Green River Varves

[laptoppop]

Some people have cited the Green River Varves as supporting extremely long geological timeframes. I would claim that this is not accurate because of a few specific reasons. I started my research at http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=530, but have confirmed enough details elsewhere that I feel comfortable with it.

The primary assumption is that the layers are formed one year at a time for each layer. This assumption is able to be challenged quite easily.

1) There are a number of fish fossils (especially catfish) which span many layers. Obviously a fish would decay and not fossilize if left exposed for years. Many of the catfish fossils have amazing levels of detail.
2) There are an abundance of bird fossils - not what you'd expect at the bottom of a calm lake.
3) Apparently there have been some studies which have shown multiple varves being laid down in one year. I have not looked hard enough to confirm this, but it makes sense. There are a number of cases where the original thought was one per year (tree rings, layers of ice in the polar region, etc.) where it has been demonstrated to be false. There are plenty of variables involved in hydrodynamic sedimentation that can change how layers are laid down, or can create multiple layers.
4) It is difficult to postulate a lake remaining the same for six million years.
5) The layers are different in different parts -- in no place is the entire sequence present. The sequence is formed by matching up different layers - something which can lead to errors.

Another layman's article about the varves is at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/greenriver.asp.

My main point is that the Green River varves are hardly slam dunk evidence for an old earth - they can definitely be interpreted in different ways.

-lee-

 

[steen]

We actually have a tread on this here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3086519-varves-only-discussion.html

I'll bump it for your convenience

 

[laptoppop]

I looked for the thread before, but I didn't find it because it was in the other forum. Seems like most of the thread consists of folks patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on how much smarter they are than the YECs. No thanks.

I notice nobody is talking about the very well preserved catfish fossils -- mostly from the "18 inch layer" -- with about 4,000 layers. It is beyond reason to think that a fish could lay on the bottom of a lake for 4,000 years without decomposing so that the layers around it could gather and the fish could fossilize.

A quick googling of "catfish fossils green river" reveals many different explanations of the problem and how the layers can easily be explained in a YEC context.
-lee-

 

[steen]

I looked for the thread before, but I didn't find it because it was in the other forum. Seems like most of the thread consists of folks patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on how much smarter they are than the YECs. No thanks.

Rather, they noted an absence of YEC that could debate the subject on scientific grounds. Care to prove them wrong?

Now, the tread linked above also has numerous reference links in them if you want tocheck things out further.

I notice nobody is talking about the very well preserved catfish fossils -- mostly from the "18 inch layer" -- with about 4,000 layers. It is beyond reason to think that a fish could lay on the bottom of a lake for 4,000 years without decomposing so that the layers around it could gather and the fish could fossilize.

Ah, the local version of polystrate fossils? We have frequently observed this. Cold, salt, anaerobic lake water doesn’t contain a lot of predators or bacteria to break down the fish (Drever, J.I., 1997, “The Geochemistry of Natural Waters,” 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ)

Of course, catfish were not found throughout the system, only is specific locations (LakeGosiute only, and only the deeper center part), which speaks against them being thrown all over the place by a global flood. This specific location is also where the catfish dung fossils are found (Grande, Lance, and H. Paul Buchheim, May, 1994, "Paleontological and Sedimentological Variation in Early Eocene Fossil Lake," Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, V. 30), speaking against wild, turbulent spread of fish and dung all in one place. And interestingly enough, they also found a fish who had been deposited in a layer, and animals from later layers burrowing down through the layer, right through the fish. (and of course, such a burrow can’t be made until all the layers are laid down.)

And in those same layers we also find bird tracks, each in their separate layers, kind of eliminating the possibility of this having been laid down all at once (Moussa, Mounir T., 1968, "Fossil Tracks from the Green River Formation (Eocene), Near Soldier Summit, Utah," Journal of Paleontology, 42:6:1433-1478.). And better yet, we find flamingo nesting sites, nest upon nest upon nest (McGrew, Paul O., and Alan Feduccia 1973, "A Preliminary Report on a Nesting Colony of Eocene Birds" 25th Field Conference Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, pp 163-165) spanning 160 meter in thickness (Leggitt, V. Leroy, Paul H. Buchheim, and Robert E. Biaggi, 1998, "The Stratigraphic Setting of Three Presbyornis Nesting Sites: Eocene Fossil Lake, Lincoln County, Wyoming," in Vincent Santucci and Lindsay McClelland, editors National Park Service Paleontological Research, NPS/NRGRD/GRDTR-98/01 National Park Service Technical Report)

Oh, and better yet, a form of mayfly of caddisfly has yearly egg-laying sites over a 70-mile area along the past lakeshore, and in layers yearly deposited for up to 9 meters thick deposits (Leggitt, V. Leroy, and Robert A. Cushman, Jr., 2001, "Complex Caddisfly-dominated bioherms from the Eocene Green River Formation," Sedimentary Geology, 45:377-396).

The Green River varves are about 30,000 feet thick in places, and overlying another about 15-28,000 feet of sediment from non-Varve sedimentation. It also happens to be the location of the oil-shale that the US is hoping to have a future extraction process for, just to give a frame of reference.

For an idea of size, this site has a nice picture about 4 screens down. Compare with the cowsa t the bottom for size, and remember these layers were laid down with about 0.1 mm per year:
http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html

The Varves are made up of cyclical deposits of a few types, marl with organic compounds (low-grade oil shale), moderate-grade oil shale, or rich oil shale, and closer to the shores, fine-grained sandstone from storm runoff. In a detailed formation originally described by the first geologist to take a close look at it, (Bradley, Wilmot H., 1929, "Varves and Climate of the Green River Epoch," in USGS Professional Paper 158, p. 87-110) the 4 cyclical layers range in thickness from 0.18 mm for the sandstone to 0.16-0.037 mm for the oilshale deposits. That formation was about 2600 feet, leaving about 13 mill layers, or 3 mill+ years worth of layers (now, the thickness does vary, but the max number of varves found are about 20 mill) found at the edge of the old lake. Bradley did come back 7 years later for another survey and did find some layers as thick as 1 cm in the less oil-rich edges of the lake beds (Bradley, W.H., 1930, The varves and climate of the Green River Epoch: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 158, p. 87-110.) In the center, where the catfish are, there are fewer layers, as the inflow of effluent of erosion doesn’t make it that far (100 miles) and the layers truly are yearly layers without the influx of storm runoff (Buchheim Paul H., and Robert Biaggi, "Laminae Counts Within a Synchronous Oil Shale Unit: A Challenge to the "Varve Concept," article No. 18279 referenced in GSA ABSTRACTS & PROGRAMS, 1988, v. 20, no. 7, pg. 317). These layers are also very uniform in distances of more than 100 Km (Bradley, 1930)

The oil shale and marl came from plankton death. It is also noted that the calcium carbonate (the plankton component that turned into marl) is about 5 micron in diameter, which means that the precipitation would take quote a few days. Yet, we see cycle after cycle of these deposits. Experience with such Calcium carbonate granules tells us that the plankton itself is about 50 micron wide, and of much lighter consistency and thus settles much slower yet.

Right there, it shows that there is no possibility of a global flood of turbulent water depositing everything in one swoop.

And, of course, we also find pollen alternating in these layers, slowly sinking down and getting deposited with clay in seasonal patterns. We have directly observed such processes over the last hundred years, and also find this pattern in the varves (Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971, p. 400.)

And we find salt layered deposits as well. Now salt layers are formed by evaporations, not floods which would dissolve the salt and spread it throughout the deposits). The area known as Wilkins peak contains numerous salt layers divided by sediment deposits from run-off So that also is a wet-dry cycle completely inconsistent with a uniform flood depositing the entire layer (Fischer, A.G. and Roberts, L.T., “Cyclicity in the Green River Formation (Lacustrine Eocene) of Wyoming," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 61, no. 7, Dec. 1991, p. 1146-1154.)

And long-term cycles are even found. We see the difference in layers of the varves of about 5-year cycles as predicted by solar cycles as we even see today with more and less precipitation, and also a 10-15 year cycle consistent with sunspot activity cycles (Ripepe, M, Roberts, L.T., and Fischer, A.G. 1991, "Enso and Sunspot Cycles in Varved Eocene Oil Shales from Image Analysis," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 61:7:1155-1163)

Fischer and Roberts, (Fischer and Roberts, 1991) also has this interesting little bit:
…" The cyclicities discussed are developed at seven levels. High-frequency cycles in the Tipton and Laney members include the annual cycle expressed in varving (1), the grouping of varves into El Nino (ENSO)-type (5.8) year cycles (2), their grouping into sunspot cycles (3), and their grouping into 30-year cycles(4). Low-frequency cycles from the Milankovitch frequency band are seen in the Tipton and Wilkins Peak members, and include the precessional 20 ka cycle (5) and the ca. 100 ka eccentricity cycle (6).…

This pattern is also found in other large, deep lakes throughout the world, only in those types of lakes specifically, not in all lakes and sediment areas.

Then, of course, there are a couple of distinct layers from volcanic ash, occurring as single episodes, showing up as discrete, solid-boundary layer areas uniformly over thousands of square miles. Not exactly the smooth and uniform pattern of a global flood. O'Neill (O'Neill, William Arthur, 1980 40Ar 39Ar ages of Selected tuffs of the Green River Formation: Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. M.S. Thesis, OhioStateUniversity) did do dating on two such layers and found one at 46.5 mill years and another at 49.4 +/- .4 mill years. Incidentally, both were clearly defined and finite layers about 160 ft from each other, vertically,. Fitting a yearly pattern of avg. 0.1 mm deposit each year. Funny how that fits the original estimation of layers by Bradley (see above)

A quick googling of "catfish fossils green river" reveals many different explanations of the problem

Did you check out how many of them had a scientific basis?

and how the layers can easily be explained in a YEC context.

Everything can be "explained" in such a context. But there is no evidence for "explanations."

 

[laptoppop]

There's quite a difference between "all at once" and "within a short period of time". The catfish, in the center of the lake, are primarily in one *set* of layers, not one layer. There are 4,000 layers within those 18 inches. No matter how cold it is, I would claim that this is compelling evidence that these layers at least were not anuual layers. Other types of layers also have reasonable explanations -- but the key question is -- How can the layers be described as annual if you have extremely well preserved fossils transversing 4000 layers?
-lee-

 

[steen]

There's quite a difference between "all at once" and "within a short period of time". The catfish, in the center of the lake, are primarily in one *set* of layers, not one layer. There are 4,000 layers within those 18 inches. No matter how cold it is, I would claim that this is compelling evidence that these layers at least were not anuual layers. Other types of layers also have reasonable explanations -- but the key question is -- How can the layers be described as annual if you have extremely well preserved fossils transversing 4000 layers?
-lee-

Actually they don't traverse all 4000 layers. Just some of them. Some layers follow the fish, after all, and the fossils are rather flat as well.

Now, how come you are ignoring ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE that I provided? Do you need selective claims that exclude all other evidence in order to defend your case?

 

[laptoppop]

Actually they don't traverse all 4000 layers. Just some of them. Some layers follow the fish, after all, and the fossils are rather flat as well.

Now, how come you are ignoring ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE that I provided? Do you need selective claims that exclude all other evidence in order to defend your case?

No, I'm just staying on-topic. The presence of fossils which cross multiple layers seems like a huge problem to calling these layers "annual" which is key to determining the age of the formation. (I've seen some pictures myself of them crossing several hundred, so even if they don't cross all 4,000 or so layers, they cross way more than *one*).

-lee-

 

[steen]

No, I'm just staying on-topic. The presence of fossils which cross multiple layers seems like a huge problem to calling these layers "annual" which is key to determining the age of the formation.

The layers certainly fit the annual pattern per the evidence I presented above. Now, of course, in the center of the lake, fossilized fish excrements fit the layers exactly. The surveys have found several hundred per square foot, all in specific layers. And as was pointed out, polystrate fossils at bottom of lakes are not unusual.

(I've seen some pictures myself of them crossing several hundred, so even if they don't cross all 4,000 or so layers, they cross way more than *one*).

I thank you for retracting the "4000 layers" claim. Now, the sources you have, are they from the middle of the lake, or from the more shallow areas closer to the coast of the ancient lake, where storm runoff would affect the layering?

I am puzzled why you feel one specific thing, in a rather vague fashion, should be seen completely without attention to any other evidence, as if any single piece of evidence clinches your claim regardless of all other evidence contradicting it?

 

[laptoppop]

The layers certainly fit the annual pattern per the evidence I presented above. Now, of course, in the center of the lake, fossilized fish excrements fit the layers exactly. The surveys have found several hundred per square foot, all in specific layers. And as was pointed out, polystrate fossils at bottom of lakes are not unusual.

I thank you for retracting the "4000 layers" claim. Now, the sources you have, are they from the middle of the lake, or from the more shallow areas closer to the coast of the ancient lake, where storm runoff would affect the layering?

I am puzzled why you feel one specific thing, in a rather vague fashion, should be seen completely without attention to any other evidence, as if any single piece of evidence clinches your claim regardless of all other evidence contradicting it?

I'm trying to finish one topic completely before moving on. One of the problems I have is that I can easily go off on a multitude of "rabbit trails" instead of following something through to its conclusion. I'm trying to stop doing that as much. My logic would say that since the catfish fossils transverse multiple layers and are especially well preserved (possibly indicating rapid fossilization) I don't see any way for one layer to equal one year. Even in very cold conditions, one needs the fish to be encapsulated more quickly than tens or hundreds of years. One layer is not equal to one year.

As for the 4,000 layers - I am not retracting that at all. I *am* trying to be completely and intellectually honest about the exact data which I have personally seen (not in person). In the famous 18" strata, where a bunch of different catfish fossils are found, there are about 4,000 layers. Each particular fossil cuts across a bunch of layers. I cannot say with certainty that any one fossil cuts across *all* the layers, but I can say that they cut across major fractions of the 18"/4,000 layer strata.

One layer does not equal one year.
-lee-

 

[shernren]

Does anybody actually have pictures of those darn catfish fossils? I think the obliquity of the "cutting" would also make a big difference. If the catfish is cutting the layers at an angle of something like 30 degrees there would naturally be something very wrong with a gradual deposition hypothesis. But if the catfish is very nearly flat I don't think it's very problematic towards the varves being annual.

What I'm curious now is what process creationists would propose for the laying down of approx. 3 million periodically layered varves in far under 4000 years.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm trying to find ones that you would consider "acceptable", i.e., from non YEC sources. Here's one source for pictures, but they don't show context of the fossils with the layers:
http://www.fossilmall.com/Science/Sites/GreenRiver/GreenRiver.htm

This page is trying to say that the 18" layer is 4000 years old. This would make the average layer .0045 inches thick -- even if the fish were exactly level with the layers, the fish would stick up past a number of layers. Lets say 1/2" for a fish - that would still be 111 layers. I'm trying to find them again -- I know I've seen pictures of catfish fossils at much more than 30 degrees off of the layer horizontals -- more like 40-50 degrees, transversing a huge number of layers.
-lee-

 

[shernren]

I'm not thaaaat distrustful of creationist sources to the extent of suspecting them of Photoshopping pictures

I'm not too concerned about the biological stability of the fish being fossilized, still waters and hypoxic conditions can probably account for good preservation. What I'm more interested in is (as always) the physical stability of a fish being fossilized in a polystrate position - I can imagine a fish lying flat for a few thousand years, but not a fish sticking at a highly oblique position, which would probably indicate some level of rapid deposition (but wouldn't directly equate to a worldwide, simultaneous episode of rapid deposition, mind you).

At college, rushing. Will check pics back at home.