Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by RAFH

..., as has been noted dozens and dozens of times, the samples have been correlated to specific dates via 14C testing, depth comparisons, volcanic events, historic events and climactic cycles. In short, that word near and dear to TGd's heart, consilience.

There's no question that IF (remember the point about IF is it is a conditional), IF the only chronological tie for the samples was 14C, TGd might have a point. IF, IF, IF the only tie to hard dates was just the depth comparison, the TGd might have a point. IF, IF, IF the only correlation was the tie to volcanic events, TGd might have a point.

But this is the part about science TGd doesn't and probably will never get, it's not about the one grand knock-out blow. That one amazing fact. It's about the consilience of data. How it all fits into a coherent and consistent whole.

This is why TGd never considers the whole of the data, but focuses on details. Yeah, TGd could cause doubt on one method, or even two or three, if considered independently of each other. But that's not how science is done. It's done by consensus and consilience.

This is a point I've been contemplating for a couple of days now.
One that I decided was too bleedingly obvious to post.
But then, what else is this thread for?

If A is used to validate B, and B is used to validate A, what you have is circular logic. That's not good. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's not useful.

BUT...

If A is used to validate B, and C, D, E and F also validate A, and C and D are consistent, not only with each other, but with G, H, and I, and B turns out to be independently verified by J, K, L and M, and... (you get the idea)

THAT'S CONSILIENCE. And that is a good thing.

[Lasting Damage]

I'm still waiting patiently for dave to explain himself regarding Fukami, and why he thinks those other lakes provide a relevant comparison for studying sedimentation rates of Suigetsu.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Febble

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

Thanks for the amusing references Febble. I am still giggling.
TGd (Teh Great davey) picks such illuminati for his sources.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

All of it?

Exactly, and to finish the statement, "nothing but it!"

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Faid

I know! Remember dave's promise that he would soon deliver a model that would make that data-matching yellow curve possible, by calculating poor exchange with the ocean or whatever?

The one he threatened Febble with, and tried to intimidate her by saying she should lose her sleep waiting for it? The one we should all tremble at the very thought of, twisting and turning in our beds anticipating it, cowering in fear of our annihilation?

...Yeah, turns out he couldn't do it.

OK, but how do you know he couldn't do it? Has TGd announced his failure (yeah, right)? Did a key deadline pass without his announcing important results?

Or is it just that TGd has not revisited the subject in a long time and is probably hoping nobody has noticed and has pretty much forgotten about it?

If the latter, well, heck, nothing new about that. The net is littered with unfulfilled promises by TGd. It's his stock in trade. If it were of any value at all, even a penny per, TGd would be a trillionaire.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Febble

Oh, did he?

Of course he did, you were just dreaming that you were sleeping soundly without the least care davey might have some crushing new evidence. Yep, just dreaming it all while you were slee...

... ... Oh! Never mind.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Voxrat ...

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

Which one was it that demonstrates Suigetsu is non-annual?

Indeed, davey, what you are doing is INFERRING from the study done on a different lake (with entirely different circumstances, most notably involving substantial human interference) that Suigetsu is similar. INFERRING, davey, not DEMONSTRATING. What a fucking buffoon you are. Doing exactly what you accuse others of doing, despite that at least they were working with data from the lake in question and not some entirely different lake. What a fucking buffoon.

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by VoxRat

I second that call.

I infinityth it!

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

I'm still waiting patiently for dave to explain himself regarding Fukami, and why he thinks those other lakes provide a relevant comparison for studying sedimentation rates of Suigetsu.

I sincerely hope you are not holding your breath or refraining from eating or taking a piss or anything like that. Cause it could be a long wait. A very, very, very long wait.

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

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

Yes, Dave, but they don't sort into alternating layers.

What point are you trying to make here, Dave? How do you explain the annual blooms of diatoms that demonstrate pretty conclusively that the varve layers are annual? We know the species of the various diatoms, and we know when they bloom.

What is your alternative explanation for the diatom layers? Talking about the sorting of silt particles isn't going to explain the sorting of the diatoms.

[ericmurphy]

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.

1) All measuring the sedimentation rate today will do is show you what it is today. You'll still need to infer what it was in the past, which is not guaranteed to be the same as it is today.

2) Doesn't matter. We don't need any particular sedimentation rate to infer that the layers are annual, which is what is at issue here.

3) Looking at other lakes will not help you in determining what Suigetsu's sedimentation rates are, and besides, we already have looked at other lakes' sedimentation rates, and many of them are lower than Suigetsu's.

4) But lakes D, E, F, G, H, and I all have rates lower than Suigetsu's. So what was your point again?

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

But it's not. We can see annual layers, we know they're annual layers, and knowing nothing else we can determine the annual sedimentation rate.

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."

That's because you refuse to look at evidence you disagree with. No one who looks at the evidence can rationally deny that the annual layers are annual. Your denial and/or skepticism is not rational.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Yes, Dave, but they don't sort into alternating layers.

What point are you trying to make here, Dave? How do you explain the annual blooms of diatoms that demonstrate pretty conclusively that the varve layers are annual? We know the species of the various diatoms, and we know when they bloom.

What is your alternative explanation for the diatom layers? Talking about the sorting of silt particles isn't going to explain the sorting of the diatoms.

And, I must have forgotten the part where Hawkins explained why the varves only show up on the lake bottom and not all over the place. If they were laid down by the Noachian Flood, then we should see the dang things all over the place, but we don't.

Hawkins, did you ever answer this simple question?

I may have missed it.

Would you care to post a link or something, please?

[ericmurphy]

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?

Wow—that sounds really cool. At first I was worried about the ability to freely edit former posts, but then I realize that doing so is rendered irrelevant, because everyone's latest, best argument is always visible.

What do you say, Dave? Are you up to the challenge of actually supporting your conclusions with actual, agreed-upon premises?

[mung bean]

Goddam, I wouldn't have believed it was possible but the fucker's getting even more pathetic.
I propose:

AFDave's Seventh Law: No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.


Davey boy, you have to lift your game. You're running out of entertainment value. Nothing you have posted in the last few pages has any relevance to any topic except your dishonesty. Grow a backbone.

[ericmurphy]

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.

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.

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.

That still won't explain why we have layers of diatoms that we know participate in annual blooms.

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.

[ericmurphy]

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.

None of those characteristics would result in the same deposition rates. All cars have four wheels. All cars have engines. All cars have steering wheels. That doesn't mean they all go at the same speed.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by mung bean

Goddam, I wouldn't have believed it was possible but the fucker's getting even more pathetic.
I propose:

AFDave's Seventh Law:No mater how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.


Davey boy, you have to lift your game. You're running out of entertainment value. Nothing you have posted in the last few pages has any relevance to any topic except your dishonesty. Grow a backbone.

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

[mung bean]

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 ...

NEWSFLASH! EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!
NEW DEPTHS OF IRRELEVANT STUPIDITY REACHED!
THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED, DAVE!
YOU WOULDN'T KNOW RELEVANT DATA IF IT BIT YOUR COCK OFF!

Davey boy, please accept my sincere condolences for your tragic accident of birth. Yes, I mean being born to a parent that fucked with your head. That results are truly abysmal.

Davey, Davey, Davey,..........would you mind explaining what on earth this experiment has to do with sediment deposition in lakes?
The pictures and description you provided do not even mention the presence of water. Furthermore, the particle sizes are nowhere near that found in lakes.

You are the one who is always whining that you want to find something exactly the same as Suigetsu. How, pray tell, even in your most desperate and dishonest states of sheer terror, can you even attempt to assert that a pile of dry glass beads between two glass plates is even vaguely the same as the Suigetsu system?

Pull your thumb out of your petulant little mouth and try to answer, Davey.
You're making Christians look stupid and God wont like that.

[mung bean]

Originally Posted by Febble

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.

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Voxrat ...

Sure you can. You read one paper that ASSERTS annual. And you read another paper that DEMONSTRATES non-annual. So if ASSERTIONS are good enough for you, then fine, but I'm looking for a bit more.

Dave, finding annual blooms of diatoms in varve layers does not lead to an "assertion" of annual layers. It leads to a confirmation that the layers are annual.

What you are failing to provide is some other mechanism by which annual blooms of diatoms can result in something other than annual layers.

[mung bean]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

And, I must have forgotten the part where Hawkins explained why the varves only show up on the lake bottom and not all over the place. If they were laid down by the Noachian Flood, then we should see the dang things all over the place, but we don't.

Hawkins, did you ever answer this simple question?

I may have missed it.

Would you care to post a link or something, please?

Oh, thaaat question. Methinks brave Sir Davey is running away from that question. Methinks he has been running faster since he was provided with precisely what he had been stridently demanding: namely an example of a lake that had varve thicknesses similar to Suigetsu and a recorded history of modern sediment deposition rates.
He was given Baikal and has shat himself as a result.
He now has to explain not only the Japanese "Fludde-deposited" diatoms being only in the lake but the Russian ones too,
and there's a hell of a lot more of them.
He wont have the guts to address this, of course.



PS. By the way, when was the last time that "flocculence" (and it really is a wonderful word) was mentioned as still requiring obfuscation?
I assume the issue has been satisfactorily dealt with.

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

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?

This sounds like a really useful tool for my engineering group to use.
Thanks V!
I am going to log into their site and see what it is all about.
I suppose I should create a thread to discuss this.

[Notta_skeptic]

Originally Posted by Febble

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

Febble, your optimism shows nothing but the highest level of empathy, but I think you're fighting a losing battle in hoping that dave will change his mind. Or his tactics, regardless of how kind and polite you are to him.

[Notta_skeptic]

Originally Posted by mung bean

AFDave's Seventh Law: No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.

What's the 6th law? (I'm serious - I'm keeping track of these things.) --- Never mind, I found it!

[Susannah]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

NEWS FLASH: PARTICLES OF DIFFERENT SIZE AND SHAPE SORT SPONTANEOUSLY IN STILL OR MOVING WATER
LAMINAE IN THIRD SISTER LAKE NOT ANNUAL, BUT EVENT-DRIVEN

You know, Davey, it might be a good idea to actually read the papers you present. Or at least skim them. It might reduce the frequency of point-blank shots at your feet.