diameter a "really small lake" eh? ever tried to swim 2 miles without stopping?enjoy.

---

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

That's obvious. And the problem for you, is that until you do, you do not have any answer to the age dating issue. Which of course does not explain the alternate layers of fast settling diatoms with slow settling clay AND the correlation of those layers to C₁₄ dates. It's just wishful thinking ... Can you explain that in english? Denial will get you through when all else fails eh?Enjoy.

---

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

quote:

---

Ned, The way turbidites would settle quite similarly to how annual varves would form, the diatoms, organics settle first, then the clays.

---

Then why do these varves correlate with the way that trees put on rings and ice in the arctic, and anarctic, put down ice layers? How do waves affect these other two correlations in the exact same fashion so that the C14 dates match? How do waves from occasional winds explain the correlation between the lake in Japan and the lake in Poland? Are you saying that they have the same exact wind patterns, that is the same strength of wind on the same exact days, as the lake in Japan?

quote:

---

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?

---

The dates also include leaves and insects trapped in each of the layers, so it is not entirely dependentont on the dating of diatoms.