Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 61 of 297 (99264)
04-11-2004 2:37 PM


Until I see some studies showing only one varve is being produced per year, the whole topic is pure speculation, for all I know most of the varves were produced by liquification, water lensing, like in the biblical flood, model, as Walt Brown speculates, etc...
P.S. Its easy to draw cores, but suppose its not so easy to prove only one varve is being produced for each year in a controlled study, or you would of supplied one, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 04-11-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 04-11-2004 3:21 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2004 6:57 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 04-11-2004 9:14 PM johnfolton has replied

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


Message 62 of 297 (99275)
04-11-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
04-11-2004 2:37 PM


Already answered
whatever writes:
P.S. Its easy to draw cores, but suppose its not so easy to prove only one varve is being produced for each year in a controlled study, or you would of supplied one, etc...
The processes you describe can NOT create the varves, IMHO. I believe you have been told that the varves are still being laid down one a year. What do you need to believe this? Note that Percy told you this already.
Percy writes:
Dude, you're just adding details to a speculation already shown to have serious problems. The process you describe is not observed happening today, and the annual layers being laid down today one per year are pretty much the same as those laid down thousands of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 2:37 PM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 297 (99316)
04-11-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
04-11-2004 2:37 PM


read the article
I suggest that you read the article and if that does not satisfy you, that you do a google on the topic.
what I suspect is that your "bubble filter" is in full operation and the article information is being rejected.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 2:37 PM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 297 (99331)
04-11-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by johnfolton
04-11-2004 2:37 PM


Scientific Integrity
Whatever writes:
Until I see some studies showing only one varve is being produced per year, the whole topic is pure speculation,...
So all knowledge not yet presented to Whatever is pure speculation? I don't think a productive discussion can emerge while you hold to this position.
A healthy skepticism is to be encouraged, but you seem to reject everything, even that varves are laid down one per year. I wonder if consecutive annual cores from the last 20 or 30 years were placed in front of you showing one layer added every year if you'd reject even that.
That varve layers are laid down one per year has been well known for far too long to be the topic of any recent research, just like you won't find any recent research on how prisms work or objects fall.
Until there is at least some evidence you'll accept there is little point to this discussion. In case you decide to change your approach, here's a little more about varve layers from the article Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration to 45,000 yr B.P.: Late Glacial Fluctuations and Cosmogenic Isotope Production originally cited by Abby:
The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and are dominated by dark colored clay with white layers resulting from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin laminations or varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the beginning of the last interglacial period.
Here's some specific information about varve characteristics from another of Abby's cites, Radiometric Dating:
Another layering technique uses seasonal variations in sedimentary layers deposited underwater. The two requirements for varves to be useful in dating are 1) that sediments vary in character through the seasons to produce a visible yearly pattern, and 2) that the lake bottom not be disturbed after the layers are deposited. These conditions are most often met in small, relatively deep lakes at mid to high latitudes. Shallower lakes typically experience an overturn in which the warmer water sinks to the bottom as winter approaches, but deeper lakes can have persistently thermally stratified (temperature-layered) water masses, leading to less turbulence, and better conditions for varve layers. Varves can be harvested by coring drills, somewhat similar to the harvesting of ice cores discussed above. Overall, many hundreds of lakes have been studied for their varve patterns. Each yearly varve layer consists of a) mineral matter brought in by swollen streams in the spring. b) This gradually gives way to organic particulate matter such as plant fibers, algae, and pollen with fine-grained mineral matter, consistent with summer and fall deposition. c) With winter ice covering the lake, fine-grained organic matter provides the final part of the yearly layer. Regular sequences of varves have been measured going back to about 35,000 years. The thicknesses of the layers and the types of material in them tells a lot about the climate of the time when the layers were deposited. For example, pollens entrained in the layers can tell what types of plants were growing nearby at a particular time.
The article states that qualifying lakes satisfy some specific requirements, such as that the layers not be disturbed once deposited. Your position requires that scientists ignore a requirement they themselves specified, or that they're purposefully misrepresenting the facts. A productive discussion is unlikely to emerge if you really believe scientists are either boneheaded, dishonest, or both. If this is really the basis for your position then it might make more sense if you went to Is It Science? and opened a thread about scientific dishonesty and stupidity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 2:37 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 11:09 PM Percy has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 297 (99338)
04-11-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
04-11-2004 9:14 PM


Re: Scientific Integrity
Percy, There really is no reason to believe varves are producing only one varve per year without documentation, I posted Walt Brown who doesn't believe its even possible for varves to form in a kettle lake, explaining it all happened in the last liquefaction water lens event(biblical flood), now in the lake in question, have they found fish compressed into the thinness of a piece of paper, too many questions, but glad your a bit skeptical too, I'm still a bit undecided if Walt is correct in no varve produced per year, or only one varve per year, think its happening how I theorized in spite of what you feel, I don't think scientists are lying, don't feel Walt is lying, and I' speculating, however, in Missouri they have a saying, the prove me state, in this case it seems to have merit, to prove something, even Walt has dropped stuff from his book based on new scientific discoveries, meaning he really is open to the scientific evidences, and is weighing them, if you prove only one varve being produced per year, he would have to weigh your evidence to determine if he should delete his belief no varves produced per year, etc...
I was only theorizing that more than one varve was forming in a given year because of the sediments entering a lake, the shallows, the winds, surface water movements, however, apparently Walt Brown doesn't believe its possible to form even a single varve in a kettle lake, don't feel I'm asking too much if the people professing one varve per year to have documentation, so I can decide who's correct, etc...
It really shouldn't be to difficult, laying sediment pods on the bottom of lakes and seeing if any sediments are being laid down, over several years(I mean if its so consistently happening), to prove one way or the other, etc...
The fact you don't have such a study, makes me quite suspicious, and makes Walts assertions more valid, I'm not a scientist so my hypothesis of many varves per year seems a reach, so it must be that Walts correct no varves being produced annually, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood Type on Walts google site: Testing the Theories
7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm) which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe time can be measured. However, varves contain fossils, such as fish. Fish, laying on the bottom of a lake, would decay long before enough varves could accumulate to bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, then decay.) Most fish fossilized in varves have been pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, exactly what would happen to a fish compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.
Also, varves are too uniform, show no evidence of the slightest erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakeswhere most deposits occur in lakes. Lakes would not produce varves. Varves are better explained by liquefaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 04-11-2004 9:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 04-11-2004 11:43 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 1:47 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 04-12-2004 8:19 AM johnfolton has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 66 of 297 (99341)
04-11-2004 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
04-11-2004 11:09 PM


Re: Scientific Integrity
Whatever, educate yourself just a tiny bit, please.
Go to Google - it's a search engine on the internet - and type in "varve" and "sediment trap". Read over some of the hundred or so hits you get. The study you seek has been done. Repeatedly.
Also, varves are too uniform, show no evidence of the slightest erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakes
May I reply, "DUH!!" ? They're in the middle of the friggin' lake, undisturbed by erosion! That's why they're varves and not delta deposits or sandbars! Can we change your nick from "whatever" to "osmium," are are you just jacking us around?
[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-11-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 11:09 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 12:28 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 04-12-2004 7:59 AM Coragyps has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 67 of 297 (99345)
04-12-2004 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
04-11-2004 11:43 PM


Re: Scientific Integrity
Coragyps, I couldn't find anything that supported one varve per year, in sediment traps, for kettle lakes, not that no study has not been done, seems its more about ocean sediment traps, its because the lake is a kettle lake, that your erosion your talking about on the shallows might well be contributing to many varves per year, it seems you all believe they are still being formed as they have consistently for thousands of years, one varve per year, so welcome a study that proves your point, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 04-11-2004 11:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 2:50 AM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 297 (99349)
04-12-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
04-11-2004 11:09 PM


Re: Scientific Integrity
whatever --
correlations
correlations
correlations
correlations
correlations to dendrochronology in Europe and California
correlations to C-14
correlations to ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica
correlations to calcite layers in devils hole
Whatever mechanism you dream up to add extra varve layers must also show why the climate data correlates with all the other mechanisms -- how can they all be affected to show the same results, particularly as they use different mechanisms to measure \ document the ages in question.
Until you provide a mechanism to do that this, your concepts are just feeble mind games to no purpose -- 'feeble' because they don't answer the questions of the correlations, questions that must be answered to be a valid concept, and 'mind games' because they have no scientific basis.
Correlations not only involve major climate changes in the distant past that have already been talked about (the Younger Dryas, the Oldest Dryas and the Allerd/Blling period), but ones within the historical record -- the "year without a summer" (1815), the "little ice age" (~1350 to 1450 CE) and the "medieval warm period" (800-1200 CE) -- correlations that also show up in the ice core data, (along with specific volcanic eruptions of historical record as well -- see core data correlations here).
Correlations that show the annual layers are matching the historical records for the years in question, which should be enough to take care of your complaint about an actual study of actual depositions -- for there is no chance that they would correlate with those known dates otherwise.
As a final comment on correlations, notice the wikipedia article on the Youner Dryas states:
The end of the Younger Dryas was very sudden and it has been dated by a variety of methods, with mostly consistent results:
1153050 BP -- GRIP ice core, Greenland [2]
11530+40-60 BP -- Krkenes Lake, western Norway. [3]
11570 BP -- Cariaco Basin core, Venezuela [4]
11570 BP -- German oak/pine dendrochronology [5]
11640280 BP -- GISP2 ice core, Greenland [6]
(see article for reference information)
Notice how all those different systems correlate to the same period with their margins of error. Notice that there are methods not even discussed in the original article, additional methods outside the ones listed that also correlate with the same data.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 11:09 PM johnfolton has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 297 (99352)
04-12-2004 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by johnfolton
04-12-2004 12:28 AM


correlations show layers are annual
whatever --
you need to explain (1) how any stirring of the sediments can then result in multiple layers of diatoms and clay rather than a jumbled mass mixture of both and (2) how such a system could then correlate with the known climate information of events in history.
The fact that the dates from the varve layers correlate with the known historical climate means they are annual layers regardless of whether the actual accumulation on that lake has been specifically tested. There is not "god of the gaps" argument here -- the correlations prove the annual layers are in fact annual.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 12:28 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 297 (99367)
04-12-2004 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
04-11-2004 11:43 PM


Re: Scientific Integrity
Go to Google - it's a search engine on the internet - and type in "varve" and "sediment trap". Read over some of the hundred or so hits you get. The study you seek has been done. Repeatedly.
Are you referring to Whatever's skepticism that varves are laid down one per year? If so, you might want to actually provide the links along with short excerpts. Whatever might not be able to find this information on his own.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 04-11-2004 11:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 71 of 297 (99372)
04-12-2004 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by johnfolton
04-11-2004 11:09 PM


Re: Scientific Integrity
Percy, There really is no reason to believe varves are producing only one varve per year without documentation,...
Of course not. I didn't say the documentation doesn't exist. It most certainly exists. And more evidence is gathered everytime another core is drawn. But no one examines this evidence trying to establish the periodicity of varves, because this research was done long ago and is no longer readily accessibly. For example, here's a short excerpt from Changes, the first result of a Google on "varve deposition periodicity":
The depositional environment is normally aquatic, although varves may occur subaerially, for example, as a result of seasonally varying aeolian processses (Stokes,1964)...
Unless you have access to a university library, you're not going to find "Stokes, 1964", just as you're not going to find papers on prisms bending light and falling objects. But if varves are not annual then none of the subsequent varve studies establishing the correlations would have happened, unless scientists are incredibly dunderheaded or are lying. I think that this is what you actually believe, and that you take this approach of not accepting the word of any scientist across a broad range of issues, and that you should be posting to the Is It Science?. Ignorance isn't really a valid debate tactic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by johnfolton, posted 04-11-2004 11:09 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 9:02 AM Percy has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 72 of 297 (99377)
04-12-2004 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
04-12-2004 8:19 AM


Re: Scientific Integrity
Percy, I think I understand, its kinda like the bible codes correlating the bible being inerrent, though still feel your varves are like finding codes in the bible that maybe the imagination of the searcher, not that there is no codes in the bible, leaning there maybe some parallel similutudes between the varves, in the biblical flood model, and the formation of new varves, but can understand you believe you found something, though I think in kettle lakes can produce more than one varve per year, think its interesting that correlations may exists, not sure if its any different than the bible codes correlating the bible is inerrant, in spite of codes that maybe the imagination of the searcher, etc...
P.S. Lets say Walt is correct in that due to the liquefacation lens, varves were produced during the flood model, and after, varves were laid down, one varve, or more than one varve per year, meaning too me the varves might have some accuracy up to 4,350 years ago, in respect to seeing climatic change, and before this related to Walts liquefacation lens, explaining how fish are pressed into the thinness of paper during the biblical deluge, as Walt explained aquifiers are being drawn down compressing the sediments, but in lakes you still have the evidence of his liqefacation lens, when you find fossils pressed into the thinness of paper, so think there probably is a bit of truth in both models, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 04-12-2004 8:19 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 10:20 AM johnfolton has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 297 (99388)
04-12-2004 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
04-12-2004 9:02 AM


Explain the Correlations
Lets say Walt is correct in that due to the liquefacation lens, varves were produced during the flood model, and after, varves were laid down, one varve, or more than one varve per year
Then this model obviously would not apply to the ice cores as the ice would have floated if it existed pre-flood, nor could such a lens mechanism have deposited multiple layers on top of the ice.
The climate data from the lake matches the climate data from the ice cores -- how can that happen?
Nor could it have happened inside a cave as the cave would have filled up but not been stirred into any multiple layer possible model. From A DEVILS HOLE PRIMER (click for full article):
Devils Hole is a tectonic cave developed in the discharge zone of a regional aquifer in south-central Nevada. The walls of this predominantly subaqueous cavern are coated with dense vein calcite. The stable isotopic content of the calcite provides a 500,000-year record of variations in temperature and other paleoclimatic parameters.
(See Winograd, et al., 1992; and Riggs, et al., 1994.)
(italics in the original)
The climate data from the lake matches the climate data from the cave -- how can that happen?
and
The climate data from the ice cores match the climate data from the cave -- how can that happen?
I don't need to assume that Walt is correct because it does not explain the other correlations for both age from the layers or for the climate matches in each system, and that makes it an invalid explanation.
The flat {fish \ fossil} is also a bogus straw-man argument: show how it can only occur with a noachin model but not any other method? And how do you then explain fossils that are not flat?
BTW, I thought you were the one arguing that only those species put in the ark were killed by the flood outside while 90% of the earth's creatures survived by swimming or floating on debris -- certainly that fish survived ... have you changed your story here?
http://EvC Forum: Fresh Problem with the Ark
.... however, its a given the fish, were not included, so whatever creatures were on the ark, to satisfy genesis 7:23 perished on the earth

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 9:02 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 12:17 PM RAZD has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 297 (99403)
04-12-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
04-12-2004 10:20 AM


Re: Explain the Correlations
Abbyleever, I was talking about Australia, perhaps parts of Africa, not becoming engulfed in Glaciation (perhaps it was summer in Australia when the deluge occurred)(the bible says it happened in the second month on the 17th day), and or given the location of the mid-ocean ridges might of accelerated glaciers in the northern hemisphere, though many creatures in the southern hemisphere would of perished, some there, survived, if you take the bible literally, in the northern hemisphere, however, given how the waters were erupting appears more glaciers were formed in the northern hemisphere (fish dying in the frozen glaciers), glaciers containing ash, sediments that were erupting out from the earth, as these waters melted, they would of contributed to accelerated varve formation, in the lakes they formed, depositing your organic, and inorganic clays, so many questions (like dual porosity leaching thorium, C-14, argon, etc..., leaching would explain stalagtites/mites, in caves could of formed quite quickly, suspect its your interpretation, that it happened over long periods of time, when they can form quite quickly, how fast does ice dripping grow on a house in the winter, water is a solvent, it would continually carry whatever your interpreting, perhaps I made a wrong analogy to compare your interpretation to the biblical codes, it might be more like the codes people say they are finding in Moby Dick, like leaching, dual porosity all factors into problems of dating accuracy, though the different dating methods do seem at times to agree one to the other, suspect the decreasing magnetic field affected the past radiometric isotope decay rates, and perhaps in the earth itself, making the earths sediments that erupted out from the earth to make the earth appear much older than it actually is, meaning of course that the rocks erupting out of the earth, would date older than the fossil they buried, but because of dilution, ionic solutes leaching into the waters, affects the accuracy of all the different dating methods, with all the carbon based life buried in the sediments, wouldn't C-14 dilute downward and upward, affecting greater numbers of varve layers, by capillary waters solutes seeking to equalize to lesser solute concentrations, affecting all the different dating methods proportionally that are assumed to be constants, you also have small electric currents in the earth, probably related to the lateral magnetics of the earth that guide the birds, turtles their internal compass to determine latitude, all kinds of factors affecting the proportional leaching of the sediment records, though when I look at a cliff you see dark lines, like perhaps this is one of the water lens, in the liquefaction event expressed the world over, that Walt is talking about, supporting the biblical deluge, etc...
P.S. I just see the dating is inaccurate, you seem to believe its cast in stone, though some similitudes of similarities for the last 4,350 years, and some beyond due to the glaciers melting contributing to excessive varves formations as they melted contributing their clays, organics to the settling basins, though feel in a water environment dilution would be affecting non-soluable materials, drawing out the C-14 and tranlocating to lowerer varve layers or to the layers above, as the ionic solutes seek to equalize between the clay varve layers,all these things happening to be muddying the waters in respect to the accuracy of the all the different dating methods, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 10:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Loudmouth, posted 04-12-2004 1:09 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2004 2:07 PM johnfolton has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 297 (99423)
04-12-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by johnfolton
04-12-2004 12:17 PM


Re: Explain the Correlations
Whatever,
I see you are going back to your mish mash of pseudoscience. Please explain how dual porosity affects tree rings? These tree rings are not set up across soil layers, but are side by side in the same fossil. They show the same correlation with carbon isotope levels as is seen in the lake varves.
Dual porosity doesn't explain the different ice layers, which are solid ice and not affected by soluble carbon. Dual porosity also doesn't explain why ash from Mt. Vesuvius is found at the right depth in the ice cores and at the right age as measured by isotopes in the ice layers.
I guess the question is, why is it that whenever the radiometric dating systems are applied to a new set of data independent of isotope concentration (eg annual layers), the dating methodologies always agree with previous data. We will never be able to directly observe if varves were an annual event even 300 years ago, but the evidence is there. So far, you have shown no evidence that varves were NOT laid down annually. You must show us evidence, not Walt Brown's day dreams, that varves, tree rings, cave deposits, and ice layers are all wrong to the same degree. You would have to figure out how ash from Mt. Vesuvius bored its way through the ice until it arrived at the correct level in the ice layers. You would have to figure out how whole forests added 2 rings instead of 1. All of them, not just a few. You must also figure out how varves in the past laid down layers, not by lensing, but by the ratio of 14C within the organic matter. You must show us how several different isotopes all migrated through solid matter in order to give us data that is wrong, but correlates world wide with numerous sites, numerous studies, and numerous measurements. All you have given us is untested ad hoc hypotheses. I want a graph, a study, actual measurements, or something that has at least been scientifically tested instead of these dreams about lensing and dual porosity. Until you do so, you will be kind of a laughing stock. You will be like the town drunk who proclaims the sky is falling every time it gets dark outside, who proclaims that he can build an airplane that will reach the moon, or that stars are just large diamonds in the sky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 12:17 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 04-12-2004 1:56 PM Loudmouth has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024