Suigetsu MkII

[ninewands]

The highest possible porosity for a stable, uncompactible sediment is a hexagonally close-packed arrangement of uniform perfect spheres. The porosity of such a hypothetical sediment is 37% bv. That means that 37% of the bulk volume is solid material and 37% is empty space.

Shit ... I meant 63% solid/37% pore space. I REALLY should NOT post just before going to bed ...

[Seven Popes]

Soooo... Is that $1000 bet on, dave? I believe I can do it using only household equipment and materials.

Oh Lordy Faid, are you thinking of some cornstarches?
That was one of my three year old sons favorite kitchen experiments, next to making rock candy. I believe the resulting non Newtonian fluid is called Oobleck and it's something I will put up on teh youtubes for Davey if he has a problem with compaction.

Ninewands put it well, but let me point out the inverse of his point as well. Clay and cornstarch compact well because the individual particles are NOT round, but are flat. The individual particles tend to self organize by simple stacking if left alone. That's exactly how we purify our local clay for use, as I outlined earlier. This is not a new idea here locally, by the way. I needed a low tech, relatively inexpensive and reliable way to purify this stuff for my son and his friends to play with, so I goggled for Native American clay handling practices. C'mon Dave, is even Pre-Colombian science beyond you?

[RAFH]

Soooo... Is that $1000 bet on, dave? I believe I can do it using only household equipment and materials.

Oh Lordy Faid, are you thinking of some cornstarches?
That was one of my three year old sons favorite kitchen experiments, next to making rock candy. I believe the resulting non Newtonian fluid is called Oobleck and it's something I will put up on teh youtubes for Davey if he has a problem with compaction.

Ninewands put it well, but let me point out the inverse of his point as well. Clay and cornstarch compact well because the individual particles are NOT round, but are flat. The individual particles tend to self organize by simple stacking if left alone. That's exactly how we purify our local clay for use, as I outlined earlier. This is not a new idea here locally, by the way. I needed a low tech, relatively inexpensive and reliable way to purify this stuff for my son and his friends to play with, so I goggled for Native American clay handling practices. C'mon Dave, is even Pre-Colombian science beyond you?

It's science isn't it?

If yes, then it's way beyond TGBd, Teh Great Bluffoon davey.

Wouldn't matter if it were Neanderthal Science or Protozoa Science, if it's science, it's beyond TGBd. Because TGBd has his sacred OLIBAM (Obsession with a Literal Interpretation of a Bronze Age Myth). OLIBAMs conflict with and prevent, inhibit, deny and oppose any form of science, except, of course, Anti-Science, which is based on pi = 3, which makes circles funny which propagates all throughout that particular model of reality (or should I say 'unreality'), distorting everything.

[RAFH]

TGBd has yet to raise a significant issue regarding the import of Suigetsu (or it's representation of the thousands of other varves around the world, perhaps even on other planets). Suigetsu structure is composed of varves, this is demonstrated by their being so designated by numerous experts in the field and no serious or significant objection or refutation of such designation within the scientific community. It is also demonstrated by their physical manifestation, there are obvious laminae, 100,000 of them, consisting of layers of diatomic remains (silicon valves) alternating among seasonally blooming species in a fine clay matrix. The pattern is very regular with variations corresponding to known events. These include volcanic eruptions, seismic and human activities, and climactic and astronomical cycles. There are also chemical signatures that confirm the seasonality of the diatom layers.

The accuracy of the recording this structure represents is confirmed by its correlation to those known events. Simple counting of the layers, assuming each is an annual deposit, yields dates and spans of time which match very closely with independently derived dates for those events. These include written history, radiocarbon and other radiometric methodologies, dendrochronology, ice cores, speliotherms, coral growth rings and other varve systems. There is also a very close linear correlation of depth of sample to radiocarbon date.

To date, TGBd has yet to address the body of interest, the core samples from below the 1662 Kanbun Earthquake/1664 canal, preferring to piss about variations in the samples above those events, portions of the samples that have virtually nothing to do with the primary issue. One can only assume this focus on a side issue is because TGBd has nothing to offer regarding the 100,000 varves that conclusively establish a history of the earth of at least that length of time.

TGBd has attempted to dispute the designation of the formation as varves, despite that designation by experts in the field and a complete lack of objection by the scientific community. This is an unsuccessful attack based on incredulity and suggesting experts are simply lying or incompetent, his only basis for such being that this formation invalidates his OLIBAM (Obsessive Literal Interpretation of a Bronze Age Myth).

TGBd has attempted to question the accuracy of the formation as a recording device by suggesting that if it is not working accurately now, one can not know if it worked accurately then. This attack, again based solely on this formation invalidating his OLIBAM, is countered and refuted by the close correlation with other dating methodologies as noted above.

TGBd has attempted to suggest alternate causes for this formation, including tsunamis, earthquakes and floods, specifically the YOBF (Ye Olde Bigge Fludde) of his OLIBAM. However, TGBd has presented no mechanism to account for the regular sorting of the diatomic layers, tsunamis are ruled out by the lack of saline in the deposits and ordinary floods are ruled out by the geographic/geologic structure of the catchment basin. Earthquakes suddenly releasing stored up quantities of any of the sample is refuted as well by the same arguments. Lastly, there is no identifying layer for a purported YOBF, there being no significant disruption of the laminations nor any significant change in their structure which surely have resulted from such a massive event.

In short, TGBd has nothing but his OLIBAM and his persistant incredulity. The Suigetsu formation stands as a strong argument against a Young Earth Creationism.

[VoxRat]

TGBd has attempted to question the accuracy of the formation as a recording device by suggesting that if it is not working accurately now, one can not know if it worked accurately then.

And that's really a ridiculous claim.

Not only does the validity and regularity of the "clock" in times past not predict whether the "clock" is working today, also proving that the "clock" is working validly and regularly today is not sufficient to prove that it was in times past.

In short it's a complete red herring. It's a perfect example as Mr. Nothin pointed out of the Chewbacca defense - which is itself yet another variation on the old creationist staple, the argumentum ad nebulam.

[Seven Popes]

In short it's a complete red herring. It's a perfect example as Mr. Nothin pointed out of the Chewbacca defense - which is itself yet another variation on the old creationist staple, the argumentum ad nebulam.

Of course he is answering with a red herring. There is nothing left here that an impartial observer would need to see. This thread is an easy to follow "ah yes" teaching example that has proven to be an embarrassment to Dave. The only recourse is to implode the thread with some over-the-shoulder tard and a retreat.
Clearly Dave is hoping to get past this, and he's done this rubbish before. True, he prefers the "I'll get back to you after some reading" approach, but he's been called on that too recently.

[RAFH]

TGBd has attempted to question the accuracy of the formation as a recording device by suggesting that if it is not working accurately now, one can not know if it worked accurately then.

And that's really a ridiculous claim.

Not only does the validity and regularity of the "clock" in times past not predict whether the "clock" is working today, also proving that the "clock" is working validly and regularly today is not sufficient to prove that it was in times past.

In short it's a complete red herring. It's a perfect example as Mr. Nothin pointed out of the Chewbacca defense - which is itself yet another variation on the old creationist staple, the argumentum ad nebulam.

It could be a valid argument if there were no record the clock had made and the only basis on which its past accuracy could be assessed was on its current accuracy. It is essentially an Argument from Authority, in reverse. TGBd is ignoring the record and insisting the only valid means of determining the validity of the clock is its current operation. This is akin to citing a respected personality simply on the basis of their personality.
"They aren't lying now so they have never lied."
"They lied once so they are lying now."
"We don't know if he has told the truth in the past so we don't know if he is telling the truth now"

or more to the point:

"We don't know if is he telling the truth now so we don't know if he has told the truth in the past."

And, with nothing other to go on, those are reasonable criteria. The critical part being "with nothing other to go on". However, in this case, we do have other to go on. We have a recording that can be tested (oops, there's that bad word) and determined if it was accurate or not. In this case, that record has been tested and found accurate.

"In the past, this person wrote such and such and it has turned out to be true, so perhaps we can trust his words now." Which is better than nothing else to go on, but a dangerous policy to adopt blindly.

The fact remains, there is a record and that record can be examined and compared to other records, and has been and has been found to be very accurate. TGBd wants to attack that accuracy by trying to attack an aspect of its reputation, its current operation instead of looking at the actual record.

Why is that TGBd, why do you want to use a very indirect method rather than the direct method? Why not address the record? Why do you want to quibble over extremities and outliers rather than the main body? Why not address the record of 100,000 varves?

The only reason you have is your OLIBAM. That and your incredulity. Which is strange, there is nothing in your OLIBAM for which there is direct evidence that can be demonstrated except by the most credulous interpretations.

Yeah, fresh mud can form cliffs hundreds of meters high, with hundreds of meters of additional materials piled on top of them.

Yeah, fludde waters can flow uphill over and through a mountain.

Yeah, mud can turn to stone in thousands of years, rather than millions of years.

Yeah, all these highly incredible interpretations you adopt simply because they are necessary to maintain your OLIBAM. All the highly credible explanations you reject simply because they invalidate your OLIBAM. As long as you maintain your OLIBAM, the world will not make sense. You will have to continuously filter the world to make sure it doesn't tell you anything that disagrees with your OLIBAM. Seems to me it must be a huge amount of needless work, needless effort for which you get derision and failure. Meanwhile, the rest of the world passes you by, making it harder and harder to filter as fewer and fewer gaps remain for your OLIBAM to hide in.

[VoxRat]

Of course he is answering with a red herring. There is nothing left here that an impartial observer would need to see. This thread is an easy to follow "ah yes" teaching example that has proven to be an embarrassment to Dave. The only recourse is to implode the thread with some over-the-shoulder tard and a retreat.
Clearly Dave is hoping to get past this, and he's done this rubbish before. True, he prefers the "I'll get back to you after some reading" approach, but he's been called on that too recently.

So faced with a debacle like this, what does the creationist think?

• That the real-worlders are just not as smart as he is, and that prevents them from seeing see the validity of his point?
• That the real-worlders really do see the validity of his point, but won't admit it?
• That it has nothing to do with intelligence, but precommitment to the "atheist worldview" blinds real-worlders to The Truth?*
• That he, the creationist, has failed to clearly communicate the validity of his point, and he should try harder?
• Satan is an especially tricky deceiver?

*I regard this as much like that other legalistic dodge: "Oh, no! Of course I'm not accusing researchers of fraud! I'm just saying they probably hide and discard data that contradicts their preconceived conclusions." I.e. - being able to sort through your "precommitments" is part of what constitutes intelligence, at least for scientists.

[RAFH]

Of course he is answering with a red herring. There is nothing left here that an impartial observer would need to see. This thread is an easy to follow "ah yes" teaching example that has proven to be an embarrassment to Dave. The only recourse is to implode the thread with some over-the-shoulder tard and a retreat.
Clearly Dave is hoping to get past this, and he's done this rubbish before. True, he prefers the "I'll get back to you after some reading" approach, but he's been called on that too recently.

So faced with a debacle like this, what does the creationist think?

• That the real-worlders are just not as smart as he is, and that prevents them from seeing see the validity of his point?
• That the real-worlders really do see the validity of his point, but won't admit it?
• That it has nothing to do with intelligence, but precommitment to the "atheist worldview" blinds real-worlders to The Truth?*
• That he, the creationist, has failed to clearly communicate the validity of his point, and he should try harder?
• Satan is an especially tricky deceiver?

*I regard this as much like that other legalistic dodge: "Oh, no! Of course I'm not accusing researchers of fraud! I'm just saying they probably hide and discard data that contradicts their preconceived conclusions." I.e. - being able to sort through your "precommitments" is part of what constitutes intelligence, at least for scientists.

All of the above. Plus anything else that will avoid conflict with their OLIBAM. That's the one and only criteria for everything. Does it or does it not conform to and support their OLIBAM.

If it does, it is good. Doesn't happen often, not without some serious reinterpretation. Sort of like how often someone comes to the door whom you find attractive and they are interested in spending the next 48 hours exploring the Kama Sutra.

If it could, but only with a lot of massage, then time to get out the heavy duty massage machine.

If it can't, no matter what, then it's obviously wrong, fraudulent, mistaken, something, whatever and must be rejected.

[Dave Hawkins]

Hi LD ... I still won't have access to my papers until Monday, but I have been reading your posts.

I have been trying to understand your theory and I think you believe the following ...

You believe that each fine lamination represents one year's worth of deposition. You believe that this 1:1 process has been going on for 100,000+ years but you don't seem sure that it is continuing today. You DO believe that diatoms are still blooming and settling (I agree), but you have not yet provided a multi-year test which demonstrates the reality of the 1:1 correspondence.

I have been very interested in seeing a demonstration of this "working clock" because I find it quite unconvincing to be told that this was once a working clock, but now it's not. I am much more easily convinced that a stopped Seiko or a Timex was once an accurate, working clock because I have seen many examples of working Seikos and Timexes, but lake bed clocks are a far different thing. As you know, I am very skeptical that they can serve as reliable clocks at all. Maybe erratic clocks at best.

So I have been very focused on the upper layers because this is where we will see this "clock action" if we will see it at all. And what do we find in the upper layers? A jumble quite frankly. We find Kato who says the 1662 earthquake layer is at 102cm with a 1779 tephra at 44cm. Contrast this with the Kitagawa-Kawakami SG2 core which places these events at 29 and 22cm respectively. This is very strange because the 2 cores were taken close together and were both piston cores. I don't know how anyone can place confidence in this degree of non-correlation. And it gets worse. Layers are not even identified in the lower 2 meters of the Kato core.

Anyway ... To continue ... When I pointed out that the upper layers are way too thick for your theory to work, you told me that this was because they have higher water content and are less compressed. Logically then I assumed that lower layers would be thinner lower down according to this theory. Mike PSS agreed with this and said "Look ... The lower layers average 0.62mm and the upper ones just below the 3-6mm ones average 1mm." But this argument doesn't work because Mike forgot to look at the layers in the 40-75m section of SG. They are believed to average 0.69 to 0.81mm.

The only hope I see for your theory is the macrofossil dating. While I am very skeptical about it, I am finding it difficult to poke holes in it because to do so will require many conversations with people who actually work in labs.

As for my theory, it is not well developed, but holds far more promise than the 100 ka theory. Why? Well ... Consider SG2. It's 11m long and has 46 turbidites in it. We know from the Lillouet turbidites that there were many fine laminae associated with the annual turbidite layers, so why should we not expect something similar at Suigetsu? Now you say that this 11m represents about 11000 years but I would say it probably represents more like 2000 years or about 5mm per year average. The 46 turbidite layers would represent unusually high deposition about every 50 years or so.

Considering that the 102 - 44cm section of the Kato core represents 110 years according to her (~6mm per year), this seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

[Occam's Aftershave]

As for my theory, it is not well developed, but holds far more promise than the 100 ka theory. Why? Well ... Consider SG2. It's 11m long and has 46 turbidites in it. We know from the Lillouet turbidites that there were many fine laminae associated with the annual turbidite layers, so why should we not expect something similar at Suigetsu? Now you say that this 11m represents about 11000 years but I would say it probably represents more like 2000 years or about 5mm per year average. The 46 turbidite layers would represent unusually high deposition about every 50 years or so.

Considering that the 102 - 44cm section of the Kato core represents 110 years according to her (~6mm per year), this seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Dave, you don't HAVE a theory. All you have is the same old stupid worthless hand wave "DA FLUD DID IT!!!" with a big fat ZERO on the details.

You can't give an explanation for ANY of the observed physical phenomena, let alone a coherent story that explains ALL of them.

Dave, how did the Flood lay down those layers in the lake and not on the surrounding banks?

Dave, why does the measured pmc value decrease exponentially with depth?

Dave, why does the pmc value decrease AT ALL in the lower layers since you claim they were all laid at the same time?

You have NOTHING Dave, except your standard lies and stupidity.

[improvius]

You DO believe that diatoms are still blooming and settling (I agree), but you have not yet provided a multi-year test which demonstrates the reality of the 1:1 correspondence.

This has been clearly "demonstrated" via C14 measurements.

I have been very interested in seeing a demonstration of this "working clock" because I find it quite unconvincing to be told that this was once a working clock, but now it's not.

And once again Dave flip-flops to being a (ridiculously) strict uniformitarian.

The only hope I see for your theory is the macrofossil dating. While I am very skeptical about it, I am finding it difficult to poke holes in it because to do so will require many conversations with people who actually work in labs.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may be having difficulty poking holes in it because it's true?

[ninewands]

Of course he is answering with a red herring. There is nothing left here that an impartial observer would need to see. This thread is an easy to follow "ah yes" teaching example that has proven to be an embarrassment to Dave. The only recourse is to implode the thread with some over-the-shoulder tard and a retreat.
Clearly Dave is hoping to get past this, and he's done this rubbish before. True, he prefers the "I'll get back to you after some reading" approach, but he's been called on that too recently.

So faced with a debacle like this, what does the creationist think?

• That the real-worlders are just not as smart as he is, and that prevents them from seeing see the validity of his point?
• That the real-worlders really do see the validity of his point, but won't admit it?
• That it has nothing to do with intelligence, but precommitment to the "atheist worldview" blinds real-worlders to The Truth?*

Ding-ding-ding! I believe we have Teh WINNAH!

• That he, the creationist, has failed to clearly communicate the validity of his point, and he should try harder?

Oh please SPARE me. Of course, if Dave really IS here trying to "witness to the ungodly the TRUTH of GAWD's HOLY WURRRD" he certainly is doing a singularly poor job of it.

• Satan is an especially tricky deceiver?

Maybe GAWD is the deceiver ... blinding the eyes and confusing the minds of those hell-bound atheistic scientists so He can justify burning them in Hell for eternity. After all, it IS documented in the Holey Babble that he did it to some of His other enemies!!

*I regard this as much like that other legalistic dodge: "Oh, no! Of course I'm not accusing researchers of fraud! I'm just saying they probably hide and discard data that contradicts their preconceived conclusions." I.e. - being able to sort through your "precommitments" is part of what constitutes intelligence, at least for scientists.

I need a :FART: smilie here. Not that I disagree with your statement. Dave is, like Luther, several of the popes, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just another "Liar for Jesus" who will say or do anything to defend his worldview ... and, in Dave's case, I DO mean "anything" ... and, no, Dave ... that is NOT a compliment.

[Virginia-American]

... I need a :FART: smilie here. Not that I disagree with your statement. Dave is, like Luther, several of the popes, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc., ad nauseam, just another "Liar for Jesus" who will say or do anything to defend his worldview ... and, in Dave's case, I DO mean "anything" ... and, no, Dave ... that is NOT a compliment.

The alternative would be the collection plate coming up empty.

Cherchez l'argent.

The more I see of these people [criders], the more cynical I become about them. Sure, some of the followers might actually believe some of the religious stuff, but I can't convince myself that AFDave H., or his jailbird pastor, or his jailbird buddy Hovind are anything but ripoff artists, as ethical as a psychic or faith healer.

I'm damn curious how much of the ID movement is funded by Islamicist enemies of the USA.

[Steviepinhead]

V-A:

I'm damn curious how much of the ID movement is funded by Islamicist enemies of the USA.

Another laughing-out-loud-in-empty-office moment.

Not that this might not be a realistic concern, but something about the series of incongruities just cracked me up!

[VoxRat]

Hi LD ... I still won't have access to my papers until Monday, but I have been reading your posts.

Oh, that's so cute! Dave is back to pretending that this is just a conversation between him and Mr. Damage. I guess for all the rest of us, it's "lalala... I can't hear you".

I have been trying to understand your theory and I think you believe the following ...

It's been a long and winding couple of threads, so I may have missed something. But does Mr. Damage have his own theory? I was under the impression he was just concurring with what the experts in this field, your Katos, your van der Plichts, your Kitagawas, pretty much the whole world of geologists... have concluded.

I have been very interested in seeing a demonstration of this "working clock" because I find it quite unconvincing to be told that this was once a working clock, but now it's not.

And what's wrong with the lakes where this is still going on just fine? Fukami and Lillooet, to name just two?

But aside from that, if you're skeptical that these processes that common sense would tell you are occurring, even if you had not been presented with plenty of evidence that they are, why in the world would you not be skeptical that this alleged "global flood" occurred, despite

• the absence of any evidence that it ever did
• the abundant evidence that in fact it didn't

and - most compellingly, in light of what you just wrote -

• seeing no sign of anything like that happening today.

Anyway ... To continue ... When I pointed out that the upper layers are way too thick for your theory to work, you told me that this was because they have higher water content and are less compressed. Logically then I assumed that lower layers would be thinner lower down according to this theory. Mike PSS agreed with this and said "Look ... The lower layers average 0.62mm and the upper ones just below the 3-6mm ones average 1mm." But this argument doesn't work because Mike forgot to look at the layers in the 40-75m section of SG. They are believed to average 0.69 to 0.81mm.

The only hope I see for your theory is the macrofossil dating. While I am very skeptical about it, I am finding it difficult to poke holes in it because to do so will require many conversations with people who actually work in labs.

There's that "your theory" again. LD? Do you, in fact have a theory? Or are we just talking about the conclusions of the Suigetsu studies, and how they cohere with the unanimous consensus of real-world science?

As for my theory, it is not well developed, but holds far more promise than the 100 ka theory.

Dave has a theory?

I must have missed that, too.
Unless his "theory" is just that the biblical flood happened and somehow Suigetsu (and everything else) is consistent with that - despite all the evidence that real-world geologists have been studying.
That's not a "theory" - not even a "not well developed theory".

[Faid]

Hi LD ... I still won't have access to my papers until Monday, but I have been reading your posts.

I have been trying to understand your theory and I think you believe the following ...

You believe that each fine lamination represents one year's worth of deposition. You believe that this 1:1 process has been going on for 100,000+ years but you don't seem sure that it is continuing today. You DO believe that diatoms are still blooming and settling (I agree), but you have not yet provided a multi-year test which demonstrates the reality of the 1:1 correspondence.

I have been very interested in seeing a demonstration of this "working clock" because I find it quite unconvincing to be told that this was once a working clock, but now it's not. I am much more easily convinced that a stopped Seiko or a Timex was once an accurate, working clock because I have seen many examples of working Seikos and Timexes, but lake bed clocks are a far different thing. As you know, I am very skeptical that they can serve as reliable clocks at all. Maybe erratic clocks at best.

Dave, people gave you direct links to lakes where annual layering is demonstratably happening today. Did you forget already?
In your (ridiculous) response, you AGREED that annual layering occurs, but demanded links to show that it can happen in SUIGETSU ITSELF.

And now, that this is far behind, and you hope people forgot, you start claiming that "lake bed clocks" IN GENERAL are "erratic" ONCE AGAIN.

There is a very specific word for what you are doing, dave.

So I have been very focused on the upper layers because this is where we will see this "clock action" if we will see it at all. And what do we find in the upper layers? A jumble quite frankly. We find Kato who says the 1662 earthquake layer is at 102cm with a 1779 tephra at 44cm. Contrast this with the Kitagawa-Kawakami SG2 core which places these events at 29 and 22cm respectively. This is very strange because the 2 cores were taken close together and were both piston cores. I don't know how anyone can place confidence in this degree of non-correlation. And it gets worse. Layers are not even identified in the lower 2 meters of the Kato core.

Dave, ALL this has been addressed by LD. MULTIPLE times.

Pretending you were not given any answers is dishonest. Ignoring those answers without addressing them is dishonest. Just about anything you do, besides addressing those answers, is dishonest.

Do you understand that?

Anyway ... To continue ... When I pointed out that the upper layers are way too thick for your theory to work, you told me that this was because they have higher water content and are less compressed. Logically then I assumed that lower layers would be thinner lower down according to this theory. Mike PSS agreed with this and said "Look ... The lower layers average 0.62mm and the upper ones just below the 3-6mm ones average 1mm." But this argument doesn't work because Mike forgot to look at the layers in the 40-75m section of SG. They are believed to average 0.69 to 0.81mm.

Again, ALREADY ADDRESSED. Sedimentation rate does not have to be constant annually. Again, You IGNORE LD's answer. Again, you are being dishonest.

The only hope I see for your theory is the macrofossil dating. While I am very skeptical about it, I am finding it difficult to poke holes in it because to do so will require many conversations with people who actually work in labs.

In short, you LOSE. And your excuses about trying to talk with technicians are pathetic, since you can't "poke holes in it" even in theory. Thanks for playing.

As for my theory, it is not well developed, but holds far more promise than the 100 ka theory. Why?

We've heard all that wishful thinking before, dave. We've heard about how your "tentative C14 model" was well underway. We've heard about how your Hydropants theory "might have flaws, but it's better than conventional theories". We've heard all that.

They all turned out to be nothing but hot air.

Why should we expect anything better from you, dave? Why?

[VoxRat]

So I have been very focused on the upper layers because this is where we will see this "clock action" if we will see it at all. And what do we find in the upper layers? A jumble quite frankly. We find Kato who says the 1662 earthquake layer is at 102cm with a 1779 tephra at 44cm. Contrast this with the Kitagawa-Kawakami SG2 core which places these events at 29 and 22cm respectively. This is very strange because the 2 cores were taken close together and were both piston cores. I don't know how anyone can place confidence in this degree of non-correlation. And it gets worse. Layers are not even identified in the lower 2 meters of the Kato core.

Dave, ALL this has been addressed by LD. MULTIPLE times.

OK, now... hold on. Just focussing on the bold part.
Again, I may have missed something. Probably LD has covered this. (It really would help, in situations like this, if people would mention the actual paper they're talking about, rather than "Kato says..." and "Kitagawa says...". That kind of vagueness does nothing to dispel the impression that this will all turn out to be just more deliberate obfuscation and misdirection when we finish tracking it down).

Is it true that that one paper says the 1662 earthquake and 1779 volcano signatures are 7 cm apart, and another says they're 58 cm apart? In nearby, similarly obtained cores? Is Dave really onto something here - and we've just been dismissing it because his credibility is quite understandably less than zero?

I stand prepared to either give Dave some respect for actually locating an interesting apparent discrepancy, or harp mercilessly on the attempted deception when it's exposed.

[Seven Popes]

Dear Lasting Damage:
I am afraid that young Hawkins is unable to see the kindly offer I made him back in the end of January in response to his post in which he foolishly said:

You guys are just story telling and story telling and story telling.

You can't get a 6mm layer to compress down to 1mm by compression and water removal.

This argument is dead.

And it leaves you with quite a conundrum for your supposedly reliable Lake Suigetsu "clock."

I offered him a one thousand dollar bet, and have not heard from him. He seemed so certain that he was right, one would think he would jump at the chance to take advantage of my hubris and teach me a lesson.
By now you must be (reasonably) asking yourself (Lasting Damage) "what the hell does this have to do with me?
I think Hawkins might be ignoring all but you. If you could mention this post I would be terribly grateful. I know that this would open the floodgates and in helping me you are setting a terrible precedent, but it seems foolish not to ask.
And David Hawkins, if you read this and are not willing to respond, you are (in the immortal words of my grandma) a punk ass bitch.
Having said that, if David Hawkins kids read this years from now, I'm sorry your dad is/was a punk ass bitch.

[RAFH]

Hi LD ... I still won't have access to my papers until Monday, but I have been reading your posts.

I have been trying to understand your theory and I think you believe the following ...

You believe that each fine lamination represents one year's worth of deposition. You believe that this 1:1 process has been going on for 100,000+ years but you don't seem sure that it is continuing today.

Not just LD, davey Bluffooney, but nearly every scientist on the planet as well. Gee, I wonder if they are all wrong. This is an issue you refuse to deal with. You cite these papers as though they have some authority, as though the authors know what they are talking about, yet you refuse to acknowledge that they too classify this formation as varves, varves extending back 100,000 years, at the very least 40,000 years as has been conclusively established by comparisons of both samples and depth to samples with 14C dates, and with known volcanic, seismic and climactic events. There is no doubt davey, just you, one little bluffoon whose never even seen a varve, never been to the lake in question, never even been to Japan, nor has any formal or informal education or training in geology much less varves. Just you, dave, Teh Great Bluffoony, with is OLIBAM. That's it.

You DO believe that diatoms are still blooming and settling (I agree), but you have not yet provided a multi-year test which demonstrates the reality of the 1:1 correspondence.

I have been very interested in seeing a demonstration of this "working clock" because I find it quite unconvincing to be told that this was once a working clock, but now it's not. I am much more easily convinced that a stopped Seiko or a Timex was once an accurate, working clock because I have seen many examples of working Seikos and Timexes, but lake bed clocks are a far different thing. As you know, I am very skeptical that they can serve as reliable clocks at all. Maybe erratic clocks at best.

But in that you are wrong davey bluffooney, those are time pieces to be sure, but they do not leave a record of their keeping of time. So you have no idea if they were working at any given time other than when you are looking at them. Suigetsu left a record, one that can be measured and analyzed, one that can be compared to other known recording clocks.

You are conflating time pieces with a time recorder. And you've been told this enough times now you know this to be the case, you are simply being obtusely ignorant, choosing to not know because it would destroy your precious OLIBAM.

So I have been very focused on the upper layers because this is where we will see this "clock action" if we will see it at all. And what do we find in the upper layers? A jumble quite frankly. We find Kato who says the 1662 earthquake layer is at 102cm with a 1779 tephra at 44cm. Contrast this with the Kitagawa-Kawakami SG2 core which places these events at 29 and 22cm respectively. This is very strange because the 2 cores were taken close together and were both piston cores. I don't know how anyone can place confidence in this degree of non-correlation. And it gets worse. Layers are not even identified in the lower 2 meters of the Kato core.

The above commentary renders all this diversionary quibbling about the core alignment immaterial. But even so, as 5 year old can see you are being obtusely ignorant in insisting there is a problem. You are the TGBd. Teh Great Bluffooney davey. Obtusely ignorant to protect his precious OLIBAM.

Anyway ... To continue ... When I pointed out that the upper layers are way too thick for your theory to work, you told me that this was because they have higher water content and are less compressed. Logically then I assumed that lower layers would be thinner lower down according to this theory. Mike PSS agreed with this and said "Look ... The lower layers average 0.62mm and the upper ones just below the 3-6mm ones average 1mm." But this argument doesn't work because Mike forgot to look at the layers in the 40-75m section of SG. They are believed to average 0.69 to 0.81mm.

All blather davey. You are being obtusely ignorant solely to protect your precious OLIBAM and everyone, even three year olds can see it. And yes, that sort of compaction can and does take place, despite your obtusely ignorant incredulity, which is all you have to protect your precious OLIBAM. Are you that afraid of the truth Bluffooney davey? Is your OLIBAM that precious you would deny the truth of reality?

The only hope I see for your theory is the macrofossil dating.

Huh, the only hope, yeah. Despite world wide scientific agreement with LD and zero agreement with anything you've ever posted. You truly are Teh Great Bluffooney davey, protector of his precious OLIBAM, denier of reality, ignorer of rational thought, abuser of honesty and devoid of integrity.

While I am very skeptical about it, I am finding it difficult to poke holes in it because to do so will require many conversations with people who actually work in labs.

Who will most likely refuse to even talk to kook like you. Is that the reason you are so unable, even after months of supposedly trying, to get any data from these people. They just don't take you seriously. Not surprising davey, many of them might be following this thread. It may please your weak little ego, so in need of abuse, that your name has spread wide and far on the net as a weaslely little coward so into his precious OLIBAM he cannot, will not accept reality. Who is so lacking in integrity and honest nobody will deal with him except those that like to poke fun at him and find amusement in his bluffoonery. Yes, it's a sick past time but someone has to do it. Sort of like cleaning septic tanks. If you wear enough protection and wash often the stink never touches you.

As for my theory, it is not well developed, but holds far more promise than the 100 ka theory.

You don't have a theory bluffooney. You wouldn't know what a theory was if you married it and had three kids with it. You have never had a theory bluffooney, just hacked up bits and pieces you rip off of your equally bizarre and kooky heroes. At least they have enough sense to stay off the net most of the time.

Why? Well ... Consider SG2. It's 11m long and has 46 turbidites in it. We know from the Lillouet turbidites that there were many fine laminae associated with the annual turbidite layers, so why should we not expect something similar at Suigetsu?

Oh please bluffooney, there is no comparison between the two lakes or the varve formation processes in each. One is a long glacial lake fed by a major mountain river fed by major glaciers running through a major volcanic field. The varve constituents are gravels and sands and rock fines. The other is a fat round little lake on a minor little stream buffered by an upstream lake of nearly the same surface area. Its varve constituents are mostly very fine clays and diatom valves. The one records the annual melts and subsequent floods contrasted against the frozen winter with much reduced water flows and even more reduced sediment loads. The other has an more even flow of water and sediment loads are nearly uniform throughout the year, while its identifier is the white silicon skeletons of seasonal diatomic blooms. There is nothing similar about them other than they are both lakes with water in them and both have varve formations, very different varve formations, but varve formations nonetheless, as is agreed upon by the vast majority of the world's scientific community. What have you got bluffooney, besides your incredulity based on your OLIBAM?

Now you say that this 11m represents about 11000 years but I would say it probably represents more like 2000 years or about 5mm per year average. The 46 turbidite layers would represent unusually high deposition about every 50 years or so.

You would say? Based on what, bluffoon? You have nothing but your ignorance, your incredulity and your OLIBAM. In other words, nothing. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, bluffooney, nor shit from shinola. You are a bluffoon. No education, no training, haven't even seen a varve in real life. Yep, you sure are an authority, on being a ignorant ass bluffoon intent of preserving his beloved and precious OLIBAM.

Considering that the 102 - 44cm section of the Kato core represents 110 years according to her (~6mm per year), this seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

See above. You can assert all you like bluffooney, but you have nothing but your irrational OLIBAM.

[JoeNothin]

I have to admit, Dave's latest post actually pissed me off. That I got pissed off kind of cracked me up, so it evened out.

But really, how many times will Dave rehash the same arguments that have been painstakingly demolished. I get why varve thickness is irrelevant. I get why the upper layers aren't useful for dating, and why all the dates need to be cross calibrated with as many other dating methods as possible.

Dave, please please please move on to new minutiae. Try to be even more imaginative. That way, some of these fine folks who know wtf they're talking about can talk about new and interesting aspects of lake formations.

If some new bizarro world arguments aren't quickly forthcoming, I predict a drop in ratings and possibly a cancelation of the whole show. Seriously, you're dangerously close to jumping the shark. The AFDave Show isn't nearly as funny as it was 2000 posts ago.

[RAFH]

V-A:

I'm damn curious how much of the ID movement is funded by Islamicist enemies of the USA.

Another laughing-out-loud-in-empty-office moment.

Not that this might not be a realistic concern, but something about the series of incongruities just cracked me up!

Hey, don't even think it's not possible. There's a whole xian group donating big time bucks, time and services to Israel so to keep it from being overrun and disappearing, not because they respect the Jews or wish them well, but because if the Jews are not in control, even partially, of Jerusalem and much of the Holy Land there can't be an Apocolypse, and no Apocolypse means no Rapture and no Rapture means they don't get to go to heaven.

The Irish IRA and the Palestinians used to cooperate regularly, not because they share any love for each other but because they share a hate.

[Fathermithras]

Dave, please please please move on to new minutiae. Try to be even more imaginative. That way, some of these fine folks who know wtf they're talking about can talk about new and interesting aspects of lake formations.

Exactly, at least when he moves on to new claims its interesting. Dave is basically just completely ignoring anything posted now, making snaps at people, claiming the entire scientific establishment is full of fraudulent liars, and then repeats claims tat have literally been refuted less then five pages back by multiple posters. At least dave USUALLY goes into different details. This is becoming absolutely fucking infuriating. Seems common to creotards.

Creo: "There's never been a novel trait brought on by mutations!"

smartguy: Nylon eating bacteria (explains).

Creo: Your theory is full of holes and you're making up stories.

smartguy: Bullshit.

Creo: Well, no one could name a single mutation!

smartguy: huh? (copies and pastes explanation)

Creo: Still not even one attempt?

smartguy: Here's the god damn paper, and ten others to support it.

Creo: Not one bit of research to support it. God wins!

[RAFH]

Dave, please please please move on to new minutiae. Try to be even more imaginative. That way, some of these fine folks who know wtf they're talking about can talk about new and interesting aspects of lake formations.

Exactly, at least when he moves on to new claims its interesting. Dave is basically just completely ignoring anything posted now, making snaps at people, claiming the entire scientific establishment is full of fraudulent liars, and then repeats claims tat have literally been refuted less then five pages back by multiple posters. At least dave USUALLY goes into different details. This is becoming absolutely fucking infuriating. Seems common to creotards.

Creo: "There's never been a novel trait brought on by mutations!"

smartguy: Nylon eating bacteria (explains).

Creo: Your theory is full of holes and you're making up stories.

smartguy: Bullshit.

Creo: Well, no one could name a single mutation!

smartguy: huh? (copies and pastes explanation)

Creo: Still not even one attempt?

smartguy: Here's the god damn paper, and ten others to support it.

Creo: Not one bit of research to support it. God wins!

OLIBAM

Obsession with a Literal Interpretation of a Bronze Age Myth.

[VoxRat]

.... We find Kato who says the 1662 earthquake layer is at 102cm with a 1779 tephra at 44cm. Contrast this with the Kitagawa-Kawakami SG2 core which places these events at 29 and 22cm respectively. This is very strange because the 2 cores were taken close together and were both piston cores...

The above commentary renders all this diversionary quibbling about the core alignment immaterial. But even so, as 5 year old can see you are being obtusely ignorant in insisting there is a problem.

No... seriously...
this substantially-older-than-5 year old wants to know (a)which two papers we're talking about, (b) are the cores in question actually near each other, and (c) did they really identify laminae with the two events in question, one paper at 58 cm apart and one paper at 7 cm apart?

I have a "theory" that Dave is wrong about that, but I'm willing to put my "theory" to the test.

Dave? Here's your chance to show us you're not all bluff and bluster. Are you going to step up to the plate?