Lake Suigetsu: Flocculence Requires a Reevaluation

[Coragyps]

Damn, I miss that supercritical superionized badass water.......

[Occam's Aftershave]

Originally Posted by Coragyps

Damn, I miss that supercritical superionized badass water.......

I wonder if after all this time Davie would be willing to tell us about the post-flood scavengers, the ones he said ate all the drowned flood carcasses?

How about it Dave - you up for a new challenge?

[RAFH]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

I wonder if after all this time Davie would be willing to tell us about the post-flood scavengers, the ones he said ate all the drowned flood carcasses?

How about it Dave - you up for a new challenge?

So, uh, would that mean, you know, like, maybe the scavengers, like animals that eat the dead remains of other animals, they, uh, like, didn't get killed along with, uh, you know, the other animals in the, like, bigge fludde, or, um, did Noah, er, ah, disobey gawd, like, and take a lot of, um, scavengers on the, uh, big square boat, not, you know, just two or, er, ah, seven pairs, like, er, um, all the others?

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

...

How the witless have fallen.

Yeah, it's kinda like watching the last Dodo wander around the island of Mauritius cawing out its last braying cry and then tumbling to the sand to be eaten by scavengers. Scavengers that were descendants of the ones that Cap'n Noah set loose to eat all of the corpses left after Duh Flude.

Hmmmm...

Not really.
I kinda feel sorry for the Dodo.

[BWE]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

Yeah, it's kinda like watching the last Dodo wander around the island of Mauritius cawing out its last braying cry and then tumbling to the sand to be eaten by scavengers. Scavengers that were descendants of the ones that Cap'n Noah set loose to eat all of the corpses left after Duh Flude.

Hmmmm...

Not really.
I kinda feel sorry for the Dodo.

I guess I'm just a sonofabitch on that one. I actually dislike the guy now. He is vicious and intentionally spreading a disturbing meme nearly exclusively by lying. It's a joke at this point when he raises a protest to being called dishonest.

Until the humble pie is eaten, he is merely a criminal minded fuckwit who deserves nothing but disgust and contempt.

But that's just me.

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

DR. VAN DER PLICHT ON SAMPLE SIZE AND AMS VS. CONVENTIONAL RADIOCARBON DATING
I don't have much time this week as I am traveling but I will post as I can. I found this from J. Van der Plicht and it seems relevant. Keep in mind as you read this that the leaves dated by Kitagawa weigh about 1000 mg but only a small ~2mg fragment of each leaf was used for AMS dating. Why not use the whole leaf and use conventional dating if what Dr. V is saying is true? It would have been much cheaper and more accurate. Now there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of and if so, that's great. At the end of my investigation, I may find that Kitagawa's C14 dating is perfectly valid. But I've been told by many of you that good scientists are skeptical so I think I would be letting you down if I wasn't :-)

OK, LD ... there's some work on my part. Your turn. How about answering my latest question ...

Dave, this isn't work. It's conjecture and poor at that. Why? Because your "scenario" above has already been preempted by a coherent answer earlier in the thread AND the quote you copied has nothing to do with your just-so story.

What? Do you think because the article is authored by Van der Plicht it has relevance to Lake Suigetsu? Does everything that Van der Plicht publishes have a link to Lake Suigetsu, is that what your trying to say here?

Well Dave. I, and others, can't really tell what you're trying to say because you never take that next step in your message and actually explain HOW that quote supports your story. IF you did that then this would justify as "work" on your part. But what you gave us above is NOT work. Maybe a little creative writing but not work.

Why do the [piston, not drill] cores disagree? (Kato SGP-12 vs. Kitagawa SG-2)

Yaaaaaawwwwwwwnnn!!!
Dave. Why don't you treat all the posters on this thread with decency and link to ALL the answers that have already been given on this subject over the last few pages. Maybe you'll get a posRep for doing that.

What am I saying here? Why, that this question has already been answered and you haven't even noticed. Because you ignore quite a bit. Because your action on this one item is reflective of your action on everything else. You ignore substantive posters because you can't come to terms with what they are saying.

Get a grip Dave and answer LD's questions. On this or the other thread. Then you can address ALL those articles I've posted that show even further support for the annual nature of ALL the varves, not just the ones you want to be annual and others you don't.

[Elká]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

OK, LD ... there's some work on my part. Your turn. How about answering my latest question ...

Heehee, the laziest man in creation(ism)! Drive by cut and paste, way to tote dat barge and lif' dat bale davey! You sho is a power house o' hard work buddy.

Elká

[Elká]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Sorry if I missed the answer to "Why do the cores disagree?"

How did that happen unless the daemon had his claws over your eyes?

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

What page was it on and whose post? I will have a look. I am mostly on my blackberry while travelling so I might miss some things. I am trying to pay particularly close attention to LD's posts.

What happened to that Acer laptop of yours davey?

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

LD ... As for more details on a creationist model, I don't have much yet. All I know at the moment is that the conventional model is not convincing at all.

The global flood which you ignore and the episodic catastrophes which would have inevitably followed in the subsequent 4500 years change everything and until geologists acknowledge these, explanations will be no better than ancient mythmaking.

Thankfully, some of the braver geologists ARE acknowledging catastrophic events more and more. A recent Science article spoke of the budding discipline of "geomythology." Look for an article on that at my blog later this week.

Hahaha, got any names for these brave geologists davey? And no, I won't be visiting your blawg.

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I predict that it will not be long before mainstream geologists make a full return to the pre-Lyell (a slick lawyer who sold his bill of goods to Darwin) view of geology ...

That is ... Flood Geology.

Uh davey, that's SIR Lyell to you boy. He studied geology before he became a lawyer, unlike that inept, scheming lawyer, Philip "Wedgy" Johnson (who never studied a lick of science) who you hold in such high regard.

Elká

[Elká]

Originally Posted by Febble

Thirdly: The global flood that you say we "ignore" - we also ignore the turtles on which the earth is propped. In other words, we ignore things for which there is no evidence. What you seem to be implying is that IF we were to postulate a Global Flood and several subsequent catastrophes, this would somehow make more sense of the data.

Don't forget the Alien Super Intelligent Entities all the way up Febble!

Elká

[Elká]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

How about

AFDave's Eighth Law: Any thread where I'm getting my ass handed to me on the original topic can be prolonged indefinitely by the introduction of tangential diversions or an abnormal focus on meaningless minutiae.

Editorial comments or improvements welcome.

The Hawkins Hoedown Law.

Elká

[Elká]

Originally Posted by Steviepinhead

Dave Hawkins:

LD:

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who was offended by this swipe.

Tell us, O Dave, exactly what evidence it is that you have, and from exactly which source, that persuades you that Lyell was a "slick" lawyer?

Or is this another of your one-some-all conflations: some lawyers are "slick," in some times and places, therefore all must be, in all times and places?

(Particularly, one suspects, "lawyers" who have demonstrated anything contrary to your world-view, however utterly unrelated to their legal practice such a demonstration may have been.)

Hmmm. This source doesn't seem to describe Lyell's law practice as "slick," though it does indicate that he wore out his eyesight during long hours of focusing on legal briefs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

And this source indicates that Lyell practiced law for all of about two years:

http://www.gennet.org/facts/lyell.html

In short, before ever entering upon his brief practice of law, Lyell was interested in nature and geology, had been elected a fellow of various relevant scientific societies (the Linnean and Geological), and had submitted his earliest geological publications.

Here's one of those "honesty" and "integrity" opportunities, dave: pony up the evidence of any improprieties or ethical lapses or self-dealings during Lyell's brief legal career or retract your unfounded accusation.

What'll it be, dave?

I'm pretty sure I know what BWE and Shirley expect your response will be, dave. Can you cowboy up and prove them wrong?

Don't sweat it Stevie, Sir Lyell earned his awards. The high point of davey's military career however, was as a B2 simulator pilot.

Elká

[Elká]

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

I wonder if Dave realizes how boring he's become. Gone are the days of Winston Churchill speeches, water sprinklers, Portuguese, spiders cavorting on the beach in advance of tidal waves, or even supercritical water. Dave is now reduced to quibbling about the thickness of layers of mud on lakebeds, still unable as always to deal with the double-barreled shotgun of calibration curves pointed at his head.

You've had nothing new, original, or even entertaining to say in weeks, Dave. You're whittled down to this one solitary thread, where you cling to individual flecks of fallen leaves.

How the witless have fallen.

It's almost as if the pile of stones laid on davey's UCGHP2 (or is it 3?) has become too large for him to bare.

Don't forget davey, when you and your creo-sciency guys finally (if ever) catch up with Suigetsu, you have years worth of Baikal data to try and deal with. Good luck with that buddy.

Elká, stop listening to the Hare/Coyote davey, he lies.

[chieftain]

Originally Posted by Elká

Uh davey, that's SIR Lyell to you boy.

Nitpick: you don't use Sir with a surname, just with a first name. So it's Sir Charles.

[Lucretius II]

Originally Posted by RAFH

Lucretius, man, you really have to get your nomenclature down right. It's YOGF, Ye Olde Global Fludde, not Ye Olde Bigge Fludde. It's part of the DOGMA, what, you want to be branded a heretic.

(note, I actually like Bigge over Global, but this will have to be put to the SAD Council, the Supreme Atheist Dogma Council, until then, please stick with the official protocol)

My sincerest apologies
It was just that "Bigge" seemed to give it more of that "Olde Worlde" charm
In future I will restrain my poetic instincts and use the established term

[Lasting Damage]

should be Auld

[Lucretius II]

Well according the the Medieval English Dictionary online the correct phrase would appear to be

Ye (Olde) Grete Noe Flode

Old(e) does seem to be the specific spelling for "dating far in to the past "

Not really my field of study but I now have that dictionary saved

For anyone who may be interested

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/

[teucer]

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

How about

AFDave's Eighth Law: Any thread where I'm getting my ass handed to me on the original topic can be prolonged indefinitely by the introduction of tangential diversions or an abnormal focus on meaningless minutiae.

Editorial comments or improvements welcome.

Very good - it works for me. I might add the word "sudden" before "introduction".

If there was a way to play up his insistence on laser-like focus on the topic when he still has wiggle room in the debate, that'd nail it perfectly. For example, the burrowers' thread on Tweb, where he absolutely would not brook a single distraction from the topic of burrowing creatures, even when the said distraction (like the issue of hydrodynamic sorting) made a total nonsense of his burrowing argument.

I like these laws. It amuses me that someone's intellectual behavior could be so predictable that it can be described so simply and comprehensively. It's like flocking algorithms that describe bird flight behavior.

[Dave Hawkins]

THE MALLEABLE MYTH OF LAKE SUIGETSU
Lake Suigetsu supposedly records 100,000 years of history in varves. But consider the following ...

1) The Suigetsu "clock" is based on the assumption the annual diatom blooms sink to the bottom every year and form a light colored layer which alternates with the darker clay sediment.
2) I asked if this "clock" is running today. Lasting Damage said NO. He said it stopped in 1662 when they built a canal as a result of an earthquake in 1662.
3) I asked if it was a good idea to trust a "clock" which has stopped running. How do we know it was EVER a reliable clock? No good answer yet.
4) LD said "The Suigetsu "clock" has stopped running but the Lake Fukami clock is still running. I took a look but I saw no evidence that the "clock" there was still running either. I did find that that the deposition rate at Fukami was much higher than the 0.5 - 1mm per year rate imagined at Suigetsu.
5) A lot of people got confused and thought I was saying that annual diatom blooming and settling was not occurring. Not what I was saying at all.
6) LD realized the problems with saying that the Suigetsu "clock" is no longer running so now he says it IS running ... but slower ... hmmm. How do we know? Can we place sediment traps and check the rate? And then correlate this sediment with these 1mm layers? I haven't seen that done yet.
7) LD told me that I should read Kato's papers on Suigetsu, so I did. I found that in her 4 meter core, she found only 150 or so nice neat laminae ... and they were much thicker than Kitagawa's. I was told that this is because lower sediments have higher water content and and more compressed than upper sediments. I asked why then does Kato show some examples of just the opposite of this. No good answer. I also asked why the 40 - 75m section of Kitagawa's SG core calculated out to an average of 0.69-0.81mm per varve (higher on average than the section above it). No good answer.
8) I then asked why Kato's core (which I was told was taken very close to Kitagawa's) showed a 70cm (~30 inch) difference regarding the supposed Kanbun earthquake layer. I was told that this was because Kitagawa's core was a drill core and Kato's was a piston core and so Kitagawa's top 70 cm would have been destroyed. This was obviously a case of Lasting Damage making stuff up because, as it turns out, Kitagawa's core was NOT a drill core. His SG core was, but the core in question was SG2, an 11m piston core. So this supposed close correlation between cores and this "we can precisely date and correlate volcanic ash layers" and such is nothing more than sophisticated sounding codswallop.
9) Now LD is baffled as to why I should expect identical cores anyway. Never mind that he was trying to sell the idea that they should correlate very closely until he found out he was wrong about what type of cores they were. And I've never been the one claiming they should be identical. Just close. I mean .. if you are going to claim that this is a lake wide process by which we can accurately date events for the past 100,000 years, don't you think there should be some agreement? Kitagawa sure thought there should be. He tried hard to get it.
10) Never mind also that we are all just supposed take all this varve stuff on faith. We only get to see photos of tiny sections of Kitagawa's cores. We get micrographs of some diatoms but no discussion whatsoever about the sorting properties of diatoms compared to the sorting properties of clay particles.
11) LD fusses at me about a source for diatoms but the sources are numerous and plenteous. He has only to read the papers I have supplied to see that diatoms are everywhere! In lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, the ocean -- everywhere. And I've even supplied papers which say that diatoms can be a proxy for storm events ... which of course is my explanation for the Suigetsu layers.

So the 100,000 Year Story of Lake Suigetsu is very shaky. A more likely story is that the first 35 meters or so of Suigetsu was laid during the Global Flood of Noah. The next 40 meters was probably laid episodically over the next 4500 years up to the present. As for the Carbon 14 data, I'm still looking into that. It will be interesting to see what I find.

[Gojira]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

THE MALLEABLE MYTH OF LAKE SUIGETSU

Can I return this record please, it seems to be scratched?

[improvius]

Originally Posted by afdave

3) I asked if it was a good idea to trust a "clock" which has stopped running. How do we know it was EVER a reliable clock? No good answer yet.

Dave, please make up your mind as to whether or not you are a strict uniformitarian.

[Ved]

Oh good, I was starting to worry that I wouldn't get my fix today...

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

[...A stopped "clock" never records time...]
... codswallop...

[Identical, similar, whatever... Evos are wrong...]

So the 100,000 Year Story of Lake Suigetsu is very shaky. A more likely story is that the first 35 meters or so of Suigetsu was laid during the Global Flood of Noah. The next 40 meters was probably laid episodically over the next 4500 years up to the present. As for the Carbon 14 data, I'm still looking into that. It will be interesting to see what I find.

So, where are those flood layers? Why do the first 35 meters (your Flud sediments) look pretty much exactly like the next 40 meters? It's supposed to be the single most important event in geologic history, where the fuck is it?

[Faid]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

THE MALLEABLE MYTH OF LAKE SUIGETSU
(skip dave's dishonest avoidance of all the issues he had PROMISED to address, his ridiculous boldcaps summary, and his cowardly evading assertions)

Guess what, folks? It's time for...



:w 00t::w00 t:

[Coleslaw]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

THE MALLEABLE MYTH OF LAKE SUIGETSUSo the 100,000 Year Story of Lake Suigetsu is very shaky. A more likely story is that the first 35 meters or so of Suigetsu was laid during the Global Flood of Noah. The next 40 meters was probably laid episodically over the next 4500 years up to the present. As for the Carbon 14 data, I'm still looking into that. It will be interesting to see what I find.

Dave, you just make this shit up. Who do you think you are selling this nonsense to, other than children who are too young to see the flaws in your reasoning?

And, while it used to be interesting to see what further accusations of fraud you could pull out of thin air, all the while denying you are accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, that act is getting old, too.

[Lasting Damage]

that's only 75 m of core.

anyway, crap post, doesn't address any of the outstanding issues on dave's model.

and he still doesn't address how you get enough diatoms, and just alleges that they are verywhere, completely ignoring the volunmes needed.

shit post, 0/10

so again, dave ignores that the global flood would have been brackish - there are no brackish diatoms down there and evidence that the sediment was lacustrine in nature. Dave's flood model cannot account for the K-Ah or U-Oki tephra, which are very well characterised layers across multiple sources, and well dated in other methods. he cannot account for the pyrites and siderites or cross correlations with other cores and dating methods. Shit explanation from dave.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

THE MALLEABLE MYTH OF LAKE SUIGETSU
Lake Suigetsu supposedly records 100,000 years of history in varves. But consider the following ...

1) The Suigetsu "clock" is based on the assumption the annual diatom blooms sink to the bottom every year and form a light colored layer which alternates with the darker clay sediment.
2) I asked if this "clock" is running today. Lasting Damage said NO. He said it stopped in 1662 when they built a canal as a result of an earthquake in 1662.
3) I asked if it was a good idea to trust a "clock" which has stopped running. How do we know it was EVER a reliable clock? No good answer yet.
4) LD said "The Suigetsu "clock" has stopped running but the Lake Fukami clock is still running. I took a look but I saw no evidence that the "clock" there was still running either. I did find that that the deposition rate at Fukami was much higher than the 0.5 - 1mm per year rate imagined at Suigetsu.

You have taken the "clock" analogy too far. Varves are a "clock" in the sense that they record the years as they elapse. Varves are NOT a "clock" in the sense of telling you what year it is. A closer analogy would be a stop watch. it will tell you how much time has elapsed since some baseline, or even how much time had elapsed before you stopped the clock. But it will only tell you what time the stop watch was started if you know what time it was stopped. Which, in the case of Suigetsu we do. And we know it is a reliable clock because it correlates perfectly with radiocarbon dates using independent calibrations, and because it correlates perfectly with other uncalibrated data from independent sources. You have been given several other examples of varves forming today - the fact that the thicknesses are not the same as Suigetsu is irrelevant.