Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Occam's Aftershave]

Fuck if that smegma-breathed asshole Hawkins hasn't gone back to the TWeb radiocarbon thread and is now making the same asinine claims about C14 lab duplicity he has been getting his ass kick on all week here.

The dishonest lying sack of shit.

It was suggested there that we need a new AFDave law:

AFDave's Sixth law: Any claim AFDave posts on a new discussion board invalidates the refutations of the same claim he has already seen and acknowledged on previous discussion boards.

[chieftain]

Originally Posted by 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.

PORTUGUESE???

OK, that's enough. With this post, Dave has finally outed himself as a Loki troll, as they say on Talk.origins. There is no possible way anyone could be this unaware yet still remember to breathe.

Dave, you've been having a lot of fun for the last two years stringing this lot along. Now will you please give it up?

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by 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 ...

Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures

Hernán A. Makse*, Shlomo Havlin*†, Peter R. King‡ & H. Eugene Stanley*
* Center for Polymer Studies and Physics Department, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA
†Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
‡BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex, TW16 7LN, UK

Granular materials segregate according to grain size when exposed to periodic perturbations such as vibrations. Moreover, mixtures of grains of different sizes can also spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations: when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely to be near the top. Here we report another size-separation effect, which arises when we pour a granular mixture between two vertical plates: the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have larger angle of repose than the small grains. We find only spontaneous segregation, without stratification, when the large grains have smaller angle of repose than the small grains. The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches: during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers, with the small grains forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large grains.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...f/386379a0.pdf

LAMINAE IN THIRD SISTER LAKE NOT ANNUAL, BUT EVENT-DRIVEN

Journal of Paleolimnology 17: 437–449, 1997. 437
c1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Belgium.

Diatom-based interpretation of sediment banding in an urbanized lake

Brian K. Hammer & Eugene F. Stoermer
Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, University of Michigan, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI
48109–2099, USA (email:bhammer@umich.edu)
Received 6 February 1996; accepted 10 July 1996
...
Not all sediment laminations are annual in nature.
Sediment banding patterns of varying thickness indicate
that the time between depositional events is variable,
resulting in non-annual laminations.
...
Unpredictable
events like climate (Perkins & Sims, 1983;
Page et al., 1994), floods (Ludlam, 1967; Lambert &
Hs¨u, 1979), landslides (Nipkow, 1928), and volcanic
eruptions (Anderson et al., 1985) may cause sporadic
deposits of clay or sand into a lake bottom.
...
Third Sister Lake possessed banded sediments as
described by Eggleton (1931), however, the banding
pattern of the recent sediments was not annual as previously
described (Eggleton, 1931; Potzger &Wilson,
1941; Ludlam, 1969), but event-driven. Variations in
band thickness from 0.2 to 5 cm suggested that the time
between depositional events was variable. The mechanism of
band formation was one of allochthonous mineral inputs from the intermittent stream feeding the
lake. Since stream inputs are instrumental in formation
of sediment laminations in certain lakes (Ludlam,
1967), factors affecting stream flow have profound
effects on band thickness and frequency.
...
Clay bands possessed fewer diatoms than organic
bands due to dilution of diatoms by large clay inputs in
this lake. It is possible that a clay band, formed during
a storm event, only contained both diatoms transported
from outside the basin (such as Hantzschia amphioxys
and Luticola mutica) and those present in the lake during
the storm. A clay band may have been produced in
only a few days, and exceed 1 cm in thickness, depending
on the severity of the storm. An organic band
likely formed during the time period between major
storm events and contained diatoms that settled into the
organic sediment over that entire period. A long interval
between major storm events may have produced
a thin dark band containing numerous diatoms from
that extended period of time. Hence, clay bands contained
fewer diatoms diluted in large quantities of clay,
and thin organic bands contained numerous diatoms
concentrated in a thin organic layer (Figure 3). Since
frequency of storm events is unpredictable, intervals
between storm events also vary. This accounted for
varying thickness of dark bands, which typically contained
a more diverse diatom assemblage and a greater
total number of diatom valves.
...
The unusual diatom stratigraphy observed indicated
that this urban lake is dynamic, with rapid changes in
predominant diatom taxa. Depending on the intensity
and frequency of allochthonous deposition, variations
in common diatom taxa may have described changes
over the course of many years, or may have detailed
the succession of taxa during a period of only a few
years.
...
The only
predominant taxa in Third Sister Lake that displayed a
rhythmic appearance and disappearance synchronized
with the banding patterns were Hantzschia amphioxys
and Luticolamutica. The stratigraphy of these taxawas
determined by habitat preference, not seasonal preference, thereby supporting the hypothesis of storm induced
sedimentation.
Principal Components Analysis separated bands
into four groups (Figure 8) which may relate to storm
frequency.Asequence of several storms may have generated
a series of numerous thin bands all with similar
diatom assemblages. Infrequent storms, that permitted
greater deposition of organic material from a longer
period of time, allowed accumulation of a more diverse
assemblage of diatoms. Numerous storm events during
one summer may have created a sequence of thin bands
all dominated by summer taxa like Cyclotella stelligera
and C. michiganiana. Frequent spring storms may
have generated runoff laden with clay sufficient to produce
a series of bands dominated by spring taxa such
as Stephanodiscus species. Stormwater inputs likely
transported fertilizers and other nutrients which may
have contributed to rapid changes in predominant taxa.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Fuck if that smega-breathed asshole Hawkins hasn't gone back to the TWeb radiocarbon thread and is now making the same asinine claims about C14 lab duplicity he has been getting his ass kick on all week here.

The dishonest lying sack of shit.

It was suggested there that we need a new AFDave law:

AFDave's Sixth law: Any claim AFDave posts on a new discussion board invalidates the refutations of the same claim he has already seen and acknowledged on previous discussion boards.

The word you are looking for, I think, is " smegma" ... not "smega." And if "Occam's Aftershave" = "Tiggy" as Glenn Morton apparently thinks, then everyone should read this post ... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=218

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

err dave, I don't get you here. Lake X has a sedimentation rate of A, lake Y has a sedimentation rate of B, therefore lake Z doesn't have a sedimentation rate of C (even though lake X is on a different continent and lake Y is on a totally different part of the same large island as lake Z)

Dave, you said the experimental evidence favours a much higher rate of sedimentation for suigetsu without any of your experimental analysis even looking at suigetsu. Can you explain why, because I don't understand.

My logic is as follows ...
1) Sedimentation rate at Suigetsu is INFERRED, not measured.
2) Therefore, until we measure it, inference is all we have
3) Let's not just infer things from layers at Suigetsu, let's look at other lakes
4) Lake A, B and C all have sedimentation rates at least 10 - 20X the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu.

So maybe the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu is wrong.

How can we tell for sure? Measure it in a multi-year study? Calculate how much sediment flows into Suigetsu? I don't know, but I'm not content to say "0.5 - 1mm layers in the lake bottom ... 100,000 year history is settled."

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

My logic is as follows ...
1) Sedimentation rate at Suigetsu is INFERRED, not measured.
2) Therefore, until we measure it, inference is all we have
3) Let's not just infer things from layers at Suigetsu, let's look at other lakes
4) Lake A, B and C all have sedimentation rates at least 10 - 20X the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu.

So maybe the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu is wrong.

How can we tell for sure? Measure it in a multi-year study? Calculate how much sediment flows into Suigetsu? I don't know, but I'm not content to say "0.5 - 1mm layers in the lake bottom ... 100,000 year history is settled."

why would the sedimentation rates at other lakes have any bearing on the sedimentation rate at suigetsu?

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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

Brilliant, Dave! That would explain why laminations thought to be lake varves are so often found at a 45 degree angle to the bottom of the lake.

Oh, wait.....

[E. Mota Kahn]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Jon ... please start reading some science papers before making bold assertions.

[Ved]

Yes, Portuguese made it on his list of wins...

How lame is that to have to reach back 2 years just for that steaming pile???


(The best part of Hawkins' "loki trolldom" is the unwittingness)

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

My logic is as follows ...
1) Sedimentation rate at Suigetsu is INFERRED, not measured

as long as you're into pedantic corrections today, I'll take this opportunity to point out the difference between sedimentation rate which is distance traveled per unit time for a particular particle, and deposition rate, which is what we're really concerned with here

2) Therefore, until we measure it, inference is all we have.

What fraction of what we know about the universe is measured, as opposed to INFERRED? I believe your definition of INFERRED (vs. measured) depends entirely on whether it fits your YEC fantasies. Here's a test: do we INFER the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or do we measure it?

3) Let's not just infer things from layers at Suigetsu, let's look at other lakes
4) Lake A, B and C all have sedimentation rates at least 10 - 20X the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu.

What about the three lakes that have been brought to your attention just in this thread where the deposition rate is as slow as, or slower than, Suigetsu's?

So maybe the Inferred Old Earther Rate at Suigetsu is wrong.

You've given absolutely no reason to suspect so.

How can we tell for sure? Measure it in a multi-year study? Calculate how much sediment flows into Suigetsu? I don't know, but I'm not content to say "0.5 - 1mm layers in the lake bottom ... 100,000 year history is settled."

Again, it's pretty clear your willingness to accept any scientific conclusion is entirely dependent on your ability to shoehorn it into your Sunday school fantasies.

What's an example of a scientific conclusion that you are willing to accept as settled?

[Faid]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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 ...

LAMINAE IN THIRD SISTER LAKE NOT ANNUAL, BUT EVENT-DRIVEN

HAHAHAHAHA.

Amazing, isn't it? Dave just supposedly showed that particles of the SAME size and shape can be sorted in different layers, by posting a study that says particles of DIFFERENT size and shape can be sorted in different layers.



Nevermind that he quotes (without commenting) a paper that displays the MAJOR DIFFERENCES between annual and event-related sediment layers.

And he accuses OTHERS of not reading the papers!

Keep up the good work, davey! Some more positive rep for the entertainment. :clap:

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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 ...

LAMINAE IN THIRD SISTER LAKE NOT ANNUAL, BUT EVENT-DRIVEN

Wow Mr. Science, that's great!

So which of those mechanisms did Da Flood use to produce the 100,000 distinct layers at Suigetsu in one year?

Placed between glass plates and subjected to high frequency vibrations?

The result of 100,000 equally spaced avalanches?

And where is your evidence Suigetsu was actually produced that way? C'mon Dave, don't be shy! Give us the YEC science behind the Suigetsu varves!

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

The word you are looking for, I think, is " smegma" ... not "smega." And if "Occam's Aftershave" = "Tiggy" as Glenn Morton apparently thinks, then everyone should read this post ... http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=218

They should also read this post...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=225

where it is pointed out that you dishonestly attributed Mike_PSS's words to another poster, and dishonestly misrepresented the context of Mike's statement to prop up your own claim that C14 labs engage in fraud.

Baby Jesus cries every time you lie in his name Dave. Why do you like making Baby Jesus cry?

[Black5]

I just found an interesting new discussion tool called TruthMapping. It's worth seeing the intro video here. I wonder if afdave would be interesting in participating in a discussion managed by this?

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

with ref: my questions

I am afraid that your answers are very thin on the ground and again don't really back up your claims. Let us hark back to the claim you were making for a moment;

this is what my questions were with reference to. All you have told me is that you think that these layers are episodic, and these layers are roughly annual. That does not help me, because I already know you think they are episodic, because you already told me. What I want to you tell me is why you think that these layers are of the episodic nature that you are describing - i.e. multiple laminations per year and due to fast water flow, rather than due to varve formation via diatom blooming and settling and seasonal cycles, especially given that you are suggesting that the Fukami sediments are annual, but not varve like due to diatom blooming and settling. In short, the differences between your model expectations and the more standard model expectations.

Again you are making claims that the evidence supports your model, but you are not describing the features seen in the papers and why your model is better supported than the annual varve model. Yet again you are not telling me what you think an annual diatom-bloom varve system would look like, even though you are talling me that Fukami looks more like your model than it looks like an annual diatom-bloom varve system. You have made that claim above, but have not given any objective reasoning why you have come to that conclusion. Again your discussion of diatom settling did not address the claims that you are making - claims which I think you need to back up.

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. There is no need for long time delays. I think the most convincing evidence for either the OE or YE position would be some further analysis about the actual current patterns and rates of sedimentation in Lake Suigetsu. This is the direction I will follow from here.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

why would the sedimentation rates at other lakes have any bearing on the sedimentation rate at suigetsu?

Well ... they are both lakes. They both presumably have inflow and outflow. They both experience evaporation. They both have sediment accumulate in the bottom. They both have diatoms. Among other things.

[Shirley Knott]

Originally Posted by Black5

I just found an interesting new discussion tool called TruthMapping. It's worth seeing the intro video here. I wonder if afdave would be interesting in participating in a discussion managed by this?

Of course not -- dave is more deathly allergic to the truth than any peanut-allergy sufferer is allergic to peanuts.
dave would drive stakes thru his eyes rather than participate in an honest discussion, let alone one that monitored truth.

dave has fled more promises than Casanova, failed more predictions than Cassandra, and caused more laughter to be directed towards him than all clowns for all time have generated in all viewers.

And dave continues to ignore the elephant in his living room -- everything he demands from science is lacking from religion, yet somehow his religious fantasy is 'more accurate', 'more reliable', and 'more true' than anything science can bring to the table.
Yeah, right.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

...
LAMINAE IN THIRD SISTER LAKE NOT ANNUAL, BUT EVENT-DRIVEN

Apparently - and this is quite amazing in its own right - I need to remind Dave that the whole point of this paper is that one can readily distinguish between non-annual deposition patterns, like in today's Third Sister Lake, and the annual patterns, such as you had in historic Third Sister and Suigetsu lakes.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

So which of those mechanisms did Da Flood use to produce the 100,000 distinct layers at Suigetsu in one year?

Placed between glass plates and subjected to high frequency vibrations?

The result of 100,000 equally spaced avalanches?

Well, to be fair to Dave, that avalanche stuff is quite interesting, and it only takes one avalanche, and works by presumably the same kind of mechanism as results in heaps of scree travelling spookily large distances.

But of course if it weren't for the glass plates, the laminations would be concentric, and in any case will only happen at critical slopes. It's not going to give rise to anything remotely like a horizontal set of varves at the bottom of a horizontal lake.

I think this is what is called clutching at straws.

As for Berthault stuff, there's a critique here:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

[Lucretius II]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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. There is no need for long time delays. I think the most convincing evidence for either the OE or YE position would be some further analysis about the actual current patterns and rates of sedimentation in Lake Suigetsu. This is the direction I will follow from here.

Dave are you so "thick" * that it has still not sunk into your tiny excuse for a brain the fact that Lake Suigetsu is DIFFERENT NOW as has been repeatedly pointed out to you ,so that current patterns and rates are irrelevant.


*N.B. the word "thick" here has NOTHING to do with varves or any other layers of rock sedimentary or not.

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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. There is no need for long time delays. I think the most convincing evidence for either the OE or YE position would be some further analysis about the actual current patterns and rates of sedimentation in Lake Suigetsu. This is the direction I will follow from here.

The study with sugat granules (0.8mm) and little red beads (0.27mm) are a world apart from what we are looking at here, and I really don't see the relevant regarding the questions I have asked. Dave, you're just not answering my questions; can you please answer them:

(1) can you describe an episodic layered system and why the Fukami layer looks like a non-annual episodic layer system. (it's a yes/no question. If the answer is yes, then please expand)

and to repeat the second question, which you didn't really answer;

(2) you obviously have some idea of what you think annual processes must look like and why, so please tell us what you think annual processes would look like, and why - I should add here specifically pertaining to annual diatom bloom-varve systems.

you have made specific claims about the Fukami sedimentary structure. Please back it up by answering those questions.

[Faid]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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. There is no need for long time delays. I think the most convincing evidence for either the OE or YE position would be some further analysis about the actual current patterns and rates of sedimentation in Lake Suigetsu. This is the direction I will follow from here.

Sheesh.

Dave, in the post by JonF, what part of "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" didn't you get?

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Well ... they are both lakes. They both presumably have inflow and outflow. They both experience evaporation. They both have sediment accumulate in the bottom. They both have diatoms. Among other things.

wow, you just described lakes to me, which is rather pointless. What I am getting at, is why do you think a comparison of those lakes is relevant. Giving me trivial descriptions of things that almost every lake bar those like the dead sea has (no outflow for one thing), is pretty pointless. Do you think every lake in the world with diatoms, inflow and outflow and sediment accumulation are comparable in sedimentation rates?

[Obd]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Well ... they are both lakes. They both presumably have inflow and outflow. They both experience evaporation. They both have sediment accumulate in the bottom. They both have diatoms. Among other things.

Jupiter and earth are both planets and they both revolve around the sun. I guess that justifies the assumption that the strengths of their gravitational fields are equal?

[improvius]

You're still shooting blanks, Dave.

"The layers in (Suigetsu/Fukami) cannot be seasonal varves because _____________."