Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[JonF]

Mike, they are using C14 to date dead pieces of wood which are lying around in what they call "Methusealh Walk." I don't believe they EVER date living trees with C14. I'll call the lab this week and confirm this for you.

Well, Davie?

[VoxRat]

... The actual evidence at Suigetsu includes NO EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for your fantasy.

"Ultra-low"?
Compared to what?
Not Lake Korttajärvi, evidently.
Are you now posing as so well versed in limnology that you can reliably characterize what would be considered "ultra-low"?

As for experimental evidence from Suigetsu: still not going to engage Febble's excellent summary above? Are you telling us that's not derived from experimental evidence?

Where are the sediment traps in Lake Suigetsu? Where are the studies from 50 years ago showing the depth of the lake at that time? I'd love to find one.

I sincerely doubt that. I'm pretty sure that if and when someone presents such studies, you're going to very much not love it.

I suspect this would show a much higher sedimentation rate than 0.5 - 1 mm /yr.

"I suspect" counts for exactly nothing

Shall we see if we can find one?

You do that.

Furthermore, there are numerous contradictions in your scenario which you refuse to address.

Serious Contradictions in the Suigetsu Story

Your saying that there are "numerous contradictions" doesn't make it so. I looked up your link, and I see Nothing that poses any problem for the real-world view of reality.

Moreover, it's very obnoxious to ignore all the posts that have made exactly that point since you posted your alleged "contradictions" - and simply recycle the assertion as if it still stands.

[SophistiCat]

I've been looking at varve studies in other lakes throughout the world. Varve thickness on the order of 1 mm is common. For example, in the Chu et al. (2005) study of ongoing sedimentation in Lake Sihailongwann, the varve thickness (as confirmed by ²¹⁰Pb and ¹³⁷Cs dates) ranged from about 1.7 mm in the top few decades to < 1 mm in 1840s.

Figure 5. Varve and ²¹⁰Pb dating vs. sediment depth and ¹³⁷Cs activity vs. depth (inset with same depth scale) for freeze core SHL-F6.

(The ¹³⁷Cs activity corresponds to atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, which were banned in 1963.)

[JonF]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory.

Davie-diddles, there is no support for your fantasy until you have acknowledged and explained the elephant in the room; the linear correlation between depth and 14C date. Claiming fraud by the investigators, unsupported by evidence, is not an explanation.

OE advocates here on this thread have not provided any experimental data to confirm their required ultra-low sedimentation rate of ~0.5 to 1mm per year in Lake Suigetsu. The experimental evidence favors a much higher rate. ...

I'm really enjoying this thread!

Davie-doodles, you incredible dork, this thread has turned into another orbital mechanics thread. Just as it's impossible for Earth-launched rocks to be in orbits with perihelion greater than 1 AU, it is impossible for the varves in Suigetsu to be formed by particles/diatoms sorting spontaneously in water by size and shape. Until this has penetrated your knotty-pine ... no, that's too fine a wood ... until this has penetrated your chipboard head all your postings are pointless, and if it ever does penetrate your chipboard head you'll try to pretend that this never happened.

The silt particle size in the Suigetsu varves is roughly constant, because the silt was settling continuously. Intermixed with this non-layered silt is pollen and diatoms, in clear layers. I don't know much about the pollen, but the diatoms are from different species that are separated in the column but have about the same hydrodynamic properties (size, shape, weight) and cannot be separated by differential settling. Especially, multiple separated layers of the same diatoms cannot be produced by spontaneous sorting.

These facts, the brontosaurus in the room, render your silly claims about sedimentation rates and spontaneous laminae irrelevant. Your fantasy must explain the pattern of diatoms and sediment and pollen in the varves, and you haven't even tried to do that. Fast sedimentation in other situations is irrelevant. Laminae formed in other situations are irrelevant. Your claims are ruled out by the seasonal nature of the presence of diatoms and the fact that fast sedimentation cannot produce the observed structures.

How many times this has been pointed out to you and you have ignored it? I bet it's approaching the 13 times people explicitly pointed out that Earth-launched rocks cannot be in orbits with perihelion less than 1 AU before you finally asked (paraphrased) "Waddya mean less than 1 AU?".

[JonF]

The actual evidence at Suigetsu includes NO EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for your fantasy.

The pattern of content of teh varves, Davie-dork. THe same diatom speices separated out into clearly different bands. Your imagined higher sedimentation rate can't produce the observed structure.

And you stil have no explanation for the linear relationship betweeen depth and 14C date.

And we haven't even mentioned correlation with recorded earthquakes and volcanic events for quite a while. That needs to be explained too.

[Pappy Jack]

....The formation of annual lamina has continued to the present day.
My bolding.

The study convincingly ties the varve record of Lake Korttajärvi to a series of both recent and more time-distant climactic events and is convincing evidence supporting the work undertaken at Suigetsu.

You should pay attention to what I actually say, rather than what you imagine that I say. I have never disagreed that annual deposition occurs. It does occur. My disagreement is with the ultra-low sedimentation rate required to give Old Earthers their fancied 100,000 history of Lake Suigetsu.

I have paid quite close attention to what you say and, despite saying it over and over again, you have yet to provide any evidence that the varves identified in Lake Suigetsu (and now Lake Korttajärvi) are not the result of annual seasonal phenomena that can be convincingly traced back over tens of thousands of years in the one instance and nearly 10,000 years in the other. Your claim about 'the ultra-low sedimentation rate' in Suigetsu has no evidence to support it (some does not equal many does not equal all) is disproved by the evidence available in Suigetsu that points unequivocally towards annual events recurring over tens of thousands of years.

ETA: See JonF's post above.

[Pappy Jack]

Pappy Jack ...

To my mind, regardless of the specific points made elsewhere in response to your arguments (1)-(3) above, you are falling into the error of assuming that some=many=all. The points you make are only relevant to the circumstances and situation they relate to.

Fine. Break your tradition of not reading science papers but posting your opinions anyway and find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

What tradition is that, Dave? What about Lake Korttajärvi, Dave? Who's imagining what, Dave?

[Pappy Jack]

Pappy Jack ...

The actual evidence from Suigetsu (and elsewhere; see the Lake Korttajärvi paper referenced in my last post, for example) is enough to support the argument that varves form annually,

No. The actual evidence at Suigetsu includes NO EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for your fantasy. Where are the sediment traps in Lake Suigetsu? Where are the studies from 50 years ago showing the depth of the lake at that time? I'd love to find one. I suspect this would show a much higher sedimentation rate than 0.5 - 1 mm /yr. Shall we see if we can find one?

Furthermore, there are numerous contradictions in your scenario which you refuse to address.

Serious Contradictions in the Suigetsu Story

Not my scenario, Dave. Unfortunately for your arguments in respect of Suigetsu, which have no evidence to support them beyond your own wishful thinking that pineapples = tomatoes, all the evidence from fieldwork and research across the globe strongly indicates that your position is untenable. If you doubt this, I suggest you start from the beginning of this thread and read carefully the analyses and links provided by several thoughtful and knowledgeable people. Then try analysing the data without assuming that it must be erroneous, fraudulent or incompetently gathered because it contradicts your YEC 'model'.

[VoxRat]

Pappy Jack ...

To my mind, regardless of the specific points made elsewhere in response to your arguments (1)-(3) above, you are falling into the error of assuming that some=many=all. The points you make are only relevant to the circumstances and situation they relate to.

Fine. Break your tradition of not reading science papers but posting your opinions anyway and find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

What tradition is that, Dave? What about Lake Korttajärvi, Dave? Who's imagining what, Dave?

And Lake Sihailongwann?

[thanks S-cat]

[SophistiCat]

Other varve studies note that varve chronology is subject to errors due to counting error and isolated periods of obscure lamination, which often result in under-counting. However, the most varve counting error rarely exceeds 10%, which provides no comfort for flatearthers, who require errors of an order of magnitude (1,000%) or more.

Here is one example:

Comparison of varve and 14C chronologies from Steel Lake, Minnesota, USA
Jian Tian, Thomas A. Brown and Feng Sheng Hu
The Holocene, Vol. 15, No. 4, 510-517 (2005)

Annually laminated sediments (varves) offer an effective means of acquiring high-quality palaeoenvironmental records. However, the strength of a varve chronology can be compromised by a number of factors, such as missing varves, ambiguous laminations and human counting error. We assess the quality of a varve chronology for the last three millennia from Steel Lake, Minnesota, through comparisons with nine AMS 14C dates on terrestrial plant macrofossils from the same core. These comparisons revealed an overall 8.4% discrepancy, primarily because of missing/uncountable varves within two stratigraphic intervals characterized by low carbonate concentrations and obscure laminations. Application of appropriate correction factors to these two intervals results in excellent agreement between the varve and 14C chronologies. These results, together with other varve studies, demonstrate that an independent age-determination method, such as 14C dating, is usually necessary to verify, and potentially correct, varve chronologies.

Figure 2 (a) Varved sediments from Steel Lake. The upper image shows an example of distinct varves, and the lower image illustrates obscure varves. Both images have the same orientation and scale. (b) Environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) image of Steel Lake sediment. The small grains are calcite crystals precipitated within the lake

[Note that "Varve thickness ranges from 0.46 to 3.88 mm with a mean of 1.22 mm for the period of interest."]

Figure 3 (a) Comparison of the calibrated 14C ages and the original varve chronology. The thick line represents the weighted linear fit to the data points (numbers are raw varve counts) with a regression slope of 1.084. The thin line represents the 1:1 relationship. (b) age-depth curves based on linear interpolation of the calibrated 14C ages, on the original varve chronology and on the locally corrected (LC) varve chronology. The divergence between age-depth curves based on the calibrated 14C ages and the original varve counts indicates the cumulative discrepancy between the two chronologies, which is likely due to counting inaccuracy. The smaller differences between the LC varve chronology and the linear interpolation of the calibrated 14C ages illustrate the inaccuracies inherent in the 14C-age linear interpolation that are caused by variations in sedimentation rate; this highlights the advantage of a varve chronology at subdecadal to centennial time scales. (c) Age differences between the adjacent calibrated 14C ages versus varve-count differences between adjacent 14C-dated stratigraphic levels. The thick line is a linear-regression fit with a slope of 1.041 and the thin line is the 1:1 relationship. The two data points in the oval have the greatest deviation from both the linear-regression and 1:1 lines. The numbers next to the data points indicate the order of the age differences from the core top

[Pappy Jack]

My disagreement is with the ultra-low sedimentation rate required to give Old Earthers their fancied 100,000 history of Lake Suigetsu.

Oh dear, Dave. Any thoughts on the studies that you have been pointed to that do provide you with evidence of 'low' sedimentation rates? You should be aware, of course, that 'low' sedimentation rates in one lake are not necessarily evidence of 'low' sedimentation rates in every lake, in the same way as you must now be aware that 'high' sedimentation rates in one lake are not evidence of 'high' sedimentation rates in every lake. Dave, each situation is dependent on a wide number of variables that will apply to greater or lesser extents elsewhere. The data from Suigetsu stands on its own merits and is supported (not proved or disproved) by studies in other lakes.

[Febble]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory. Consider ...

[a lot of completely unsurprising data indicating that different lakes have different sedimentation patterns]

[data indicating that the lowest 14C levels you're going to see are background levels]


I'm really enjoying this thread!

You must be a masochist, because you're getting pulverized.

Try engaging Febble's last post.

That should be enough to put you in YEC masochist heaven.

Yes, please do, Dave. I'm getting a bit fed up of being ignored.

I've gone to the trouble of plotting the figures that Mike posted:



As you can see from the blue datapoints, there is an extremely good linear fit with between depth and conventional carbon age (ignoring the varves completely). However, I have also plotted (in pink) the values we might get if we followed YOUR assumptions regarding the accuracy of radiocarbon dates for samples whose real age is more than 3600 YBP. The problem, however, is that at some point, even using your assumptions, at some point, around 5000 YBP we are supposed to meet the Flood, and a large segment of core that was laid in the course of a single year. That is why, to fit your scenario, the pink dots have to make a vertical track up the plot.

And this is made very much worse if we take into account data that shows that the conventional radiocarbon dates of layers at Suitgetsu and other sites continue the linear trend. I have shown those as extrapolated yellow data points. To fit the Flood model, the pink dots have to continue upwards, diverging ever more widely from the extrapolated (and supported by observation) data.

Unless you think that the lake existed pre-Flood, laying down identical layers to those laid down during the Flood. In which case the pink dots can take a right turn towards the actual data. But I'm afraid it doesn't make them fit observation any better.

Please address my posts, Dave, and, in particular, tell us what the 14C inventory has to be like to fit these data. I have tried, and I can't do it - unless the Flood left virtually NO sediment, of course. In which case, that would explain why we see no evidence of it.

But that's not your argument, is it?

[VoxRat]

...You should pay attention to what I actually say, rather than what you imagine that I say. I have never disagreed that annual deposition occurs. It does occur. My disagreement is with the ultra-low sedimentation rate required to give Old Earthers their fancied 100,000 history of Lake Suigetsu.

You know, if you like Lake Suigetsu, you're going to love Lake Baikal.

The chronology of Lake Baikal goes back 5 million years, by multiple independent, cross-correlated dating methods (all involving, yes, experimental evidence) and a deposition rate of 0.04 mm/yr.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory. Consider ...

1) Lake Lillouet sedimentation rate is on the order of 10mm per year -- 10 - 20 times the rate asserted for Suigetsu
2) Sedimentation rate at Third Sister Lake is approximately 27mm per year based on the depth measured by Potzger & Wilson (1941) -- 18.5m -- vs. the depth measured in the early 1990s -- 17.0m.
3) Sedimentation rate at Lake Fukami determined from a 2m sediment core is about 13mm/yr. (2 meters / 147 distinct layers)

OE advocates here on this thread have not provided any experimental data to confirm their required ultra-low sedimentation rate of ~0.5 to 1mm per year in Lake Suigetsu. The experimental evidence favors a much higher rate.

4) Carbon 14 testing of samples in the bottom of the Suigetsu core (~75m) shows a pMC content of ~0.28, far above the AMS detection threshhold. Although paradigm conflict prevents AMS researchers from admitting that this is anything other than "background," the fact is that this is excellent evidence that these samples are NOT "Carbon 14 dead" but were buried during the Flood or before the Flood (See the RATE Report Vol. 2 from ICR.) Discussion at TWeb here ... RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner

I'm really enjoying this thread!

And masochists enjoy having hot pokers shoved up their ass too.

Whatever floats yer boat Davie-doo

Now, how about telling us the mechanism for the Flood laying those thousands of identical layers in a year?

[VoxRat]

...unless the Flood left virtually NO sediment, of course. In which case, that would explain why we see no evidence of it.

That would explain everything!

An especially tricky deity, that YHWH.
But then, no one ever said He didn't work in mysterious ways!

[SophistiCat]

Radiocarbon dating of lake sediments can also be flawed, due to reservoir effects, recirculation, and other, sometimes obscure, reasons. Here again though, the errors are nowhere near what the flatearthers require. These errors can be controlled by using multiple independent dating methods, such as other radioisotope dating (Cs and Pb), tephrachronology (ash layers from volcanic eruptions), historic earthquakes and climate variations (e.g. the Medieval Warm Period).

Here is a good example of varve research in Northern Europe:

Zille´n, L., Snowball, I., Sandgren, P. & Stanton, T. 2003 (December): Occurrence of varved lake sediment sequences in Va¨rmland, west central Sweden: lake characteristics, varve chronology and AMS radiocarbon dating. Boreas, Vol. 32, pp. 612–626. Oslo. ISSN 0300-9483.

Varved lake sediments can be used to set multiple environmental proxies within a calendar year time scale. We undertook a systematic survey of lakes in the Province of Va¨rmland, west central Sweden, with the aim of finding continuous varved lake sediment sequences covering the majority of the Holocene. In Fennoscandia, such sediments have previously only been recorded in northern Sweden and in southern and central Finland. By following a selective process and fieldwork we discovered three new varved sites (i.e. Furskogstja¨rnet, Mo¨tterudstja¨rnet and Ka¨lksjo¨n). We found that lakes with varved sediments have several common lake morphometry properties and lake catchment characteristics such as maximum water depth, maximum water depth/lake surface area ratio, catchment soil types, altitude and number of inflows. Varve chronologies, supported by AMS-14C dating and tephrochronology were established for two of the sediment profiles. These varve chronologies are the longest geological records with an annual resolution known to exist in Sweden. In Furskogstja¨rnet, the AMS-14C dates based on terrestrial plant macrofossils at several levels deviate significantly from the varve based time-depth curve. In Mo¨tterudstja¨rnet, a fully reasonable time-depth model based on the 14C dates gives older ages in the lower part of the sequence compared to the varve chronology. These results highlight that seemingly acceptable AMS radiocarbon dates may be erroneous. They also point to the fact that varved lake sediments are reliable geological archives with respect to chronological control and accuracy. Thus, these archives should be of prime interest for studies of climate and environmental change undertaken with the aim of providing sub-decadal resolution proxy data sets.

[...]

Varves or laminations?

The presence of laminations does not guarantee that they represent an annual cycle of sediment accumulation, i.e. that they are true varves. The structure of the laminations pictured in Fig. 6 is similar to that of biogenic/clastic varves found in northern Sweden (Renberg 1986) and Finland (Ojala et al. 2000), with distinct grading from a lamina composed of fine light grey mineral material (representing the spring flood) and a transition to dark organic lamina (representing the primary production in summer and its subsequent deposition). Repeated fieldwork at the three sites in subsequent years revealed the addition of a distinct new set of lamina for each year, which is the best available proof that couplets of light and dark lamina form an annual varve (Renberg 1986).

[My emphasis. Note the sub-mm average thickness of the varves on the attached figure.]

The estimated varve counting errors were 1.48% and 1.85%. As for the AMS dating errors, they are more significant, but still within reason:

Fig. 10. Comparisons between the calibrated radiocarbon dates (mean ages) and mean varve ages from Furskogstja¨rnet and Mo¨tterudstja¨rnet. A line of equal age is shown for guidance. Note the good coherency between the two independent chronologies in the upper and lower parts of the sediment sequence in Furskogstja¨rnet. Also note the good coherency between the two independent chronologies in sediment post-dating c. 6000 cal. years BP and the divergence between the latter in the lower part of the Mo¨tterudstja¨rnet sediment sequence. (+) AMS samples show older ages than the varve chronology, (-) AMS samples show younger ages than the varve chronology.

[VoxRat]

...Varves or laminations?

Would those be the famous Laminations of Jeremiah I've heard so much about?

[Febble]

Radiocarbon dating of lake sediments can also be flawed, due to reservoir effects, recirculation, and other, sometimes obscure, reasons. Here again though, the errors are nowhere near what the flatearthers require. These errors can be controlled by using multiple independent dating methods, such as other radioisotope dating (Cs and Pb), tephrachronology (ash layers from volcanic eruptions), historic earthquakes and climate variations (e.g. the Medieval Warm Period).[/INDENT]

Yeah, it's interesting, though, for me, to see linear plots as convincing as these! Coming from my neck of the woods, we are pretty pleased if we get a plot as good as this (only just noticed that there's an attachment upload facility on this board):

[RAFH]

...
What I question is the idea that each of the fine laminae in Lake Suige... ... ...ultiple laminae (8? 10?) being deposited each year.

My rough model is that the sediment from 75m - 40m may have been deposited during the Flood. Then the sediment from 40m - 0m might represent episodic sedimentation over the following 5000 years. Note that 40m over 5000 years is an average of 8 mm per year. Note also that pix posted from the Lillooet paper show approximately 10 mm per year in normal years. Note also that these 10mm layers are themselves finely laminated. So my theory seems to be consistent with observation.

Your "theory"?

What is that?
That 10 mm/yr sedimentation is typical in general, of all lakes everywhere?
That the neat colored stripes (and otherwise cyclically varying layers), either in the Suigetsu or Lillooet case, do not represent annual cycles?
That real-world scientists are all wrong and creationists who have never studied this stuff - or read the most basic geology text, for that matter - can tell them a thing or two about limnology?

What is your "theory" that this observation is consistent with???

It's what you quoted. The second paragraph above, starting with "My rough model ..."

That is not a theory davey, that is an assertion bordering on a hypothesis.

You need to present an overriding concept which provides the explanatory background for which such an hypothesis would present a falsifiable, testable issue, an issue that could be subjected to experiment to determine if the hypothesis is valid and therefore supports the theory.

Your claimed 'theory' is simply an observation upon which you make an assertion. You have not tied your assertion to the observation. All you say is such and such may have been the result of this and that. Period. That's it. You need to explain why such and such may have been the result of this and that. You've presented evidence, observations of a phenomenon, but you've done no more to tie those to your assertion than simply say they are tied together.

You also haven't answered the rebuttal questions offered. That's part of forming and defending a model, davey.

Doesn't sound like you know what you are doing or even that you have the heart for it. You are simply propagating the standard theist line, because so-and-so said so.

Buffoonery!

[JoeNothin]

While lurking through this thread, I made some personal, independent observations regarding the plausibility of the "YEC model." While not a professional scientist, I think this shows some serious problems with any young earth model you might try to develop. I would like to know what you think of my personal, independent critique of you position.

Let me see if I've got this straight. The evidence that varves represent annual layers includes:

• We observe varves forming today
• The diatoms in the layers reflect annual seasons
• Linear correlations are observed between varve count and radiocarbon
• Linear correlations are observed between radiocarbon date and depth
• The predicted date from these regressions corresponds closely with varve count
• The radiocarbon dates are independently calibrated with evidence from other fields such as archaeology

For these reasons, we can infer that radiocarbon dating is broadly accurate, by which we mean that

• Radiocarbon dates have a linear relationship with actual date
• Radiocarbon time intervals are of the same order of magnitude as real time intervals.

We also observe that varves go on for tens of thousands of years:

• The correlation between varves and radiocarbon continues to the limits of radiocarbon dating, which is around 50,000 YBP
• The varves go on in lockstep for at least twice as long as that.

Therefore varves have been forming for at least 100,000 years.
Therefore YEC is wrong.


So, in order to retrieve the claim that YEC is correct, YEC proponents need to argue that:

• Radiocarbon dates are not linear with real time.
  
• Demonstrate that apparent linearity with real time is an artefact of an some factor by which nonlinearities in layer formation in apparently completely independent processes (e.g. corals; tree rings; ice cores; varves) mimic the nonlinearities the C14 inventory over time, and also, coincidentally, happen to give spuriously matching dates for historically recorded events, such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.

However, this still leaves them with a major headache over the varves, because even if the varves were NOT annual, and even if radiocarbon dates were NOT collinear with real time, and even if the correspondence between archaeological and radiocarbon dating were completely coincidental and spurious:

• If a substantial proportion of the varves were deposited during the Flood, there should be NO correlation between depth and radiocarbon date for that segment, and no such segment has been found....
  
• Unless the Flood was more than 50,000 radiocarbon years ago, in which case radiocarbon dates for other materials are out by an average factor of at least 10.

And it still woulldn't explain why there should be ICE below that level.

Dave - it seems to me that's the size of the problem you have to tackle.

I'd like to suggest that the construction of an Old Earth theology might be an easier task, especially as there are several already to hand, many of them Christian.

Cheers,

LizzieJoeNothin

[RAFH]

Actually, the Young Earth Theory is much better supported than the Old Earth Theory.

An assertion. Fine.

Consider ...

1) Lake Lillouet sedimentation rate is on the order of 10mm per year -- 10 - 20 times the rate asserted for Suigetsu

So, are you suggesting, but not backing up in any way whatsoever, that there is some sort of a standard varve thickness? If so, state that and provide the evidence to support that statement. Of if you are suggesting that either sample is somehow outside the limits of varve thickness, then state that, and support that statement with evidence there is a limited range of varve thickness. You have done neither. All you have done is cite a fact without stating how that fact establishes your point, whatever that may be.

2) Sedimentation rate at Third Sister Lake is approximately 27mm per year based on the depth measured by Potzger & Wilson (1941) -- 18.5m -- vs. the depth measured in the early 1990s -- 17.0m.

And what, pray tell, does that mean? Of what significance is that fact? Are you still trying to establish there is a limited range of varve thickness? If so, you need to support that assertion with evidence, not evidence that such and such sample is outside of whatever range you think varves are limited to, but why they are limited to that range. Got it? You need an explanation of the assertion you have only implied.

3) Sedimentation rate at Lake Fukami determined from a 2m sediment core is about 13mm/yr. (2 meters / 147 distinct layers)

Again, so what? What's your point? So varves present in a variety of thicknesses, what of it? What does that mean? What is the consequence of those facts? How do those facts support your claims, whatever they are.

OE advocates here on this thread have not provided any experimental data to confirm their required ultra-low sedimentation rate of ~0.5 to 1mm per year in Lake Suigetsu. The experimental evidence favors a much higher rate.

So you are stating that varves are somehow limited to a range and Suigetsu is somehow outside that range. Wow, davey is now the world's expert on varves and deciding, on the basis of his extensive review of several paper and various on-line sources, what constitutes a varve and what does not. Does it give you any pause at all. davey, that people that have studied varves all their professional careers disagree with you, and their expertise in the field is backed up by the majority of the world's scientific community? And yes, this is an argument from authority, because this is a matter of authority. You are making an assertion of opinion, yours versus those of professional scientists and the scientific community. So, yeah, when discussing professional opinions, credentials count. You, on one hand, have none, the world, on the other hand, has immeasurable loads in comparison. It's like you, 90# twit who bleeds profusely vs Mohamed Ali. It's not a contest davey. It's just a glaring example of your ego that you think your opinion in this matter is of any consequence at all. Pure buffoonery.

4) Carbon 14 testing of samples in the bottom of the Suigetsu core (~75m) shows a pMC content of ~0.28, far above the AMS detection threshhold.

Yes, davey, the machines are capable of far greater resolution, but you are conflating machine resolution with background noise. The 0.2 to 0.3 readings obtained are not lower than the resolution of the machine, but they are at the level of the background noise, as has been conceded by RATE. Your continued raising of this point is simply buffoonery and your refusal to accept reality. That makes you a delusional buffoon, the silliest kind.

Although paradigm conflict prevents AMS researchers from admitting that this is anything other than "background," the fact is that this is excellent evidence that these samples are NOT "Carbon 14 dead" but were buried during the Flood or before the Flood (See the RATE Report Vol. 2 from ICR.) Discussion at TWeb here ... RATE and Radiocarbon with Dr. Baumgardner

I'm really enjoying this thread!

See above. You apparently enjoy making a fool and a spectacle of yourself. You apparently enjoy seeing yourself made to look foolish and a buffoon, not only by the rest of the posters, but more than anything else, by your own posts.

"Look everybody, it's me, davey buffoon! I'm here to remove all doubt that I am a self-made buffoon! Look at me! I am stoooopid! Hahahahaha! Look at me, I'm making a fool of myself and I am enjoying it! Please point at me and laugh! Please take amusement in my ignorance. Please make fun of me. Look at me and jeer! Throw rotten vegetables at me. I like it! It makes me feel special. Look, LOOK, LOOK, LOOK, LOOK, I'm a buffoon. Laugh at me!"

,

[VoxRat]

... So, yeah, when discussing professional opinions, credentials count. You, on one hand, have none, the world, on the other hand, has immeasurable loads in comparison. It's like you, 90# twit who bleeds profusely vs Mohamed Ali. It's not a contest davey. ...

In this, as in so many extended Dave threads, this classic can't help but come to mind.

[RAFH]

Pappy Jack ...

To my mind, regardless of the specific points made elsewhere in response to your arguments (1)-(3) above, you are falling into the error of assuming that some=many=all. The points you make are only relevant to the circumstances and situation they relate to.

Fine. Break your tradition of not reading science papers but posting your opinions anyway and find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

What tradition is that, Dave? What about Lake Korttajärvi, Dave? Who's imagining what, Dave?

The tradition of davey maintaining that professional scientists and technicians the world over, for the past century or so, are so blinded by their devotion to the myth of evolution they either intentionally or incompetently mismeasure, misread, misinput, misanalyze and misconstrue physical data. Not just a few here and there, but all of them, but only when whatever is it conflicts with davey's world view. It's just another examply of davey's hubris, he thinks he and his worldview is the reason for this massive delusion/conflation/conspiracy. His magnificence is so great, his truth so important, scientist working well before he was born buggered up their results in anticipation of The Great davey. And only SATAN could conceive and orchestrate such a vast conspiracy! Yes, it's TGd against SATAN, THE GREAT davey against the greatest forces of evil. TGd is here to save us all. Bow down before his magnificent brilliance! His unstoppable logic. His unsurmountable domination! Bow down!!




his insufferable ego and buffoonery

[RAFH]

... So, yeah, when discussing professional opinions, credentials count. You, on one hand, have none, the world, on the other hand, has immeasurable loads in comparison. It's like you, 90# twit who bleeds profusely vs Mohamed Ali. It's not a contest davey. ...

In this, as in so many extended Dave threads, this classic can't help but come to mind.

Actually, I believe that school teacher could whup davey, after that fight and with one arm having been ripped off and used to beat her senseless.

[Febble]

The tradition of davey maintaining that professional scientists and technicians the world over, for the past century or so, are either so blinded by their devotion to the myth of evolution they either intentionally or incompetently mismeasure, misread, misinput, misanalyze and misconstrue physical data. Not just a few here and there, but all of them, but only when whatever is it conflicts with davey's world view.

Well, I'd love to know how ANYONE, could be so "blinded by their devotion to the myth of evolution" that they plotted the blue dots when they should have been the pink ones, especially as they appear to have been "blinded" by lab protocol.