Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[VoxRat]

...
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

Jeepers, Dave!

It seems awfully dishonest to be recycling that canard without ever addressing the fact that it completely collapsed in another discussion you ran away from:

If you read that carefully [the RATE "study" that Dave says supports his fantasy]... you'll see that they accept the in situ explanation, and even differences between local Uranium concentrations as a likely source of the requisite nuclear activity. So, you see, they've already conceded the bulk of the argument. Certainly the claim that 14C in coal reflects the date it was buried.

Did you, um, "forget" about that?

[mung bean]

...
What I question is the idea that each of the fine laminae in Lake Suigetsu directly correlate to ONE YEAR of deposition. I believe that these fine laminae are better explained as the result of episodic sedimentation from inflows and/or settling. i.e. multiple 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 ..."

Dave, can you honestly not see the gaping holes in your logic there?

[VoxRat]

...
What I question is the idea that each of the fine laminae in Lake Suigetsu directly correlate to ONE YEAR of deposition. I believe that these fine laminae are better explained as the result of episodic sedimentation from inflows and/or settling. i.e. multiple 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 ..."

As has been pointed out by others, that is not a "theory" by any definition of the word.

[mung bean]

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.

Davey boy, you pathetically misguided little rat in a maze, try following your own advice.
The papers on Suigetsu itself, many of which have been shoved under your little ratty nose (and apologies here to all more worthy rats),
contain the information you claim you need to see. Why are you incapable of comprehending them?

[mung bean]

...find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

Here you go:

A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated
sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland
MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN (2003)
Boreas 32(4) 566-577

[tracked down from Pappy Jack's source, above.]

How come you don't do this tracking down, Dave?

How come you ask everyone else to do it for you?

Because he doesn't really want to see any such paper.
In fact he's desperately hoping no such paper exists.

[Dave Hawkins]

...find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

Here you go:

A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated
sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland
MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN (2003)
Boreas 32(4) 566-577

[tracked down from Pappy Jack's source, above.]

How come you don't do this tracking down, Dave?

How come you ask everyone else to do it for you?

Because as far as I can tell, this does NOT demonstrate this supposedly ongoing-to-the-present process of ultra thin lamina deposition.

I looks like just one more paper that ASSERTS that these thin laminae are annual.

[Dave Hawkins]

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.)

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy. I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

[VoxRat]

...find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

Here you go:

A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated
sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland
MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN (2003)
Boreas 32(4) 566-577

...

Because as far as I can tell, this does NOT demonstrate this supposedly ongoing-to-the-present process of ultra thin lamina deposition.

Oh, indeed?
And how far can you tell?
Based on... what???

I'd offer to send you the paper, but I can see that would be pointless if you're not going to recognize the screamingly obvious, conclusively nailed-down, beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, annual nature of the Lillooet varve sequence in the paper I did send you.

I looks like just one more paper that ASSERTS that these thin laminae are annual.

Is that what you're claiming about the Lillooet paper? Because that would be delusional to the point of insanity.

[mung bean]

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy. I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

Davey boy, I have a hypothesis. This hypothesis (which is mine ) is testable and falsifiable. It is therefore scientific.

1/ My hypothesis states that you are only interested in such studies because you still think you can pretend they don't exist.

2/ My hypothesis further states that if it is conclusively demonstrated that they do exist you will promptly cease to be interested in such studies. What is more you will effect this shift in attitude without in any way honestly conceding that you're fucked.

3/ You will then handwave and waffle about the predictable fact that the sediment layers deposited in the sediment traps have a thickness greater than equivalent layers further down the column (which have been compressed due to the weight of sediment above them) and attempt to display this as evidence that the study is flawed.

I am going to keep this post on record for the moment you prove it true and then re-post it for your enjoyment.

[mung bean]

By the way, Dave: why are the diatoms only in the lake and not distributed all over the surrounding countryside like the sediment and ash also contained in the varves?

If you are too gutless to face this question honestly why should anyone take you seriously?

[Fathermithras]

Do you not see Dave's impeccable logic?

[Pappy Jack]

...find me science paper that experimentally supports your imagined ultra-low sedimentation rate required for Suigetsu.

Here you go:

A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated
sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland
MIA TILJANDER, MATTI SAARNISTO, ANTTI E. K. OJALA AND TIMO SAARINEN (2003)
Boreas 32(4) 566-577

[tracked down from Pappy Jack's source, above.]

How come you don't do this tracking down, Dave?

How come you ask everyone else to do it for you?

Because as far as I can tell, this does NOT demonstrate this supposedly ongoing-to-the-present process of ultra thin lamina deposition.

I looks like just one more paper that ASSERTS that these thin laminae are annual.

Well, Dave, at least as far as Mia Tiljander's dissertation is concerned, are you contending that the unequivocal statement therein that

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

is a lie unsupported by the body of careful research and analysis that the dissertation represents? Do you believe that Mia Tiljander's academic supervisors, reviewers and opponent conspired to allow such a lie to pass unchallenged? Can you point to anything in the dissertation that would suggest to you that the laminae examined were not annual in nature?

You should be aware by now, Dave, that no one here regards your unsupported assertion as to what something 'looks like' as a substitute for evidence that career scientists like Mia Tiljander don't have a clue about what they're doing.

[VoxRat]

...I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy.

Yet, somehow, the scientists that actually study these things disagree.

OK. Fine. Don't accept the conclusions that the real-worlders arrive at from the variations in isotopic ratios. For whatever reason. Feel free to come up with your own explanation as to why those isotopic ratios vary the way they do with depth. But to ignore the data, to claim you're "not interested" in it... that's just "la la la... I can't hear you!". Aren't you the guy who claims to "consider ALL the data"?

I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

What about the countless studies that show the regular alternation of seasonally specific diatoms (as confirmed by your precious sediment traps, incidentally) layered one on top of the other, same sequence repeated over and over and over... what can that possibly be, if not rock-solid evidence of annual deposition?

[Pappy Jack]

I'm not interested in supposed confirmation by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is full of arbitrary assumptions which cause it to be untrustworthy. I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

What about Febble's question, Dave? What about those first 3,500 varves in Suigetsu?

[RAFH]

Do you not see Dave's impeccable logic?

No, no, that should be "It are being a fact ... ..." because otherwise we wouldn't know if it still is a fact, there being no direct statement the status is on-going.

[VoxRat]

I'm interested in multi year studies with real measuring devices like sediment traps which show that fine laminae on the order of 0.5 - 1mm are laid annually in lakes.

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant. So putting that aside, surely you'll be interested in, and want to comment on these:


Sediment Fluxes and Varve Formation in Sihailongwan, a Maar Lake from Northeastern China
Chu, Guoqiang1; Liu, Jiaqi2; Schettler, G.3; Li, Jiaying4; Sun, Qing5; Gu, Zhaoyan2; Lu, Houyuan2; Liu, Qiang2; Liu, Tungsheng2
Journal of Paleolimnology, Volume 34, Number 3, October 2005 , pp. 311-324

Data derived from monthly sediment traps in Sihailongwan, a maar lake in northeastern China, yielded a detailed record of seasonal sediment fluxes. Sediment fluxes correspond to seasonal climatic variations. The diatom flux shows two distinct peaks in September and November, whereas the flux of chrysophyte stomatocysts shows a maximum in May. The blooms of diatoms may be related to the subsequent deepening of the thermocline in September and lake overturn in spring and November, and influx of nutrient-rich groundwater sometime after the onset of the summer monsoon. The fluxes of organic matter and siliciclastics show a distinct seasonal pattern.

Seasonal succession and microlamina formation in a meromictic lake displaying varved sediments
MIKE DICKMAN (1985)
Sedimentology 32 (1), 109–118.

Each dark microlamina was overlain by a light coloured (calcite-rich) layer which was deposited each spring and summer during the 3 yr period of this study.
The mechanism of microlamina formation elucidated here has been based on the examination of bi-weekly sediment trap information. This approach has permitted an explanation of the mechanisms by which specific events such as calcite precipitation and phytoplankton seasonal succession are transcribed into the sediment record.

Varve formation and the climatic record in an Alpine proglacial lake: calibrating annually- laminated sediments against hydrological and meteorological data
The Holocene, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8 (1994)
Andreas Leemann
Frank Niessen

Processes leading to the formation of varves in proglacial Oeschinensee (Switzerland) are investigated. The aim is to calibrate annually-laminated sediments of the last three decades against hydrological and meteorological instrumental data. Results from water samples and sediment traps show that the suspended sediment in the lake is mainly distributed by underflows during the time of the largest sediment input from May to mid-August. This leads to the deposition of the basal silt layers of the varves. Settling of fine-grained suspension from interflows dominates sedimentation between August and October, forming the final layer of fine-grained material at the end of the annual deposition cycle

[Mike PSS]

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!

I'm going to change tack here Dave.

I say "RUN WITH IT!" and "PUBLISH THAT SUCKER!"

Collect all of your notes from this thread then write up a dissertation for inclusion on the ICR or AiG webpage. I would really love to see that outline that you submit.

Ask if you need any help in putting your facts together into a coherent form that you can present to the AiG review board. I'm sure we could all contribute to help you "clean up" your paper and make it presentable.

By all means Dave, publish that sucker.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

...
What I question is the idea that each of the fine laminae in Lake Suigetsu directly correlate to ONE YEAR of deposition. I believe that these fine laminae are better explained as the result of episodic sedimentation from inflows and/or settling. i.e. multiple 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 ..."

Just on the assumption that you are reading this, Hawkins:

You know if you weren't such a self-indulgent puerile dickhead, you would have quoted the text instead of referencing it so obliquely
In that manner, the discussion would have progressed without EVERYONE else having to go on a fucking easter egg hunt to try to retrieve which one of your nuggets-o-truth we were all supposed to swoon over.

Tell you what Hawkins...




Nah.

Ain't worth the trouble.


ETA: That was a mistake. He did quote his referenced material. My apologies to Hawkins and to the forum.

[mung bean]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

[Coleslaw]

I'm trying to figure out how you could not have annual layers form in a lake that has seasonal blooms of microscopic organisms. Where else are they going to go besides the lake bottom? And if you have different kinds that bloom in difference seasons and are different colors, what could prevent them from forming distinct layers? It seems like a three year old could figure out the sequence: dark guys bloom, die, drop to the bottom, light guys bloom, die, drop to the bottom, repeat, repeat, repeat. What would stop that from happening, other than a change in the composition of the lake that stops the stuff from blooming to begin with, as apparently happened with Suigetsu? Dave hasn't proposed any mechanism that I can see that would prevent the formation of annual layers from an annual event. Or am I missing something somewhere?

[VoxRat]

I think we can all agree the issue of thickness has been thoroughly discussed here, and shown to be utterly irrelevant.

Regrettably, Sir Rat, the issue of "thickness" is highly relevant to this discussion.

Hmmm...
I see what you mean.
My mistake.
I should have written "thickness of the annual sediment layer"

so as not to confuse it with, well, other potential thicknesses.

:smile:

[mung bean]

VR, I thought I should provide dear Davey with a tempting bait for one of his beloved quote mines. I wouldn't be at all surprised if at some point he attempts to use my statement out of context as an example of an authority on varve thickness.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

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?

Hawkins' post here is among the most amazingly blatant examples of hypocrisy I have EVER seen on a message board / forum.

Bet this dickhead is angling for the deacon's job at the local church.

[VoxRat]

...
Bet this dickhead is angling for the deacon's job at the local church.

Oh, do try to keep up, Gags

Dave currently serves his church, Tri-City Ministries, as a deacon, 3rd grade boys Sunday School teacher... [and other things]..

[RAFH]

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!

I'm going to change tack here Dave.

I say "RUN WITH IT!" and "PUBLISH THAT SUCKER!"

Collect all of your notes from this thread then write up a dissertation for inclusion on the ICR or AiG webpage. I would really love to see that outline that you submit.

Ask if you need any help in putting your facts together into a coherent form that you can present to the AiG review board. I'm sure we could all contribute to help you "clean up" your paper and make it presentable.

By all means Dave, publish that sucker.

I agree. Absolutely. Hell, he should present to all the journals.

But, should davey get a Nobel, we definitely get a share. I'd say at least 40%.