Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[JOZeldenrust]

You people are all babies! Wait until you make 60 and then we'll talk.

You sure you got another 36 years in you, gramps?

What do you mean by "gramps"? Surely that should be "granny"?

There are no women on the internet. Not even old women.

[Steviepinhead]

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.

<snip PRATT>

I'm really enjoying this thread!

I've got what seems like dozens of pages still to read to even catch up, but I wish merely to note that dave has swiftly fulfilled my prediction that he hasn't got a clue about lakes.

Dave thinks the annual sedimentation in a quiet little lowland lake in Japan ought to be roughly the same as a glacier-fed lake in British Columbia.

Dave, glaciers mill rocks into flour. Just in their "down" time, when they're not busy eating airplanes, helicopters, neolithic austrians, and errant mountaineers.

It's a good thing I can type, because once again your inability to perform reasoning using everyday physical processes has reduced me to speechlessness.

[RAFH]

You people are all babies! Wait until you make 60 and then we'll talk.

If I can still talk then. Probably slumped in a chair with my diapers and baby food babbling on about crazy ass creos.

Actually, I worry more about not babbling on about them.

I regard the contemplation/confrontation of creationist nonsense as a sort of regular test for the onset of senile dementia.
If'n'when it starts making any sense to me, I'm going to start looking for a Dr. Kevorkian.

That's when my daughter takes me up for the economy introduction to skydiving class. No parachute. But she's insisted on the condition it's only over a live volcano, just to make sure.

[Pappy Jack]

You people are all babies! Wait until you make 60 and then we'll talk.

[Walter Brennan/Stumpy mode] Dang it, ain't there no young 'uns left no more?[/Walter Brennan/Stumpy mode]. Hitting Heinz next month myself.

[Deadbeat]

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.

<snip PRATT>

I'm really enjoying this thread!

I've got what seems like dozens of pages still to read to even catch up, but I wish merely to note that dave has swiftly fulfilled my prediction that he hasn't got a clue about lakes.

Dave thinks the annual sedimentation in a quiet little lowland lake in Japan ought to be roughly the same as a glacier-fed lake in British Columbia.

Dave, glaciers mill rocks into flour. Just in their "down" time, when they're not busy eating airplanes, helicopters, neolithic austrians, and errant mountaineers.

It's a good thing I can type, because once again your inability to perform reasoning using everyday physical processes has reduced me to speechlessness.

I can confirm that a) Lake Lillooet is glacier-fed (and damn fucking cold for swimming), and that b) the various sizes of glacier-ground stones in the area is almost as astonishing as the beauty of the lake itself.

[Steviepinhead]

...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!

Febble and Vox may be onto something here, dave. You should perhaps nebulate enough in your "argumentation" to leave this as a real possibility for a fallback "model."

I mean, we've seen on Glenn's TWeb burrows thread how even very small rivers in full flood spate can tumble great rocks along, essentially becoming, for a short period of time, rock-polishing machines (well, okay, the rest of us sorta, er, tumbled to this the first time we saw all the rounded cobbles in a stream-bed...). And when we're talking the "polished" end of the sediment spectum, we're talking really fine, almost invisible-type residues...

So, one "theory" for the lack of evidence of any specific world-wide layer of REALLY REALLY OBVIOUS sediment from Teh Fludde might go like this:

1. If little streams in flood can grind big boulders into smaller rocks and smaller rocks into cobbles, etc.;

2. And if large, relatively-hard, "slow-flowing" objects like glaciers can pluck rock from mountains and reduce it to rock-flour, etc., then maybe--

3. A really ginormous Fludde, accompanied (or immediately followed, I can never be sure which sequence you're endorsing) ginormous zipping continental cratons, fer garsh sake, might well--

A. Grind pretty much everything it managed to pick up to its constituent minerals, after which--

B. Those constituent minerals would be ground into elemental, atomic "flour" (or, conceivably, even "quark" flour...?).

All of which might well explain why we simply don't see NO FLUDDE LAYER: it's been demolished, atomized, and dispersed unto the winds, to remain forever invisible.

Hmmm. You might wanta give a backdoor head's-up to AiG on this one, dave. It could 'splain away a lot of problems with the lack of evidence for Cretinism!

[ninewands]

Davie-doo has always had a big problem logically differentiating between the concepts of ONE, SOME, MANY, and ALL.

It's surprising that he doesn't have the same problem with deities.

That may, indeed, be the SOURCE of his problem ... maybe ALL fundies have a problem with differentiating between ONE and THREE.

I'd expect that his disability would lead to him swinging between rampant polytheism and strong atheism, depending on which theological arguments were being presented at the time.

Well, certain orthodox Jewish scholars deny that Xians worship the same deity they do because of the doctrine of the Trinity.

[ninewands]

Science observes that the layers beneath Suigetsu Lake are, when all their characteristics are taken note of, very good evidence for its history going back for far longer than the 10,000 years or so YECs cleave to.

However, science cannot and does not generalise from this lake to all other lakes. Every lake is different, for quite obvious reasons; although some lakes may be similar to some other lakes

Why it is that YECism tries to generalise from whatever lake they think supports their peculiar ideas to all other lakes is also quite obvious. It is equally obvious that this attempted extrapolation is completely without justification.

It is in fact only necessary to show sufficient evidence of many thousands of annual layers in ONE lake to falsify any claim of an earth younger than than 10,000 years. It is fully recognised that not all lakes are possessed of the combination of characteristics enabling annual layering

For that young earth claim to stand, creationism has to show that NO lake exhibits those lovely, consiliently validated, annual sediment layers.:cool3:

Good luck with that, YECers

Davie-doo has always had a big problem logically differentiating between the concepts of ONE, SOME, MANY, and ALL.

One thing I've noticed is that our boy Davey-doodles seems to have more trouble with numbers and math than almost any other EE I've ever known.

[VoxRat]

It's a good thing I can type, because once again your inability to perform reasoning using everyday physical processes has reduced me to speechlessness.

I can confirm that a) Lake Lillooet is glacier-fed (and damn fucking cold for swimming), and that b) the various sizes of glacier-ground stones in the area is almost as astonishing as the beauty of the lake itself.

Speaking - ironically - of speechlessness, is Lillooet one of those unbe-forkin-leivably stunning turquoise-colored Canadian Rockies lakes, like Lakes Jasper, Louise... (these are the touristy ones whose names I can remember - But I remember being dumbstruck by several more obscure Canadian Rockies lakes whose names I can't remember)

Still the most spectacular beautiful scenery on the planet I'm aware of.

[Steviepinhead]

Lake Suigetsu (and Lillooet, and Silhaelongwan, and Korttijärvi, and Baikal

What's with all these cosmic lake names all having 'varves'? Why couldn't they be something easy like Clear Lake or Moon Lake or Deep Lake?

We'll charitably assume this is an effort to rescue yourself from the claim that you possess a tin ear for "humor."

So let's analyze your attempt. Many 'Merican lakes do have simple, and even repetitive names, of the sort you have listed.

Contrasting these with exotic lake-names might indeed generate a moment of mild humor.

If, um, all foreign lake names didn't tend to sound exotic.

Which kinda sticks a fork in your attempted humor.

Didn't somebody give us a translation for Suigetsu earlier in the thread? And wasn't it something short and simple, along the lines of dave's suggested Good Ol' 'Merican lake names?

[Steviepinhead]

I see Nine Wands easily anticipated my last post. Pages ago. I'm still catching up.

If only dave ever would...

[ninewands]

Have a heart. The poor guy really has run out of arguments. You can't spin gold out of straw.

And yet the "poor guy" will keep lying about it and trying to brainwash bright young kids.
I'll thaw my cryogenically preserved heart out when he gets a transplant to replace his gangrenous specimen.


ETA: Lizzie, all he has ever had to do is show a little integrity.

First he has to get some ... maybe someday Jebus will take him over the rainbow to the Emerald City where the gray-haired man behind the curtain will give him some ... along with a pair of ruby slippers! :ROFL:

[Steviepinhead]

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?

(My emphasis.)
If this draws/has drawn any references to my clan, I shall become testy.

Just sayin'.

[ninewands]

It's a good thing I can type, because once again your inability to perform reasoning using everyday physical processes has reduced me to speechlessness.

I can confirm that a) Lake Lillooet is glacier-fed (and damn fucking cold for swimming), and that b) the various sizes of glacier-ground stones in the area is almost as astonishing as the beauty of the lake itself.

Speaking - ironically - of speechlessness, is Lillooet one of those unbe-forkin-leivably stunning turquoise-colored Canadian Rockies lakes, like Lakes Jasper, Louise... (these are the touristy ones whose names I can remember - But I remember being dumbstruck by several more obscure Canadian Rockies lakes whose names I can't remember)

Certainly appears to be ...

Still the most spectacular beautiful scenery on the planet I'm aware of.

Well. I've seen a LOT of spectacularly beautiful places, but yep, it's right up there.

[Steviepinhead]

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

This may be necessary, an example of Pilot's Mentality, if you will.

Any crash you can walk away from is a "good one," right?

After all, that multi-million dollar trainer that's been reduced to a smoking hole in the ground isn't your problem, is it?

It's a problem for Uncle Sam and all them pesky taxpayers, maybe, but not for the pilot.

Well, not immediately anyway.

Good thing there's always that EE degree to fall back on.

[RAFH]

I can confirm that a) Lake Lillooet is glacier-fed (and damn fucking cold for swimming), and that b) the various sizes of glacier-ground stones in the area is almost as astonishing as the beauty of the lake itself.

Speaking - ironically - of speechlessness, is Lillooet one of those unbe-forkin-leivably stunning turquoise-colored Canadian Rockies lakes, like Lakes Jasper, Louise... (these are the touristy ones whose names I can remember - But I remember being dumbstruck by several more obscure Canadian Rockies lakes whose names I can't remember)

Certainly appears to be ...

Still the most spectacular beautiful scenery on the planet I'm aware of.

Well. I've seen a LOT of spectacularly beautiful places, but yep, it's right up there.

It's not the turquoise type, too far downstream from the big glaciers for that. The rock powder would have precipitated out by then. It's got a tremendous drainage basin. I believe the Lillooet River goes another 100km beyond the lake itself up to the Lillooet Icecap.

[Steviepinhead]

Okay, I'm all caught up now (whew!).

Dave, I've gotta say that you didn't do yourself much good over a long weekend.

You would've been better off betting on the Chargers.

[JonF]

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?".

NEWS FLASH: PARTICLES OF DIFFERENT SIZE AND SHAPE SORT SPONTANEOUSLY IN STILL OR MOVING WATER

Jon ... please start reading some science papers before making bold assertions. Here's a Nature study of this topic ...

Hey, Davie-doodles, you incredible dork, do you think that pouring particles betwen glass plates, in air, to produce bands at a 45 degree-ish angle, has anything to do with Sugetsu's varves? You got a lot o' 'splaining to do before that connection is established!

{ETA} And don't forget the there's lots of silt in all the varves; the varves are not made of particles of different size and shape. They are made of particles of one size and shape with different amounts of diatoms mixed in at differnt levels. But they are all mostly the same silt.{/ETA}

IOW my statement stands: it is impossible for the varves in Suigetsu to be formed by particles/diatoms sorting spontaneously in water by size and shape.

Unless you want to contend that each light-dark varve pair is the product of a separate catastrophe ...

[Fathermithras]

I am seriously confused, or I would be, were I a n00b to Davey boy's tactics.

I know this won't get a reply, as I'm sure I'm one of the ignorati. But Dave, how in the world do you justify this? In one case, you won't believe the current position unless we can find the identical thing happening, with exactly the same beginning and ending conditions. However, you will trust a source that has no similarity whatsoever, and claim it is a reasonable approximation of the same phenomena.

You may have forgotten this Dave, but maybe now you could reply to it, or at least the principle behind it? It's a few months old...buuuuuut....

Originally Posted by ME!!! View Post
And once again we see the totality of your hypocrisy dave.

You claim, near constantly, that numerous dating methods are "wrong" and that since you have not PERSONALLY SEEN THEM YOURSELF, and HANDLED THEM YOURSELF, you shouldn't have to take it as valid.

Yet Walt simply tells you, with no evidence, that he has a computation that solves the problem, and you support it AND BITCH AT US for mocking the theory witout seeing it.

So you don't accept science, complete with calculations and data plots of the data, because you haven't personally seen and run the data yourself, but you accept the VAGUE CLAIMS that there is a calculation from creationists, EVEN THOUGH he has never posted the calculation, the data he used to run them, OR LET YOU SEE IT AND HANDLE IT YOURSELF.


Can we keep posting this until afdave responds? How can anyone on the fucking planet justify this dichotomy in credulousness?

[JonF]

My claims about diatom settling are based upon studies such as the one I just posted. What this does is show that diatoms and other particles can sort into different layers all at once if particles are of different size and shape.

No they can't, Dave. You can't have a layer made up of the same species of diatom, having the same size and shape, sorting in different places. If it all happened at one time, we'd expect to see all the diatoms of the same species, shape, and size sorting into one layer. We don't see that. We see a hundred thousand layers. 96,000 of those layers pre-date your flood. There's no way you can get those 96,000 layers sorted from the same alternating species of diatoms all the way down.

Well, he did post a study showing that it might happen ... if the varves were deposited dry, between closely spaced parallel plates, and if the varves woundd up at about a 45 degree angle to the horizontal. He actually thinks that sudy is relevant. Wotta maroon.

And, of course, none of your investigations will help you address the real, fundamental issue you have to deal with: the linear relationship between both depth and radiocarbon age, and varve count and radiocarbon age. Radiocarbon age rules out the possibility that all of these layers were deposited at once, because if they had been deposited all at once, they'd all have the same radiocarbon age.

Yup. He can't face that.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Well, he did post a study showing that it might happen ... if the varves were deposited dry, between closely spaced parallel plates, and if the varves woundd up at about a 45 degree angle to the horizontal. He actually thinks that sudy is relevant. Wotta maroon.
...

Don't forget that the particles in this study had significantly different sizes and shapes whereas the diatoms in Lake 'Moon Over the Water' (Seigutsu<sp?) were of very similar sizes and shapes. This means that the periodic blooms of the diatoms were almost certainly the source of the periodic banding in the varves.

If not, then Hawkins MUST provide an alternate scientific hypothesis that is not contradicted by the known evidence and which also provides a testable series of predictions that can be validated by experiments or field observation.

Otherwise, I must categorize Hawkins' ideas as unsupported assertions.
That is to say undemonstrated.

He is too much of a chickenshit to admit that he is reading this, but THIS is for you, David Hawkins:

[Lasting Damage]

It's not the turquoise type, too far downstream from the big glaciers for that. The rock powder would have precipitated out by then. It's got a tremendous drainage basin.

about three and a half thousand square kilometers if I recall correctly. With a volcano in it.

[Lasting Damage]

Don't forget that the particles in this study had significantly different sizes and shapes whereas the diatoms in Lake 'Moon Over the Water' (Seigutsu<sp?) were of very similar sizes and shapes. This means that the periodic blooms of the diatoms were almost certainly the source of the periodic banding in the varves.

the hydrodynamics of the situation are also extremely different. It's like the old "bees can't fly using classical physics" - well to some degree that is true - bees can't fly until you start taking into account more complex analysis of the fluid flow and vortices on the scale of the bee. If you do it using a simple gas and gravity model in which you ignore this, they would fall like a stone. What we have in the red/white bead experiment is particles that are not significantly affected by brownian motion, and can fall at such a rate that they have appreciable and relevant collision angles wrt other particles and the overall surface slope. For fine grained sediments on those scales you're talking totally different physics. it's like in experiments I am doing at the moment using carbon powder - I can't use a stirrer to mix them up, I have to use a sonic bath, but if I used small beads on the scale of 0.5mm, a stirrer would be fine and a sonic bath would do almost nothing. So dave's introduction of the red/white beads paper is totally irrelevant. Sure he shows striation occurring, but the situation is completely incomparable.

[Lasting Damage]

I can't be arsed to wait, so here is a proper comparison between Suigetsu and Lillooet, demonstrating why dave's reasoning in this instance is crap:

Suigetsu is a non-glacially deposited lake with a small drainage basin of about 50km^2, and the river that (ultimately) feeds into it, feeds into another lake first (Mikata) The width of the river is very much less than the diameter of either lake, and the volume of the river is very much less than both lakes and hence as the water enters the lake, it would slow down significantly, depositing much of its load into Mikata (and it does, particularly the coarser grained stuff), because the water flow in mikata will remain physically low (this is really basic physics you can do with pressure equations, and the principle is the same as a piston in many ways, we can go over it in pointlessly small detail if anyone really has to). There is a short tributary between mikata and suigetsu where suigetsu gets its water from, and hence little opportunity to pick up additional sediment through bank erosion.

Lillooet however is the destination for a drainage basin 3850km^2 of partially (7%) glacier covered terrain, including the currently dormant volcano Mount Meager - active in the last 3000 years and for a good while before, hence leaving large amounts of volcanic sediment upstream of the lake. Lake Lillooet is fed by the cunningly named River Lillooet, which is about 95km long and runs from the Lillooet Icecap, right round Mount meager, and on towards the lake. There are significant numbers of sediment sources, such as glacial deposits, debris flows, bank erosion, sediment slumps and landslides in the vocano complex, with volcano detritus accounting for 25-75% of the flow deposits.

So dave's "oh well they're both lakes with inflow and outflow and diatoms, and Lillooet has a much higher sedimentation rate than the propsed for suigetsu, and hence I think the suigetsu sedimentation rates are wrong*" is clearly faulty. The lakes are both in very different depositional and sedimentary environments, the drainage basins are of a very different size, the water sources are very different, and one of them has a damn big volcano along its source river.

*to paraphrase

[RAFH]

It's not the turquoise type, too far downstream from the big glaciers for that. The rock powder would have precipitated out by then. It's got a tremendous drainage basin.

about three and a half thousand square kilometers if I recall correctly. With a volcano in it.

Actually several volcanos. One, Mt. Meager, erupted about 2350 bp, with one of the lava flows damming the river and creating a lake similar in size to Lake Lillooet. The dam was made of the breccia at the face of the flow and was not particularly strong, eventually collapsing, though a good portion of it remains, framing the quite unique Keyhole Falls. The remaining dam is about 50 to 60 meters high which the river has sliced down through about 30 to 40 meters in a very narrow canyon out of which the falls tumble for the remaining 20 meters. Here's a photo of them: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat...e_meager_e.php

Coincidentally, the failure of the dam caused a fairly large flood that carried house sized boulders a number of kilometers down the river. But it certainly wasn't a global fludde.