Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Dave Hawkins]

Thanks to Dr. Gary Hurd for pointing out this article to me over at TWeb. A little background to the article first ...

I have been told that Lake Suigetsu gives strong evidence that the earth is old. You can read the conventional story many places on the web. But I have lodged objections to this from several angles, two of them being ... 1) I'm not sure the Carbon-14 testing of the macro fossils involves proper assumptions, and 2) the "29cm flocculent layer" on top of the sampled mud seems to pose a serious problem to the "40,000 year placid deposition" theory. Why would the alternating sequence continue for almost 40,000 years, then stop 300 years ago? Why wouldn't it have stopped at other points in the 40,000 years? I won't comment on the first objection here because I have been unable to get detailed answers (but I'm close ... I think Dr. Kirk Bertsche is interested in answering my questions soon over at TWeb)

Here's the key Suigetsu paper (1998) from the archives of the journal Radiocarbon (free) ... http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.e...pplication/pdf

Here's the original Kitagawa paper (1995) that mentions the 29cm flocculent layer ...

We analyzed the lamina for three cores: SG2, SG4 and the upper part of SG (Fig. 2). Lamina counting was possible only below ca. 29 cm depth because of the flocculent and disturbed uppermost sediments. It is difficult to determine the "zero-year" of the lake's varve chronology.
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.e...pplication/pdf

And here's the article Dr. Hurd pointed out to me with some key extracts ...

Science 14 December 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760 - 1763
DOI: 10.1126/science.1147001

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples

Juergen Schieber,1* John Southard,2 Kevin Thaisen1

Mudstones make up the majority of the geological record. However, it is difficult to reconstruct the complex processes of mud deposition in the laboratory, such as the clumping of particles into floccules. Using flume experiments, we have investigated the bedload transport and deposition of clay floccules and find that this occurs at flow velocities that transport and deposit sand. Deposition-prone floccules form over a wide range of experimental conditions, which suggests an underlying universal process. Floccule ripples develop into low-angle foresets and mud beds that appear laminated after postdepositional compaction, but the layers retain signs of floccule ripple bedding that would be detectable in the rock record. Because mudstones were long thought to record low-energy conditions of offshore and deeper water environments, our results call for reevaluation of published interpretations of ancient mudstone successions and derived paleoceanographic conditions.
...
A key issue in mudstone sedimentation is flocculation, a phenomenon in which a number of these parameters, such as settling velocity, floccule size, grain-size distribution, ion exchange behavior, and organic content "come together." A joining of smaller particles to form larger aggregates, flocculation enhances the deposition rate of fine-grained sediments, and its understanding is critical for modeling the behavior of mud in sedimentary environments.
...
The notion is widely held that slow-moving currents or still water are a prerequisite for substantial mud deposition (7, 8) because shear stress in swift-moving currents disrupts previously formed fragile floccules and prevents their deposition, but our observations suggest an alternative mode of mud deposition that apparently left its imprint in the rock record.

Mudstones constitute up to two-thirds of the sedimentary record and are arguably the most poorly understood type of sedimentary rocks (9).
...
Our observations do not support the notion that muds can only be deposited in quiet environments with only intermittent weak currents (8). Instead, bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at current velocities that would also transport and deposit sand (21). Clay beds can accrete from migrating floccule ripples under swiftly moving currents in the 10 cm/s to 26 cm/s velocity range, a range likely to expand as flows with larger sediment concentrations are explored.
...
In the course of two decades of detailed studies of shales and mudstones, one of us (25–27) has seen comparable low-amplitude bedforms (Fig. 4D) in shale units that were deposited in a wide variety of environments. Examples can be found in the Mid-Proterozoic Belt Supergroup, the Devonian of the eastern United States, the Jurassic Posidonia Shale, the Cretaceous Mancos Shale, and the Eocene Green River Formation. This suggests that mud accretion from migrating floccule ripples probably occurred throughout geologic history. Many ancient shale units, once examined carefully, may thus reveal that they accumulated in the manner illustrated here, rather than having largely settled from slow-moving or still suspensions. This, in turn, will most likely necessitate the reevaluation of the sedimentary history of large portions of the geologic record.

I hate to sound like a stuck record, but creationists have been saying that mainstream geologists need to reevaluate large portions (like, the entire thing) of the geologic record for many years. Henry Morris has been the most prominent of these with his landmark book in 1961, The Genesis Flood. All of you should read it.

How does this relate to Lake Suigetsu? It provides support to the creationist idea that the Suigetsu "varves" do not represent annual deposition at all, but rather represent rhythmites, i.e. from rapid deposition. And the flocculent 29cm at the top of the sediment is exactly what we would expect if these sediments were laid quickly, rather than gradually over 40,000 years.

Comments anyone?

[SteveF]

Irrespective of the cause of flocculation in the upper 29cm, this paper has nothing to with that. It discusses deposition of fine grained material in flowing water. As Suigetsu is a lake, this doesn't apply to this part. Unless you want to argue that some time in the recent past (when this upper 29cm was deposited), it wasn't a lake.

Moreover, it is irrelevant for the rest of the record. Whether or not these are varves, does not depend on a particular mechanism of fine grained sediment deposition. It does not provide support for the "idea that the varves do not represent annual deposition".

You've simply seen a paper that mentions flocculation and leapt to a conclusion.

[ck1]

Maybe someone could comment on studies of varves in other lakes. I seem to recall that such studies were done on a lake in Venuzuela, but I don't know the details.

[SteveF]

Maybe someone could comment on studies of varves in other lakes. I seem to recall that such studies were done on a lake in Venuzuela, but I don't know the details.

Thats the Cariaco Basin, which isn't actually in the sea. It's Conrad Hughen's work and provides calibration from 10.5 to 14.7 cal kyr BP.

[Dave Hawkins]

Irrespective of the cause of flocculation in the upper 29cm, this paper has nothing to with that. It discusses deposition of fine grained material in flowing water. As Suigetsu is a lake, this doesn't apply to this part. Unless you want to argue that some time in the recent past (when this upper 29cm was deposited), it wasn't a lake.

Moreover, it is irrelevant for the rest of the record. Whether or not these are varves, does not depend on a particular mechanism of fine grained sediment deposition. It does not provide support for the "idea that the varves do not represent annual deposition".

You've simply seen a paper that mentions flocculation and leapt to a conclusion.

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

[Lasting Damage]

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

why? can you give a detailed description of the suigetsu cores and their environment outlining why you think that rapid deposition explains the features that you see?

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, if the interpretation of Suigetsu varves is totally wrong, then why do the C14 calibration curves derived from that data closely correlate with the C14 cal curves derived from a dozen other independent sources?

Same as it ever was Dave - the C14 cal curves all agree, and you can't even come up with a half-assed ad hoc hand-wave to explain them away. :p:p:p

[Wolfhound]

why? can you give a detailed description of the suigetsu cores and their environment outlining why you think that rapid deposition explains the features that you see?

Well, duh! It's 'cause he believes a ridiculous fairy tale about a man, a big boat, and a bunch of animals. How much more scientific does he really need to be when everything he needs to know is contained in the Big Book O' Bronze Age Bullshit?

[Obd]

Irrespective of the cause of flocculation in the upper 29cm, this paper has nothing to with that. It discusses deposition of fine grained material in flowing water. As Suigetsu is a lake, this doesn't apply to this part. Unless you want to argue that some time in the recent past (when this upper 29cm was deposited), it wasn't a lake.

Moreover, it is irrelevant for the rest of the record. Whether or not these are varves, does not depend on a particular mechanism of fine grained sediment deposition. It does not provide support for the "idea that the varves do not represent annual deposition".

You've simply seen a paper that mentions flocculation and leapt to a conclusion.

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

Maybe the verb 'to argue' has a different meaning in your world, but where I come from it actually means supporting your claims with evidence.

[SteveF]

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

Well, a few things:

1) The paper says:

Instead, bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at current velocities that would also transport and deposit sand (21). Clay beds can accrete from migrating floccule ripples under swiftly moving currents in the 10 cm/s to 26 cm/s velocity range, a range likely to expand as flows with larger sediment concentrations are explored.

The measured velocities aren't especially catastrophic. It does say that there is likely expansion of velocity with increasing sediment concentration, but this isn't sufficient evidence to scale up to a global flood or major catastrophe.

2) Your thread appears to be about the flocculent upper few centimetres. These formed recently in a lake. Therefore, the paper is not relevant.

3) As I said, whether or not these are varved does not depend on the fact that an alternative mechanism for fine sediment deposition has been discovered. It depends on whether or not there are indicators of seasonality.

[VoxRat]

I hate to sound like a stuck record,

do you really? Because if you really do, I have a suggestion for you...

but creationists have been saying that mainstream geologists need to reevaluate large portions (like, the entire thing) of the geologic record for many years.

But the only reason they give is that geology seems to render their founding fantasy completely out of the question. That doesn't cut it for those of us not already committed to their founding fantasy.

Henry Morris has been the most prominent of these with his landmark book in 1961, The Genesis Flood.

Is Morris mentioned in any real-world geology text? Any real-world university geology course? Is he cited by any real-world geologist in a serious, peer-reviewed professional science journal? None of the public libraries I've checked carry his book. I'm not going to buy it. Are you going to send me a free copy?[All of you should read it.]Tell you what.
You read a whole book by any recognized scholar on any of the science you so confidently dismiss (Darwin might be a good start); we'll discuss your objections to it, if you still have any (after actually reading it that is), then I'll read your most prominent of "scholars".

Deal?

[Lasting Damage]

Dave, if the interpretation of Suigetsu varves is totally wrong, then why do the C14 calibration curves derived from that data closely correlate with the C14 cal curves derived from a dozen other independent sources?

Same as it ever was Dave - the C14 cal curves all agree, and you can't even come up with a half-assed ad hoc hand-wave to explain them away. :p:p:p

apart from all teh inconvenient isotopes being arbitrarily blasted into outer space.

[VoxRat]

Maybe the verb 'to argue' has a different meaning in your world, but where I come from it actually means supporting your claims with evidence.

Perhaps this will seem like a throwaway one-liner to Dave.

But it's not.

It's the very core, heart, soul, essence of Dave's problem with logic. He has never argued anything in the real-world sense of the word; he just repeats, repeats, repeats... the same old unsupported assertions. Apparently that's the davinition of the word "argue".

[Zadok001]

The "29cm flocculent layer" on top of the sampled mud seems to pose a serious problem to the "40,000 year placid deposition" theory. Why would the alternating sequence continue for almost 40,000 years, then stop 300 years ago? Why wouldn't it have stopped at other points in the 40,000 years?

While the rest of your post certainly contains points that should be discussed, this is an important comment that shows a great deal about your thought process. You are essentially asking us "Why are things the way they are?" Well, mainly because that's the way they turned out, Dave.

What if deposition had stopped 350 years ago? Would that be more acceptable to you? What if it stopped 500 years ago, or 1000? Or 10,000, for that matter. Does that matter? What if, your God forbid, Suigetsu had *NO* varves, but another lake did, instead? What difference would that make?

The answer, of course, is "None at all." It doesn't matter THAT varves stopped forming, or why (though the earthquake explanation strikes me as entirely cogent). All that matters is that the varves DID stop forming.

Why were the Lakers ahead for the first three quarters, and then managed to lose the game anyway? Why did that asteroid strike where it did, and not 60 meters to the north? These questions are essentially meaningless, yet you present it to us on a platter, and expect us to be impressed, or shocked, or have some kind of epiphany.

The first, most fundamental step in rational thought is to know how to ask coherent questions. This question is not coherent.

[Gary Hurd]

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

That is because you are an idiot who has never pulled a core, or analysed one in his entire life.


Steve gave a perfectly good explanation which you have typically ignored and replaced with an unsound, unsupported fantasy.

Again you have (as predicted) hoplessly misunderstod the paper by Schieber, Southard, and Thaisen (SST). SST studied flows of pure clays, with only one set of data from some lake bottom muck. Their finding is quite simple, clay crystals can bind together with water into clumps and these clumps can act in a manner like larger grains.

The lake bottom sediments at Suigetsu are dewatered by compression. This is why the top material is not dewatered- it is saturated- and is disordered by the core drilling itself. If anything, SST shows us that the mild agitation and flow of the lake will not disrupt varve formation because the clayey material has clumped (flocculated), and is more stable than previously expected.


I mentioned these articles for three reasons- AFDave claims scientists have never studied these topics, - these articles actually damage AFDave's moronic fantasy - I was resonably confident that AFDave would be unable to understand the articles and would cite them as support.

If I ever entertained any doubt that AFDave was unable to understand even short papers from science, that doubt is now gone.

[Gary Hurd]

I have a copy of the Genesis Flood, and I am sad to say that I have read it. It is entirely wrong on geology, and I will not pass judgement on its theology. If you are Seventh Day Adventist you should find its theology just fine.

There is no reason that anyone needs to read such crap unless they want to move into semiprofessional creationist debunking.

*This thread should be titled "AFDave's Flatulence Inspires Revulsion"

[Dave Hawkins]

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

why? can you give a detailed description of the suigetsu cores and their environment outlining why you think that rapid deposition explains the features that you see?

No, not yet. But I think this possibility should be explored. Other similar "varves" have been reevaluated and are now considered rhythmites instead of varves. Why not Suigetsu also? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Be skeptical and try to poke holes in theories? I'm just doing what you all have trained me to do.

[Dave Hawkins]

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

Well, a few things:

1) The paper says:

Instead, bedload transport of flocculated mud and deposition occurs at current velocities that would also transport and deposit sand (21). Clay beds can accrete from migrating floccule ripples under swiftly moving currents in the 10 cm/s to 26 cm/s velocity range, a range likely to expand as flows with larger sediment concentrations are explored.

The measured velocities aren't especially catastrophic. It does say that there is likely expansion of velocity with increasing sediment concentration, but this isn't sufficient evidence to scale up to a global flood or major catastrophe.

2) Your thread appears to be about the flocculent upper few centimetres. These formed recently in a lake. Therefore, the paper is not relevant.

3) As I said, whether or not these are varved does not depend on the fact that an alternative mechanism for fine sediment deposition has been discovered. It depends on whether or not there are indicators of seasonality.

I'm not trying to say "Lookie here at this paper. The Global Flood is proven." I'm saying that this flocculence in Suigetsu may be one indicator of rapid flow and further reevaluation of Suigetsu is warranted.

[Dave Hawkins]

Gary ...

That is because you are an idiot who has never pulled a core, or analysed one in his entire life.

OK, Gary. I'm the idiot. And you're the one that thinks the cause of death in flash floods is being beat to death, not drowning. So what does that make you?

[SteveF]

I'm not trying to say "Lookie here at this paper. The Global Flood is proven." I'm saying that this flocculence in Suigetsu may be one indicator of rapid flow and further reevaluation of Suigetsu is warranted.

Again, the flocculent layer was formed recently in the lake. This paper is therefore irrelevant.

Moreover, you yourself distinguish between the flocculent material and the varved sediments. Only the upper 29cm is flocculent!

A re-evaluation of Suigetsu is not needed.

[ericmurphy]

Thanks to Dr. Gary Hurd for pointing out this article to me over at TWeb. A little background to the article first ...

I have been told that Lake Suigetsu gives strong evidence that the earth is old. You can read the conventional story many places on the web. But I have lodged objections to this from several angles, two of them being ... 1) I'm not sure the Carbon-14 testing of the macro fossils involves proper assumptions

The only assumption it makes is that observational reality exists. You have been shown a million times that all the various radiocarbon calibration curves agree, which is conclusive evidence that whatever assumptions have been made are valid.

and 2) the "29cm flocculent layer" on top of the sampled mud seems to pose a serious problem to the "40,000 year placid deposition" theory. Why would the alternating sequence continue for almost 40,000 years, then stop 300 years ago? Why wouldn't it have stopped at other points in the 40,000 years?

Gee, Dave, the more often the process stops, the older the earth is. I don't think you've thought this objection through.

I won't comment on the first objection here because I have been unable to get detailed answers (but I'm close ... I think Dr. Kirk Bertsche is interested in answering my questions soon over at TWeb)

In other words, you have no reason whatsoever to doubt that radiocarbon dating is accurate. But you're going to continue to doubt it anyway, because that's the only way you can preserve your belief in a young earth.

How does this relate to Lake Suigetsu? It provides support to the creationist idea that the Suigetsu "varves" do not represent annual deposition at all, but rather represent rhythmites, i.e. from rapid deposition. And the flocculent 29cm at the top of the sediment is exactly what we would expect if these sediments were laid quickly, rather than gradually over 40,000 years.

Comments anyone?

Dave, we already know the Lake Suigetsu varves correspond to annual deposition layers. How do we know this? I know you know the answer, Dave, but I'm going to give it to you anyway;

It's because the radiocarbon calibration curves agree.

And how does the 29 cm layer at the top comport with a young earth, Dave? If rapid deposition were capable of creating varves, then why no varves over the past 300 years?

[Gary Hurd]

Gary ...

That is because you are an idiot who has never pulled a core, or analysed one in his entire life.

OK, Gary. I'm the idiot. And you're the one that thinks the cause of death in flash floods is being beat to death, not drowning. So what does that make you?

Correct.

[Plognark]

Gary ...

That is because you are an idiot who has never pulled a core, or analysed one in his entire life.

OK, Gary. I'm the idiot. And you're the one that thinks the cause of death in flash floods is being beat to death, not drowning. So what does that make you?

Epic fail :SNARKY:

[Wolfhound]

Gary ...

That is because you are an idiot who has never pulled a core, or analysed one in his entire life.

OK, Gary. I'm the idiot. And you're the one that thinks the cause of death in flash floods is being beat to death, not drowning. So what does that make you?

Correct.

Super pwn!!!!

[ericmurphy]

You've simply seen a paper that mentions flocculation and leapt to a conclusion.

I would argue that the lake sediment was formed by some catastrophic event .. some type of rapid deposition at some point in the past. So I think this paper is relevant.

You can argue it all you want, Dave, but since the number of varves matches up with the dates expected based on radiometric dating, you need to at minimum explain why two different curves based on two entirely different methodologies can be wrong for entirely independent reasons but still be wrong by exactly the same amount.

This is the same problem you always have when disputing dating techniques, Dave, and it's never, ever going to go away.