Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Could you explain that? I asked above how the correlations could possibly be there under your scenario. You haven't answered. Remember there are lots of different cross checking (correlations) to answer. You haven't done so yet.

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.

Edge, I'm still waiting for more informtion on the topography, how some others on this thread believe the kettle formed if not from glaciers.Here is an article from Andrew Snelling. He wrote an extremely interesting article that settling sediments will always stratify into multiple varves.Creationists believe a world flood took place explaining all the stratified sediments. In respect to Lake Suigetsu from the biblical flood model, you would have soft sediments washing from rainstorms, from the watershed above the kettle to all side of the Lake Suigetsu.Its been proven that when sediments are reground and resettled, they only form multiple varves. This might shed light on your Greenlake query. Given this fact the multiple varves in Lake Suigetsu could of formed in weeks. This does not mean that annual varves of low clastic input has not contributed additional varves.Edge said: Varves can form in any lake geography. All that is necessary is a relatively low clastic input.Craig says: I would think your in agreement with Snelling at least in respect to how varves can form. The flood model watershed however provides a relatively high clastic input.Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up!
by Andrew SnellingHowever, what this also confirms is that creation scientists do undertake original research, in this case, research on sedimentation that is applicable to the catastrophic processes of deposition during the Flood, contrary to the establishment’s uniformitarian (slow-and-gradual) interpretation of the formation of such sedimentary strata.The author on both occasions was Guy Berthault, and his important experiments have demonstrated how multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures of sediments in air, in still water, and in running water (see Figure 1). In subsequent research Berthault has teamed up with Professor Pirre Julien in the Engineering Research Center of the Civil Engineering Department at Colorado State University, Fort Collins (USA). We published their results in 1994,5 after their research had been published by the Geological Society of France.6 Their sedimentation experiments are continuing.Figure 1: Experimental multiple lamination of a heterogranular mixture of sediments due to dry flow at a constant rate.
(Photo: G. Berthault)
Return to text . Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up! | Answers in Genesis

You continue to ignore issues that you can't deal with. Could you answer the question in post 91 please?

Adminjar, Ned openly refuses to answer any questions, yet demands I answer his questions. I'd suggest others too to not respond to Ned, until Ned is willing to debate in good faith. Your a moderator I take it, so please take care of the Ned problem.In post 55 I asked Ned some questions. In post 88, Ned said: I'm not answering "questions". I've noticed others are not responding to my questions, apparently following Neds lead.Thank-you,
CraigThis message has been edited by Craig, 12-16-2004 01:24 AM

Exactly what questions aren't answered?

Well there are lots of problems with your arguments.Bethauld's experiments add nothing to the discussion of Lake Suigetsu. They rely purely on hydrodynamic sorting.And why do you assume that Lake Suigetsu would have existed in its current form during the Flood, when according to YEC "Flood Geology" many areas were deeply buried in sediment to the point where a pre-existing lake would have been completely filled in. At the least you have to consider that there is a strong possibility that your model demands that Lake Suigetsu formed after the Flood.Further your model would not be expected to form large numbers of light-dark couplets because there would not be enough of the light material, and if you were to attribute a large proportion of the varves to such a short period the radiocarbon results become even more puzzling.[Another point has occurred to me - if wave erosion were to produce light-dark couplets in Summer surely we should see that the dark bands representing Winter would be significantly wider than the others - because the waves should still be eroding and depositing material even there].So all you have - even now - is speculations that could easily be false and do not explain the correlation between the varves and the radiocarbon dates, let alone the correlation with other dating methods.

PaulK,Paulk said: And why do you assume that Lake Suigetsu would have existed in its current form during the Flood, when according to YEC "Flood Geology" many areas were deeply buried in sediment to the point where a pre-existing lake would have been completely filled in. At the least you have to consider that there is a strong possibility that your model demands that Lake Suigetsu formed after the Flood.Craig says: I agree with you, that Lake Suigetsu formed at the end of the creationists world flood. Given that its believed that kettle lakes were formed by large chunks of ice that floated from glaciers in flood waters then settled over these soft silt sediments. You would have instant varves below these massive chunks that is believed the cause of how these kettle lakes formed. Looking at how kettle lakes were believed formed, Bethauld's experiments would explain varves that formed by the Creationists belief in the world flood, based on the Bethaulds truth of hydrodynamic sorting.I also agree that the Creationists suggesting that as this massive chunks of ice would of added additional varves as they slowly melted. This would explain why the kettle wasn't filled in with sediments sorting as the waters washed off the earth. A massive chunk of ice would settle pressing downward into these soft sediments.This is all why we need more information on the topography of the lake and its watershed, if the lake has receeded to its present level.Its like if your not calibrating your C-14 to these lower varves, they would all appear to be near the same age, supporting the Creationists models. As the sediments compress it would appear that the that dissolved c-12/c-14 would bubble upward. This would be creating the illusion that each varve is slightly older, when multitudes of the varves could of formed suddenly by Bethauld's Law of hydrodynamic sorting.Here is a previous post that includes a link how large blocks of ice
formed Kettle lakes. If this is the common reason given, and Coragyps and others have offered nothing better. Lets go with this as how Lake Suigetsu formed. Without topographic maps, of the lake and water sheds and core samples, were really punting. It appears you all say it wasn't a glacier, but no one addressed the large chunks of ice that could of floated by the Creationist World Flood Waters.Re: Lake Suigetsu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coragyps, I thought kettle lakes were formed by large blocks of glacial ice forming the kettle shape, before these large blocks of ice melted. http://www.msu.edu/user/lebaron1/i.htm
Could you explain how you believe the Kettle lakes form, and how it was not formed by a glacier.Thank you,
Craig

quote:

---

As the sediments compress it would appear that the that dissolved c-12/c-14 would bubble upward. This would be creating the illusion that each varve is slightly older, when multitudes of the varves could of formed suddenly by Bethauld's Law of hydrodynamic sorting.

---

That won't work For carbon dating it is the ratio of C14 to C12 that is important. Dissolved CO2 "bubbling up" will not change that proportion. Berthauld's sorting doesn't work either.Having examined your link on kettle lakes, it states that they are depressions left after large blocks of ice left behind by the Ice Age melted. This does not leave much room for your "waves" - and since the usual YEC view is that the Ice Ages followed the Flood it leaves little or no room for the Flood to play any role at all in producing the varves.

PaulK,Paulk: Having examined your link on kettle lakes, it states that they are depressions left after large blocks of ice left behind by the Ice Age melted. This does not leave much room for your "waves" - and since the usual YEC view is that the Ice Ages followed the Flood it leaves little or no room for the Flood to play any role at all in producing the varves.Craig: The Creationists belief is the Flood caused the glaciers. The general belief on this thread is that the glaciers never covered Lake Suigestu, doubt the Creationists would have a problem with this truth.With this truth in hand (that glaciers never covered Lake Suigestu).
Bethauld's Law explains from a creationists perspective, that the flood sediment that would of flowed over the present location of Lake Suigestu, would of already sorted before the ice berg floated into position forming Lake Suigestu.It appears were all in agreement that glaciers never directly
formed Lake Suigestu. The only logical answer is a big block of ice floated over the soft sorted flood sediments, then pressed downward
forming Lake Suigestu. Multitudes of varves caused by the flood would of simply been pressed down under the weight of the iceberg, upon the soft sediments. This senerio would be in agreement with Bethauld's Law (how sediments sort).An iceberg from both our perspectives would of prevented the watershed itself from filling the depression, while an extremely large block of ice would of slowly melted. These additional sediment layerings from a large block of ice melting, are also in agreement with Bethauld's Law's.If an large block of ice pressed down forming kettle lakes would not the sides natually pressed upward. This is one of the reasons we need lake topographic maps not only of the existing lake size but to include the watershed. Its also known that lake shallows erode because of undercurrents driven by the wind. This physical current could of easily of eroded these pressed up soft shore sediments into the kettle, if the kettle lake rose in level, as the chunk of ice melted. These sediment contributions would too be in agreement with
Bethauld's Law's, bringing leaves and other organic in such believed Creationists flood sediments, as they too resettled.This message has been edited by Craig, 12-16-2004 03:06 PM

Berthault's experiments depended on the hydrodynamic properties of the particles - not on colours. So you are not guaranteed regular light-dark couplets. Even on the evidence we have the conventional view explains the evidence better - especally when we take the dating correlations into account.And at this point in time I do not accept your idea on how Lake Suigetsu formed.

And how did this get incorporated into the leaves and things in the varve layer in a way that closely correlates with the counted number of varves? (all aside from the fact that the bubbling doesn't mess with the ratio).I asked you what questions were unanswered. You didn't see that.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-16-2004 02:45 PM

quote:

---

Its like if your not calibrating your C-14 to these lower varves, they would all appear to be near the same age, supporting the Creationists models. As the sediments compress it would appear that the that dissolved c-12/c-14 would bubble upward. This would be creating the illusion that each varve is slightly older, when multitudes of the varves could of formed suddenly by Bethauld's Law of hydrodynamic sorting.

---

False. Paul touched on it briefly, but I will try to expand on it. Leaves, for example, are mostly made of cellulose. This is a sugar polymer that is not dissolvable in water, otherwise trees would melt each time it rained. The carbon atoms of a new leaf have a C14 content equal to that of the air due to the fact that the CO2 from the air is used to make cellulose through photosynthesis. Therefore, a newly formed leaf will have the same C12/C14 ratios as earth's atmosphere. When this leaf stops growing and separates from the tree the C14 in the leaf starts to decay to C12. Since this leaf is no longer growing, the decaying C14 is not replaced by C14 from the air. Therefore, if a leaf is very low in C14 we know that it is older than new leaves.So, C14 dating is a very reliable way to date dead leaves, and dead insects for the very same reason. The carbon in leaves does not "bubble up" because it is part of the leaf in the form of cellulose. Therefore, if varves formed over a very short period of time then the C14 dating of the leaves in each varve should reflect this. They don't. It is not possible for the varves to be non-annual given the C14 dating, and also the correlation of lakes on opposite sides of the globe (Lake Suigetsu in Japan and the Lake in Poland). Both lakes correlate well with each other, and the C14 dating would have detected non-annual varves.

Loudmouth,Loudmouth: So, C14 dating is a very reliable way to date dead leaves, and dead insects for the very same reason. The carbon in leaves does not "bubble up" because it is part of the leaf in the form of cellulose.Craig: You are not taking into account the bacteria that are consuming C-14 into their being. Its known that some anaerobic bacteria can assimulate the C-14 in the leaf into their being. When this anaerobic creature dies. The C-14 would become water soluable and bubble upward affecting the C-14/C-12 ratio. Because your still able to date any C-14 is suggestive that your varves are all actually quite young. Meaning these bacteria have not yet digested all the C-14 out of the Kerogen. It might also be that some C-14 is still in solution, that its being tested with any remaining C-14 in the organics. Either way these bacteria is affecting the C-14 ratio of any remaining C-14 decaying into C-12.Eating Kerogen
By: Leslie MullenScientists have long believed that kerogen was a carbon ‘sink’ – a place where carbon was trapped and could not be recycled. But recently, a team of researchers led by Steven Petsch of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) discovered that microorganisms in Kentucky's New Albany Shale are eating kerogen.The scientists know the bacteria are consuming the kerogen, because they designed their experiment so that kerogen was the only source of carbon available for the bacteria to eat.The scientists also tested the abundance of carbon-14 (C-14) in the bacteria. Living organisms gather small amounts of radioactive C-14 from their environment. When organisms die, they no longer accumulate C-14. Over time, the C-14 decays away. Because kerogen is composed of organic matter, it initially contains the C-14 accumulated by the dead organisms. But because the New Albany Shale is so old, the C-14 has completely decayed. The kerogen in the shale no longer contains any C-14.http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87

quote:

---

Craig: You are not taking into account the bacteria that are consuming C-14 into their being. Its known that some anaerobic bacteria can assimulate the C-14 in the leaf into their being. When this anaerobic creature dies. The C-14 would become water soluable and bubble upward affecting the C-14/C-12 ratio.

---

Do you actually understand what you are saying ? Are you really suggesting that there are bacteria that preferentially eat C14 ?