Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 1 of 119 (441713)
12-18-2007 3:25 PM


I'm setting up this thread basically to continue a discussion Creationist and I began elsewhere, but anyone is welcome to chime in of course. I'm curious as to how one might reconcile the geological record of lake varves (and marine ones, sure, but let's worry about lacurstrine sediments first) with A, the idea of a global flood around 4000 years ago and B, an earth formation date of around 6000-10000 years ago.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:44 AM JB1740 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 119 (442436)
12-21-2007 9:35 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 3 of 119 (443293)
12-24-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JB1740
12-18-2007 3:25 PM


Well, of course, some of them are formed annually. But that does not mean that all of them are. For instance, in the Mount St. Helens eruption, 25 ft. of fine layered sediment was put down in a single afternoon. To say that all varves are layed down annually is a fallacy. Experiments have been done to show that these layers can be put down quickly.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1775
All of these observations are consistent with a global flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JB1740, posted 12-18-2007 3:25 PM JB1740 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:34 AM Creationist has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 119 (443301)
12-24-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Creationist
12-24-2007 10:44 AM


Well, of course, some of them are formed annually. But that does not mean that all of them are. For instance, in the Mount St. Helens eruption, 25 ft. of fine layered sediment was put down in a single afternoon. To say that all varves are layed down annually is a fallacy. Experiments have been done to show that these layers can be put down quickly.
You are confused. While all varves are laminations, not all laminations are varves. There are scientist who devote careers to studying these things.
And as far as Brethault and Julien are concerned, this is nothing new. It is Geology 101 stuff. It has no bearing on varves or even a real sedimentary environment. Why would a flume experiment using sand-sized particles have anything to do with low-flow regime lacustrine deposition? These are the questions YECs need to, but won't, ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 10:44 AM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 1:28 PM edge has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 5 of 119 (443319)
12-24-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
12-24-2007 11:34 AM


You are confused. While all varves are laminations, not all laminations are varves. There are scientist who devote careers to studying these things.
And your point?
And as far as Brethault and Julien are concerned, this is nothing new. It is Geology 101 stuff. It has no bearing on varves or even a real sedimentary environment.
It has everything to do with it, since varves are interpreted as laminations being laid down yearly, while these experiments clearly show that is not necessarily so.
Why would a flume experiment using sand-sized particles have anything to do with low-flow regime lacustrine deposition?
How do you know which are low-flow and which are not? Perhaps you can fill me in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 11:34 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by edge, posted 12-24-2007 2:05 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2007 2:52 PM Creationist has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 119 (443325)
12-24-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Creationist
12-24-2007 1:28 PM


And your point?
The point is that laminations in sediments deposited by a debris flow are not varves. You seem to equate the two.
It has everything to do with it, since varves are interpreted as laminations being laid down yearly, while these experiments clearly show that is not necessarily so.
Again, different geological setting, different grain-sizes, different sediment influx, different current velocities... You remain confused. These laminations that Brethault and other see would not be called varves by any geologist.
How do you know which are low-flow and which are not? Perhaps you can fill me in.
I know from the general geological setting, the grain sizes, the sedimentary textures and the composition of the grains. What Brethault and others are using would never be found in varves. I know it's a mystery to you, but your professional YECs are preying upon your ignorance of this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 1:28 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 8:36 PM edge has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 119 (443330)
12-24-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Creationist
12-24-2007 1:28 PM


Interpretations
It has everything to do with it, since varves are interpreted as laminations being laid down yearly, while these experiments clearly show that is not necessarily so.
Hardly. We see them (in lake Suigetsu in Japan) forming each year with a particular pattern. The pattern marks the change of seasons.
If you think you are so smart then go to this thread and explain what is there: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III).
Please note two things:
1) An important point it to explain the correlations between the different methods.
2) No one, not one single creationist or creationist site has been able to tackle what is in that thread. Will you be the first?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 1:28 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 4:31 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 8 of 119 (443345)
12-24-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
12-24-2007 2:52 PM


Re: Interpretations
Hardly. We see them (in lake Suigetsu in Japan) forming each year with a particular pattern. The pattern marks the change of seasons.
Perhaps you misunderstood my OP. I said no one denies that varves are not annual. Your mistake is in assuming that because we see varves being put down annually that all varves are put down that way. All you have proven is that you cannot think outside the uniformitarian box.
Please note two things:
1) An important point it to explain the correlations between the different methods.
2) No one, not one single creationist or creationist site has been able to tackle what is in that thread. Will you be the first?
Oooh. I don't know, you make it seem so hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2007 2:52 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 4:39 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 4:48 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 12-24-2007 5:15 PM Creationist has replied
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 12-24-2007 5:22 PM Creationist has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 9 of 119 (443347)
12-24-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Creationist
12-24-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Interpretations
Creo, if you don't mind my asking, do you have a BS in Biochemistry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 4:31 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 4:55 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 119 (443350)
12-24-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Creationist
12-24-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Interpretations
Your mistake is in assuming that because we see varves being put down annually that all varves are put down that way.
Your mistake is in assuming that because lying Creationists tell you geologists assume all varves are put down the same way that it is the truth. No one except the lying Creationists think that all varves are put down the same way. What is different is that the biologists and geologists that actually look at such things can tell a lot about how a specimen was created.
It is simply another example of how the folk selling ID and Creationism play fast and loose with reason and the truth to keep the flow of money coming in from the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Communion of Bobbleheads.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 4:31 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 4:54 PM jar has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 11 of 119 (443351)
12-24-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
12-24-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Interpretations
Your mistake is in assuming that because lying Creationists tell you geologists assume all varves are put down the same way that it is the truth.
My MY. Did I say geologists? Or did I just accuse uniformitarianists, which Nosy is undoubtedly one.
No one except the lying Creationists think that all varves are put down the same way.
Since Creationists admit that some varves are put down annually, the only one that seems to be lying is you.
What is different is that the biologists and geologists that actually look at such things can tell a lot about how a specimen was created.
Your mistake is in assuming that no Creationists are biologists or geologists.
It is simply another example of how the folk selling ID and Creationism play fast and loose with reason and the truth to keep the flow of money coming in from the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Communion of Bobbleheads.
All you have proven is that YOU are the one that is playing fast and loose with reason and the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 4:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 5:01 PM Creationist has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 12 of 119 (443352)
12-24-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by molbiogirl
12-24-2007 4:39 PM


Re: Interpretations
No, I don't mind your asking at all. No I do not. Do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 4:39 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 12-24-2007 5:20 PM Creationist has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 119 (443357)
12-24-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Creationist
12-24-2007 4:54 PM


Re: Interpretations
My MY. Did I say geologists? Or did I just accuse uniformitarianists, which Nosy is undoubtedly one.
Sorry but that is simply a nonsense assertion. The key point is that it is possible to look at records, whether it is varves or ice layers or coral layers or the geologic column and determine how they were laid down. The ones in the OP are annual layers.
Your mistake is in assuming that no Creationists are biologists or geologists.
Not at all, Creationists can be geologists or biologists, but geology and biology cannot be done anyway except under the old earth models. There are no Young Earth models or Biblical Creation models to use.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 4:54 PM Creationist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Creationist, posted 12-24-2007 5:05 PM jar has replied

  
Creationist
Member (Idle past 5646 days)
Posts: 95
Joined: 10-19-2007


Message 14 of 119 (443358)
12-24-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
12-24-2007 5:01 PM


Re: Interpretations
Sorry but that is simply a nonsense assertion. The key point is that it is possible to look at records, whether it is varves or ice layers or coral layers or the geologic column and determine how they were laid down. The ones in the OP are annual layers.
Really? What would distinguish a varve that was put down annually from several that were put down quickly?
Not at all, Creationists can be geologists or biologists, but geology and biology cannot be done anyway except under the old earth models.
Really? Why is this so?
There are no Young Earth models or Biblical Creation models to use.
http://www.biblicalgeology.net/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 5:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 5:21 PM Creationist has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 119 (443359)
12-24-2007 5:08 PM


Forum Guidelines Reminder
To everyone,
The people on the other side of the issue from you in this discussion are your honorable opponents, not crafty connivers. Please keep the discussion on a higher plane and the focus on the issues.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 12-24-2007 7:44 PM Admin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024