Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

Please explain why you think that ash layers need to be separated evenly in time? You are aware that fires happen at varied times throughout the year? If these ash layers represent volcanic eruptions (as I asume them to be), why do you conclude that these eruptions must be evenly spaced in time? Do you have information about this particular area and perhaps some references that would lead readers to conclude that volcanoes in that region are on a specific eruption schedule? Names and quotes that show these two geologists believe it must be evenly spaced ash layers for the old earth model to be effective. It would also help if you explained why ash layers not evenly spaced has anything at all to do with support for a young earth? You don't have a theory, you have an idea at best. You are mostly just displaying a lack of knowledge and arguments from incredulity. You have apparently never heard of examples such as this: Tollund ManHave you really never heard of things being preserved without predation or decay? Are you ignoring the obvious contradictions to your argument? Or perhaps you are advocating a much much younger earth than most Yec's ... Dr.Adequate would be so proud. Even Younger Earth CreationismYou contradict yourself once again (In the same post no less): Your model is certainly supported by the Last Tuesday Model. I am sure Dr. Adequate would enjoy your support on his Even Younger thread.

So if there was a way of depositing first heavier particles and then the lighter particles on a 48 hour cylce. (as opposed to a annual cycle as I would expect) We should be able to calculate the minimum time it takes to have varying layers of light and dark materials.4,000,000 / 365 / 2 = 21,917At a rate of 182 alternating cycles per year we must still expect the minimum time for four million layers to accumulate to take about 22 thousand years.Why though would there be a constant 48 hour cycle of deposition between light and dark materials? What would cause such a thing if its not annual erosion? (as I have assumed these layers to have been)Edited by Vacate, : meant annual erosion not seasonal

They then cite that a different formation deposited 5 layers per year after the construction of a man made object interfering with the natural water flow. It does show me that more than one layer per year can result due to varying conditions effecting the depositing of materials. At five layers per year however the varve is still a minimum of 800,000 years old. Thanks for the link. I better understand now what your issue is. I still see it as a problem for a young earth though. I would be tempted to believe however that they are yearly events that can be affected by local varying conditions. I see no reason to believe that these deposits are the result of a global flood that managed to create over 4 million layers of alternating fine and coarse silt in one year. Five layers in a year still leaves these varves much much older than ten thousand years. Sorry, I missed it. Can you show me again the 4 million alternating layers created in a year? I would like to repeat the experiment. Can you show me where it occurs with sea cucumbers or dung beetles? What difference does it make between a fish, bird, or human? You claimed "it takes a great deal of faith to beleive that these fish and birds layed there year after year with no decay and no scavangers to eat them" and then I showed that such conditions do happen, often enough to easily provide an example that even you are aware of (but apparently ignored). Now you suggest that there is some sort of difference between a bird, fish and human in such that humans will be preserved while birds and fish do not? So you and AiG are suggesting that the varves are six and a half days old. You missed my counter example. You also failed to recognise that your quote from AiG only supports your claims if you are saying the varve is only 6.5 days old. First you claim that catastrophic events are the cause for the four million layers. You then claim that the smoothness of the varves cannot be accounted for; erosion or disturbances would have ruined this effect in the millions of years following.I say you contradict yourself because you first say that "disturbances" would ruin the smoothness but claim catastrophic events are the cause. You also say that in millions of years disturbances and erosion would ruin the smoothness - as would thousands of years, weeks in fact. You are proposing a very young earth by your models.If this is not what you are saying then I would appreciate you present a model that allows for smooth varves in ten thousand years but not millions. I would also like a model that preserves fish and birds for thousands of years when your only quote states they can last mere days. I did not avoid the question. You simply failed to recognise that I had indeed given you my answer. All the information you have provided in an attempt to destroy an old earth model also destroys a thousand year old earth. You have limited the age of the earth to mere days. 6.5 days in fact.