Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

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.

quote:

---

Edge said: First of all, not all laminations are annual varves.

​

Craig says: Finally a crack that not all laminations are annual varves.

---

Yes, geologists, unlike YECs consider all of the data. And we have nothing to hide.

quote:

---

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.

---

In that case, the storm-laid silts should show a nearly constant state of deposition. We do not see this.

quote:

---

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.

---

Doesn't have that much to do with it. What your model predicts, we do not see.

quote:

---

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.

---

That is not what is observed.

quote:

---

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.

---

Varves can form in any lake geography. All that is necessary is a relatively low clastic input.

quote:

---

Too many questions to make an assumption that all the varves are annual varves to say its an old earth.

---

That is a self-serving statement from an absolutist. In reality, there will NEVER be enough data for you to hazard even a wild guess.

quote:

---

The correlations if based off an young earth, would not the varve correlations still correlate.

---

No. Not under your scenario. The relationship would be completely random. That is not what we see.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have heard this many times from YECs. To be fair, you have to admit that you will never have enough information to reject your preconceived notions.

quote:

---

Loudmouth, I have no problem with annual varves being laid down for 5,000 years.

---

Why only 5k? What changed and what is the evidence for a change in varve deposition?

quote:

---

I agreed with Razd that clay suspensions was an ongoing suspension settling with organics settling annually first then the clays covering them. The problem is that I agree with the tree ring correlations up to approximately 5,000 years give or take 500 years to account for the flood.
Your snow varve correlations are in error in some way matter or form because its been proven to be bogus by an AIG article.

---

Whoa! Now THERE'S an authority. Do you really trust those folks after they've misled you so many times?

quote:

---

I suspect that ice varves like the lower lake varves only show old age when the facts suggest otherwise. Science should be based on facts, not discarding irrefutable information like the testimonies of these WW2 planes.

---

The problem is that those planes were not found in the ice cap where the ice cores were taken. Do you really think that all of the ice in Greenland is the same? Just a minor detail that AIG failed to notify you of.

quote:

---

If you would come to believe that the varves in Lake Suigetsu all
formed within approximately the last 5000 years. We would almost
be in complete agreement. They would still correlate with the other lakes because of the same physical reaction of anaerobic digestion causing straight line correlations. It is evidence supporting the Creationists belief the fossils are all young. To correlate the C-14 method to date older based on these varves all being annual varves is not science.

---

Let me get this straight. You think that varves work back to a date of 5ka? Why the change of processes? What is the evidence for it? How do the older varves look different? These are the kind of questions you need to learn to ask.

quote:

---

If your a scientist you have to be in agreement with Berthaults Laws, its just science.

---

Berthault's demonstrations are meaningless. He has shown nothing that isn't taught in a Geology 101 class. Can you state one of Berthault's Laws for us?

quote:

---

You all are now aware of Berthault Law, or undercurrents in respect to Berthaults Law and likely in agreement that varves can form suddenly in catastrophic conditions.

---

No. Those are not varves. You are conflating cross laminations of a storm deposit and varves. Berthault and AIG hope that you will continue to be confused.

quote:

---

The evidence is actually overwhelming that most of the varves were all laid down when lake Suigestu was formed, and that annual varves have been laid down since.

---

Is this Berthault again? Do you know what grain size of sediments he used in his demonstrations? Do you realizew that this has nothing to do with silt and clay sedimentation such as that at Lake Suigetsu?

quote:

---

The Creationists have a point that Lake Suigestu is only 5000 years give or take 500 years. With the creationists world flood the lower varves could of already formed before Lake Suigestu kettle depression occured. It could well be that an ice berg floated in on the wings of the Creationist world flood, settling upon the spot of lake Suigestu.

---

Are you just making this up as you go? You complain about others not doing 'real' science and the write something like this?

quote:

---

If the creationists are right, your correlation still would agree for the last 5000 years give or take 500 years for the flood in respect to correlating to climatic correlations. You ice core varves just don't wash, read the Ice-bound plane flies again!

---

Sorry, been there, done that. It is not convincing at all. But if you wish to believe the story, that's just fine with me. You might ask Wieland sometime just how far away the ice cores were collected from the airplane find.

The topography is not important. I seriously doubt that the topography is anything like other locations where varves are found such as Lake Gosiute. You are wasting your time on this.And where do you get this 'few core samples' idea from. Is AIG misleading you again? I really wouldn't have as much patience with them as you seem to have. Yes. The evidence is obvious. There are so many facts that they leave out in any explanations to you. Not only are you being misled, but you are being intentionallly misled. No. They prefer to look at little snips of evidence and make up ad hoc explanations, all the while ignoring huge tracts of science; when looking at the formation of sedimentary laminations, for instance. Not relevant. Yes. Do you realize that it was not located at the same place as the core samples on the ice cap? Do you realize that not all of the Greenland ice cap has the same precipitation each year? Could this be another place where AIG has misled you? Think about it. I thinks they wasnn't. After reading this paragraph, all problems seem insignificant. Brethault used moving water and sand-sized particles. Please restate Brethault's Law. I cannot find it. Good question. Just the kind that you should ask of Brethault. The kind of question that AIG fails to deliver on. My answer is that it is not material. Or it could be that all fingers point at AIG. They depend upon your continued ingorance. But there are no currents. Current ripples can be easily recognized in the field. This is silliness. If all you can refer to is a YEC website and ignore actual scientific explanations, you are hopelessly and willfully ignorant. According to mainstream geologists also. What is your point?

Not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with very slow sedimentation. Unless you are a YEC, that is. It supplied clays to Brethault? What are you talking about? Then you need to explain huge shale deposits on continental crust... Unfortunately, silts and clays have nothing to do with Brethault's demonstrations. His work is irrelevant to evolution or YEC.

It appears that there is some enrichment of radioactive elements associated with kimberlites:http://emg.geoscienceworld.org/...content/abstract/8/1-2/137