Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Febble]

CK1 ... you're a rare brave soul to give me a positive rep and say that I might have a point. Could I ask what you think I might have a point about?

Dave, if you click on the link beside the rep point, it'll take you to the post you were repped for.

[JonF]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

Pompeiian bread, Davie-doodles.

[Coleslaw]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

CK1 ... you're a rare brave soul to give me a positive rep and say that I might have a point. Could I ask what you think I might have a point about?

CK1 wasn't "brave" to give you a positive rep. People give you positive rep if they think you deserve it. That doesn't require bravery. If you don't get more positive rep, it's not because other posters lack courage, it's because they lack reasons.

Ck1 gave you a positive rep for this specific post:

Occam's Aftershave ...

Dave, why is it you always have time for moronic one-liners ... ?

My irony meter just broke!

so apparently what you had a point about was Occam's statement being ironic, not about anything related to the science being discussed.

[Faid]

...
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?

This is a very large misrepresentation. They have most certainly not conceded the bulk of the argument.

Oooooh yes they have.

[Pappy Jack]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

And, as Occam has pointed out before, Dave can be relied on to unerringly demonstrate the application of

AFDave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

This is disingenuousness raised to a new level. Are there no depths to which Dave will not sink in his blinkered defence of dogma?

[RAFH]

TIME FOR A DAVEY STYLE SUMMARY

So, let us (including davey) recap and summarize what we know about the Lake Suigetsu varves and varves in general:

1. Varves are a well studied phenomenon that occurs across the globe. Varves have been studied for over a century and even have their own Institute in Sweden, where they were first identified and studied.

2. Varves consist of sediment laminae found in the bottom of lakes, but can also occur elsewhere as conditions permit. These conditions are generally the floors of bodies of water where there is little disturbance to disrupt the deposition of fine sediments which include one or more annually occurring deposits. These may be the remains of diatoms, plant materials or minerals of distinctive size, shape or composition (ie - loess, fine sands, etc). The varves are characterized by unusually consistent thicknesses though there may be occasional variations due to major environmental events such as floods, earthquakes, landslips, volcanic eruptions, etc. which can and are used as keys for calibrating the sequences to other sequences and histories. Often, there are organic or mineral inclusions, macrofossils, that can be dated by radiometric methodologies. It should be noted the scientific community does not have any fixed thickness or even a range of thicknesses which is used as a defining criteria for identifying varves.

3. Because of their unique nature and the simplicity of the methodology, ie - counting layers, varves are a very powerful tool in establishing chronologies and dating of events. Because they preserves a very clear and easy to understand and analyze chronological record, and because the telltale layers which create varves include distinctive organic remains and/or minerals they are useful for identifying a range of phenomena, including climactic conditions, geological events, etc.

4. The Lake Suigetsu samples provide an exceptionally clear record of Japan and the world for up to 100,000 years.

5. The Lake Suigetsu examples, which are composed of fine clays and the remains of distinctive diatom species, also include marker layers from various geologic, climatic and biologic events which can be correlated to other independent chronologies, including written and oral human histories. These include know volcanic eruptions, know seismic events and human interventions. The samples also include macrofossils that have been dated via AMS radiocarbon testing. The resulting dating is consistent and consilient with the varve counts, simple depth to sample analysis, known geologic events, known climactic cycles and written and oral history as well as with all applicable mainstream scientific models.

6. The various studies of Lake Suigetsu have been undertaken by respected professional scientists who have submitted their work to rigorous peer-review and which has been subsequently published in respected professional journals. These works have been readily available to and, indeed, used (numerous citations in subsequent papers by these and other authors) by the scientific community without controversy.

7. The issues raised by davey Hawkins are based primarily upon his reliance on biblical creation accounts. He has therefore:
a. questioned the uppermost 'flocculent' layers, suggesting they denote something,
b. questioned the difference of length of the core samples above the 1662 Kanbun earthquake marker layer, failing to understand this difference is an artifact of the coring method and what the researchers were studying, despite both cores having otherwise substantial correlation between each other and with known chronologies,
c. questioned the thickness of the varves, suggesting the thickness of the Suigetsu layers is too little and they must really represent microlayers within the annual layers,
d. questioned the identification of the layers as varves by the professional scientists who authored the papers he then relies upon for support of his assertions,
e. questioned the integrity and competence of the radiocarbon dating laboratory and its personnel,
f. suggested the layers were deposited by fast flows, 20cm/s and greater, but is unable to account for the source of such vast quantities of water this contention requires, nor able to account for the lack of obvious erosion features from such flows,
g. has failed to present a coherent and consistent model by which these laminae could have been formed,
h. has repeatedly misinterpretted or ignored critical data within papers he has cited,
i. has been refuted at every turn by evidence.

Thus, one can clearly and reasonably conclude the varves of Suigetsu, and all those others around the world, present an insurmountable obstacle for YEC world views. These hold the world is less than 10,000 years old (the Suigetsu varves go back 100,000 years, others, such a the Green River Formation represent millions of years of time and all are consilient with other chronometrics and all of science) and there was a global flood between 4000 and 5000 years ago (which no record of shows in the Suigetsu data or, for that matter, in any other data). This, and this alone, is the sole basis of davey Hawkin's objections to Suigetsu. Simply put, reality does not concord with his beliefs therefore reality must be wrong. davey firmly believes belief is more reliable than reality.

[VoxRat]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

Oh, brother.
The old "too many unanswered questions" gambit.

Tell you what, Dave. I'm going to start a whole new thread where we can examine those "unanswered questions" in detail. You'll welcome that, right?

CK1 ... you're a rare brave soul to give me a positive rep and say that I might have a point. Could I ask what you think I might have a point about?

Awww... Dave, now. Don't feel that way.

Remember I gave you positive rep, when you deserved it.

[Faid]

Dear Insect Dreams ... I think your humor detector is not quite as evolved as you think! You presume I missed Sir Mung's and in so doing missed mine!

"Haha, I always knew that sign was taped on by back! I was just messin' wit ya, folks"!

()

[RAFH]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

Right. That wasn't so hard, was it?

Now, have a look at my post here:

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,

Lizzie

And you'll see the problem I think you are facing. Sure, you can decide you are going to mistrust the radiocarbon dates. That's fine. But, as Mike says, from those inferred dates, you can infer the values that were recorded by the lab, and they will still lie very close to that diagonal line.

Now, at some point, you need that row of datapoints to take a vertical diversion upwards, in order to account for the layers laid in a single year (and which should all have the same radiocarbon VALUE, regardless of what DATE you think it means.

And. They. Don't.

So, if you want to claim that any of the sediment dateable to less than 50,000 YBP by radiocarbon was actually laid during the Flood 5,000 years ago, then you will either have to postulate that the Flood left virtually no sediment, or all the Flood sediment was laid more than 50,000 YBP by conventional dating.

In other words, you will have to postulate that conventional radiocarbon dating is out by a factor of at least 10 on average. And, as I say above, even if you can justify this, you still have to explain why there should be ICE lower than this.

Please comment on this, as it seems to me your view is in Deep Deep Trouble.

Cheers

Lizzie

Not really Febble, because davey holds that all 14C data is fudged, faked, mistaken, wrong, etc. So there is no relationship between 14C and anything. As far as he knows and is willing to accept, any similarity or correlation between 14C data and anything else is purely coincidence. He's stated this repeatedly. That's why he's renegging on his previous agreement, because if he does agree, he has a problem, therefore, all 14C data is suspect, all 14C data might as well have been determined by a random number generator taking as its input numbers ramdomly selected from a team of monkeys blindly tapping on keypads they can't see.

As far as davey is concerned, the primary criteria for the acceptability of any data is whether or not it supports his current world view. Doesn't matter if he accepted it 3 seconds ago, even trumpeted it as earth shaking news and the basis of all his then thought, if it is subsequently suspected of not jiving with his current world view, it's out. It's that simple.

[mung bean]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

And, as Occam has pointed out before, Dave can be relied on to unerringly demonstrate the application of

AFDave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

This is disingenuousness raised to a new level. Are there no depths to which Dave will not sink in his blinkered defence of dogma?

Absolutely none, PJ, absolutely none. If necessary he would sell his kids to slave traders and take up prostitution.













Mind you, the latter is arguably already the case.

[RAFH]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

Pompeiian bread, Davie-doodles.

That's exactly why davey doesn't trust 14C at all anymore. Because if he uses his jackshit cobbled together paradigm for 14C, it results in obvious absurdities such as bread that was made from wheat that hadn't be planted yet and wouldn't be for another couple of hundred years. So, obviously, since davey's understanding of 14C and how it works can't be wrong, 14C must be wrong.

I really don't know why you folks even bother to mention it. Then again, there's no point in mentioning anything that conflicts with davey's current thinking, if there is a conflict, the data he must evict.

[Pappy Jack]

Not really Febble, because davey holds that all 14C data is fudged, faked, mistaken, wrong, etc. So there is no relationship between 14C and anything. As far as he knows and is willing to accept, any similarity or correlation between 14C data and anything else is purely coincidence. He's stated this repeatedly. That's why he's renegging on his previous agreement, because if he does agree, he has a problem, therefore, all 14C data is suspect, all 14C data might as well have been determined by a random number generator taking as its input numbers ramdomly selected from a team of monkeys blindly tapping on keypads they can't see.

As far as davey is concerned, the primary criteria for the acceptability of any data is whether or not it supports his current world view. Doesn't matter if he accepted it 3 seconds ago, even trumpeted it as earth shaking news and the basis of all his then thought, if it is subsequently suspected of not jiving with his current world view, it's out. It's that simple.

Yes, Dave, care to show how RAFH is wrong in his conclusion?

It certainly seems to be the case that the only reason you have so remarkably decided that all C14 dating after 1500 BC is suspect is because it otherwise discredits entirely your wholly unsupported contention that the upper 3500 Suigetsu laminae are not annual depositions.

I would also be interested in your explanation as to how the C14 dating of artefacts of an already known age so closely corresponds with that known age. Let me guess - Fraud? Discarding data? Incompetence? I'm sure you have a well-supported argument to make to justify your new position.

[Susannah]

I kept the following references from our old discussion at IIDB or wherever it was at:

Lake Baikal sediments average about 0.04 to 0.17 mm accumulation per year
Lago Puyehue sediments average ~ 0.5 to 1 mm/yr...

Interesting. Especially Lake Baikal as it appears that you have found an example of a lake with a sedimentation rate very close to that claimed for Suigetsu.

The most obvious next questions would be ...

What do the sediment layers look like? What is their composition? Is it alternating light and dark? Are there diatoms? In short ... how closely does the Baikal sediments parallel the Suigetsu sediments?

Yes. Very interesting. Especially as Deadman wrote, bolding it so you wouldn't miss it, (and now I put it in red for you, to make it easier still)

I kept the following references from our old discussion at IIDB or wherever it was at:

Lake Baikal sediments average about 0.04 to 0.17 mm accumulation per year
Lago Puyehue sediments average ~ 0.5 to 1 mm/yr...

And, I disagree; the most obvious next questions would be these:

So all of your protestations were a farce, Dave? You knew all along? Just hoping nobody would remember? Or is your memory so full of holes it's a wonder you can find your way home? Is that why you don't get out much?

[RAFH]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

And, as Occam has pointed out before, Dave can be relied on to unerringly demonstrate the application of

AFDave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

This is disingenuousness raised to a new level. Are there no depths to which Dave will not sink in his blinkered defence of dogma?

No, none. None at all. Such depths do not exist. Can not exist. davey can and will deny anything that threatens his precious. If his mother told him he was wrong, he'd disavow her. If his wife told him he was wrong, he'd disavow her. If something, someone, anything, anyone, threatens davey's precious, it's invalid.

[Pappy Jack]

Absolutely none, PJ, absolutely none. If necessary he would sell his kids to slave traders and take up prostitution.

Mind you, the latter is arguably already the case.

If you mean the slavery of religious dogma and the prostitution of knowledge in its pursuit, I couldn't agree more.

[RAFH]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

And, as Occam has pointed out before, Dave can be relied on to unerringly demonstrate the application of

AFDave's Fifth Law: The truth of all previously established facts and conclusions are subject to their being convenient to the argument I am presently making.

This is disingenuousness raised to a new level. Are there no depths to which Dave will not sink in his blinkered defence of dogma?

Absolutely none, PJ, absolutely none. If necessary he would sell his kids to slave traders and take up prostitution.













Mind you, the latter is arguably already the case.

Nah, davey would keep the kids and pimp them himself, remember, davey doesn't like to get his hand dirty or get out of his easy chair.

[damitall]

This is not a case of the "Same Evidence - Different Interpretation" line so often trotted out by Yeckies.

This is a case of "Overwhelming Evidence - Blind Yeckie Panic"

[RAFH]

Not really Febble, because davey holds that all 14C data is fudged, faked, mistaken, wrong, etc. So there is no relationship between 14C and anything. As far as he knows and is willing to accept, any similarity or correlation between 14C data and anything else is purely coincidence. He's stated this repeatedly. That's why he's renegging on his previous agreement, because if he does agree, he has a problem, therefore, all 14C data is suspect, all 14C data might as well have been determined by a random number generator taking as its input numbers ramdomly selected from a team of monkeys blindly tapping on keypads they can't see.

As far as davey is concerned, the primary criteria for the acceptability of any data is whether or not it supports his current world view. Doesn't matter if he accepted it 3 seconds ago, even trumpeted it as earth shaking news and the basis of all his then thought, if it is subsequently suspected of not jiving with his current world view, it's out. It's that simple.

Yes, Dave, care to show how RAFH is wrong in his conclusion?

It certainly seems to be the case that the only reason you have so remarkably decided that all C14 dating after 1500 BC is suspect is because it otherwise discredits entirely your wholly unsupported contention that the upper 3500 Suigetsu laminae are not annual depositions.

I would also be interested in your explanation as to how the C14 dating of artefacts of an already known age so closely corresponds with that known age. Let me guess - Fraud? Discarding data? Incompetence? I'm sure you have a well-supported argument to make to justify your new position.

It has to be a coincidence or it has to be fraud. Those two are the only acceptable options.

[Faid]

Well, It seems that, while I was away, the discussion went like this:

__________________________________________________ ___________

dave: Show me evidence that annual layering is happening today!

Voxrat: There you go dave. (links)

Febble: I have some questions dave.

Mike: Me too dave.

dave: OK, but I never disputed that annual layering is happening today (no, really!) What I really want to see is evidence that annual sediment layers can be as thin as they are supposed to be for Suigetsu! Can you show me that? I bet you can't!

Voxrat: There you go dave. (links)

Deadman: And some more here. (shitload of links)

Febble: About that question, dave?

Mike: And my question, whenever you're ready?

dave: Nononono you don't get it- what I really, REALLY want to see is evidence that a lake with the EXACT hydrological, chemical and geological properties of Suigetsu, diatom concentrations and all, has the sediment thickness Suigetsu is supposed to have. TRhat's all.

Everyone: What, in order to believe anything about Suigetsu, you want us to find its exact replica? Are you serious? Answer Febble's and Mike's questions, please.

Febble: Yes please, dave.

Mike: Yes please.

dave: :mellow::sad::helpsmilie:

__________________________________________________ _______________

What did I miss?

[ck1]

Febble-- I don't really know what I think about Carbon 14 at the moment. There was a time when I was leaning toward trusting it over the past 3500 years, but I'm not sure I trust it at all. There are too many unanswered questions at the moment.

CK1 ... you're a rare brave soul to give me a positive rep and say that I might have a point. Could I ask what you think I might have a point about?

CK1 wasn't "brave" to give you a positive rep. People give you positive rep if they think you deserve it. That doesn't require bravery. If you don't get more positive rep, it's not because other posters lack courage, it's because they lack reasons.

Ck1 gave you a positive rep for this specific post:

Occam's Aftershave ...

Dave, why is it you always have time for moronic one-liners ... ?

My irony meter just broke!

so apparently what you had a point about was Occam's statement being ironic, not about anything related to the science being discussed.

No bravery involved, Dave.

Just seemed to me that posters here often make one liners.* Jokey posts with little real content. Sometimes these posts are amusing and sometimes not. But when you did that same sort of thing you got criticized and you were appropriately annoyed, I thought.

Of course, others will point out that you also fail to respond to substantive posts while making those one liners, but I think that is a separate issue (as is the quality/relevance of the particular post you made that OA was referring to).

*except me, of course

So, about time to respond to Febble, don't you think?

[Febble]

What did I miss?

[mung bean]

QUOTIN' DIS:

I kept the following references from our old discussion at IIDB or wherever it was at:

Lake Baikal sediments average about 0.04 to 0.17 mm accumulation per year
Lago Puyehue sediments average ~ 0.5 to 1 mm/yr...

Interesting. Especially Lake Baikal as it appears that you have found an example of a lake with a sedimentation rate very close to that claimed for Suigetsu.

The most obvious next questions would be ...

What do the sediment layers look like? What is their composition? Is it alternating light and dark? Are there diatoms? In short ... how closely does the Baikal sediments parallel the Suigetsu sediments?

Yes. Very interesting. Especially as Deadman wrote, bolding it so you wouldn't miss it, (and now I put it in red for you, to make it easier still)

I kept the following references from our old discussion at IIDB or wherever it was at:

Lake Baikal sediments average about 0.04 to 0.17 mm accumulation per year
Lago Puyehue sediments average ~ 0.5 to 1 mm/yr...

And, I disagree; the most obvious next questions would be these:

So all of your protestations were a farce, Dave? You knew all along? Just hoping nobody would remember? Or is your memory so full of holes it's a wonder you can find your way home? Is that why you don't get out much?

So Dave, what's next?
To deal with your "obvious next red herrings questions":

1/ They probably look like layers of sediment. What did you expect? Fucking elephants?

2/ Sediment, diatom shells, organic matter. IOW, the usual. Again, the lack of elephants should come as no surprise.
They're all hiding in your living room and there's none left over for the Baikal varves.

3/ Davey boy, try to think really hard here. What does it matter what colour they are?
Do you really think varve chronology is based entirely on pretty colours? It wouldn't matter if they were pink with blue spots.

4/ Shitloads of them. And?

5/ Pretty fucking closely, in that;
a) both are composed of sediment, diatoms and organic matter.
b) both are deposited in similar conditions (still, deep, freshwater lake).
c) both have been shown to be annually deposited.
d) both have a similar thickness of the individual layers.
e) both present massive problems for your YEC timeline.

[Dave Hawkins]

Hmmm ... Lots more posts, but no answers to my questions about Lake Baikal.

Just so you know ... My theory for Lake Suigetsu is looking better and better to me every day. Just like what happened with Unicorns and Nested Hierarchies and C14 in Coal and Burrows and Kondrashov and Portuguese and other stuff.

Not to say that all of them go my way - Woodpeckers and Orbital Mechanics didn't.

But this one is.

[E. Mota Kahn]

Hmmm ... Lots more posts, but no answers to my questions about Lake Baikal.

Just so you know ... My theory for Lake Suigetsu is looking better and better to me every day. Just like what happened with Unicorns and Nested Hierarchies and C14 in Coal and Burrows and Kondrashov and Portuguese and other stuff.

Not to say that all of them go my way - Woodpeckers and Orbital Mechanics didn't.

But this one is.

That's nice for you. Yeah, it is.

[Febble]

Hmmm ... Lots more posts, but no answers to my questions about Lake Baikal.

Just so you know ... My theory for Lake Suigetsu is looking better and better to me every day.

Well, I expect it will if you continue to ignore the problems with it. Like those radiocarbon values (not dates, values). DO read my last post to you, Dave.

Perhaps you have a solution to the problem it presents, but without one your "theory" is sunk. Whatever it is (what is it?)