Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[createdtoworship]

This picture has a nice contrast between varves and flood deposits. In the middle of this picture are fine grained sediments with alternating light and dark bands consistent with biannual seasonal fluctations. Above and below the varves are coarse grained flood deposits:

The flood deposits above and below the varves were produced by flooding from glacial Lake Missoula. These floods produced the Western Channeled Scablands. You can see more here:

Channeled Scablands: Overview

So as you can see, it is extremely easy to determine the evidence between flood and non-flood environments.

look I can post pictures too:

all basically saying the same thing, slow gradual change is not what has happened at the green river formation,

more here:

Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvial Lake - Answers in Genesis

 

[Lucy Stulz]

look I can post pictures too:

all basically saying the same thing, slow gradual change is not what has happened at the green river formation,

more here:

Green River Formation Very Likely Did Not Form in a Postdiluvial Lake - Answers in Genesis

So your hypocrisy knows no limits?

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you as good as your word? Are you really interested in peer reviewed articles? How about this one:

Fischer, A.G., Roberts, L.T., 1991, Cyclicity in the Green River Formation (lacustrine Eocene) of Wyoming, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61 (7) , pp. 1146-1154

Abstract
The lacustrine mode (Tipton and Laney members) accumulated mainly varved oil shale. Here annual cycles are recorded as varves. Variations in varve thickness demonstrate El Nino (ENSO)-type and sunspot cycles. Milankovitch-scale cycles are not obvious in lithic variations, but gamma ray logs record 1) precessional variations with a mean period (varve-timed) of 19.5ka, and 2) a bundling of these in the ca. 100ka eccentricity cycle. In the playa mode (Wilkins Peak Member), the lithic succession oil shale-trona-dolomitic marlstone records the precessional drying up of a lake and is again bundled in sets of five, by the 100 ka eccentricity rhythm.
-------------------------
or this one?

Tylmann, W., Szpakowska, K., Ohlendorf, C., Woszczyk, M., Zolitschka, B., 2012, Conditions for deposition of annually laminated sediments in small meromictic lakes: A case study of Lake Suminko (Northern Poland), Journal of Paleolimnology 47 (1) , pp. 55-70

----------------------------------

Or how about the "annual chronometer" in the laminations in this one?

Shanahan, T.M., Overpeck, J.T., Beck, J.W., Wheeler, C.W., Peck, J.A., King, J.W., Scholz, C.A., 2008, The formation of biogeochemical laminations in Lake Bosumtwi, Ghana, and their usefulness as indicators of past environmental changes, Journal of Paleolimnology 40 (1) , pp. 339-355
----------------------------------

Perhaps you would like the sub-annual structures in the varves studied in this study?

Chutko, K.J., Lamoureux, S.F.,2008, Identification of coherent links between interannual sedimentary structures and daily meteorological observations in Arctic proglacial lacustrine varves: Potentials and limitations, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45 (1) , pp. 1-13


-----------------------------------

OOoh! Here's one with both varve counting and radiometric dating!

Migowski, C., Agnon, A., Bookman, R., Negendank, J.F.W., Stein, M., 2004, Recurrence pattern of Holocene earthquakes along the Dead Sea transform revealed by varve-counting and radiocarbon dating of lacustrine sediments, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222 (1) , pp. 301-314

of particular note is this bit from the abstract:

"...Radiocarbon dating and annual laminae counting yield excellent agreement between disturbed sedimentary structures (identified as seismites) and the historical earthquake record..."

-------------------------------




Let us all know when you are willing to talk about some science.

okay so this would be what I am talking about,

it's a Non-Sequitur obviously,

meaning you don't actually have the information so you flood the thread with link spamming.

Nice try.

Again do you or do you not have simply one single edition of a peer review regarding the annuality of varves over the semiannual varves

here is John Morris - PHD

"The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.

There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.

Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?

Further evidence against the uniformitarian, calm lake model comes from the nature of the sediments. The dark summer layer is organic rich, a commercial source of oil today. Organic material does exist in modern lakes, but a huge lake without disruptive storms or variable river input, year after year for six million years? Surely some things cannot be.

On the other hand, numerous examples of catastrophic deposits, hurricane debris, 90 mph mudflows at Mount St. Helens, and laboratory experiments, have documented rapid formation of multitudes of "varves." A detailed understanding of past, unobserved events is hard to construct, but in general, the Green River varved deposits support the global Flood of Noah's day model much better than the uniformitarian, long age model."

from ICR

https://www.icr.org/article/do-laminae-green-river-shales-document-millions-ye/

 

[createdtoworship]

Then you might wish to explain (using your "single catastrophic event" model) this:

It actually looks like a flood event to me (not the formation of sediments but the fact that they have been washed away so dramatically). Even the river that was formed still remains. The vertical cliffs and flat riverbed are characteristic of powerful flooding.

thanks for the comments, I know now at least you as an "old earther" are open to the various perspectives. Good work.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then you might wish to explain (using your "single catastrophic event" model) this:

It is a classic photo of the Green River Formation, a set of varves. The little dots in the foreground are cows for scale.

Now there are millions of varves in this deposit.

But you would probably like some peer reviewed work on the Green River rhythmites.

How about this one:

Fischer, A.G., and Roberts, L.T., 1991, Cyclicity in the Green River Formation lacustrine (Eocene) of​

Wyoming: Jour. Sedimentary Petrology, v. 61, p. 1146-1154. (HERE)

So let's take some look at the details.

This article discusses not only the petrology of the varve couplets but also references studies on the mechanism for formation.

IF this were a single catastrophic event I'm curious why it would show repeated (repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated) couplets of increased organic content, lower organic content, over and over and over again.

There is a "lesson" from the University of Indiana website that discusses the "annual" nature of these varves (HERE)

Interestingly they note this:



Now I really like that one because I'm assuming you know how evaporites form. They require that the concentration of the salts be high enough to overcome the solubility of that salt in the water body. So we have not only a case where the water was starting to evaporate (long enough time sitting around) but it also has "cycles" in it! Then up above we have all these zillions of annual layers.



But again, the nature of these varves was described as long as about 1930 by Bradley:

Bradley, W.H., 1930,​

The varves and climate of the Green River Epoch: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 158, p. 87-110.


[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

a good site, a college site.

But not a peer review, you almost had one document for us to look at.

you did provide peer reviews of a whole lot of unrelated material to our discussion. Maybe you were feeling a need to justify your position.

Well, thats good. But what do all those peer reviews actually have to do with annual varves?

Or were you just giving us an appeal to authority,

or were you just giving us a non sequitor, providing info not relavant to the discusion for the purpose of gaining attention and for the purpose of attracting people to your views.

I can post dozens of peer reviews, but have I?

Only when they are needed as by the subject at hand as it would seem that I was merely trying to impress the audience with superiour knowledge, rather than actually debating and allowing others to learn.

 

[TheBear]

How do you explain all those layers?

 

[createdtoworship]

There are countless sources that say the Earth, the Solar System, and universe are much older than that ridiculous date.

Does ice float in your world? It does in mine. What I love about ice cores is that they kill two birds with one stone. Not only do they show the Earth is unarguably much older than YEC's claim, they also show that Noah's Ark never happened. A fortuitous twofer.

An actual study of geology, which includes studying both stratigraphy and sedimentology will quickly lay any YEC claims to rest. The sediments we can observe came from several different environments. None of them were the environment of a global flood.

Even the asteroids spinning in space show that the Solar System is billions of years old. Using simple Newtonian mechanics a formula can be derived that combines rate of rotation and mass of the asteroid to show a minimum age for it if it is a tumbling asteroid. All of those ages are on the order of billions of years.

Funny thing, mentioning Ice.

Because if you remember Ice melts relatively fast.

Why are there still comets in space?

If it's billions of years old.

Oh I forgot,

It comes from the never observed "Oort cloud"

and "kuiper belt"

but the kuiper belt average sizes for comets are no where near close to the sizes of comets in our solar system, so how can they be supplying them?

See I have many questions too.

But some of them don't have to do with sea shells on mountains.

 

[createdtoworship]

[

QUOTE=Lucy Stulz;62805755]I apologize. You seem to be intent on insulting others.

If I have genuinely insulted you, I apologize, and you should really report it. Rather than accuse.

I thought perhaps you were interested in a discussion of the science.

yeah but what you did was flood the air waves with an much information as you can and hope that someone will be overwhelmed with the amount of information and not know where to start.

succeed.

But it's also a fail, because doing this is considered trolling.

But I beg of you, do not misrepresent or belittle people's efforts in providing you with information.

[/QUOTE]

like I said before if I genuinely offended you, I apologize. But whats happening here is I am telling you that all the time you have spent the last 5-10 years, all the money you spent....was a lie.

You may come out with a degree and a job, but at the sacrifice of what?

morals?

I mean you can't tell me that when woodmorappe tells us of all the hypocrisy in dating methods, like What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"

what about those orwellian terms?

you think someone wouldn't notice that scientists are saying, oh this date is too young, it has rejuvenated isochrons, or is because of a cooling age that this date is wrong, so we will toss it and try another rock?

 

[StormanNorman]

See I have many questions too.

But some of them don't have to do with sea shells on mountains.

Let's be honest; you don't have any questions as you already have your answers.

 

[Loudmouth]

all basically saying the same thing, slow gradual change is not what has happened at the green river formation,

Where does it say that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Funny thing, mentioning Ice.

Because if you remember Ice melts relatively fast.

Then why do we have hundreds of thousands of annual layers in Greenland and Antarctica with no melting?

 

[Loudmouth]

If I have genuinely insulted you, I apologize, and you should really report it. Rather than accuse.


yeah but what you did was flood the air waves with an much information as you can and hope that someone will be overwhelmed with the amount of information and not know where to start.

succeed.

But it's also a fail, because doing this is considered trolling.



like I said before if I genuinely offended you, I apologize. But whats happening here is I am telling you that all the time you have spent the last 5-10 years, all the money you spent....was a lie.

You may come out with a degree and a job, but at the sacrifice of what?

morals?

I mean you can't tell me that when woodmorappe tells us of all the hypocrisy in dating methods, like What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"

what about those orwellian terms?

you think someone wouldn't notice that scientists are saying, oh this date is too young, it has rejuvenated isochrons, or is because of a cooling age that this date is wrong, so we will toss it and try another rock?

We can easily see galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away. Radiometric dating is hardly the only hurdle you need to get over. The entirety of the creation demonstrates that you are wrong.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

okay so this would be what I am talking about,

it's a Non-Sequitur obviously,

meaning you don't actually have the information so you flood the thread with link spamming.

Nice try.

interesting. So your biblically sound view of creation doesn't extend to how you behave with people?

Again do you or do you not have simply one single edition of a peer review regarding the annuality of varves over the semiannual varves

in all the things I posted I saw no mention of " semi annual" varves. I saw stuff about sub annual structures IN the varves.

here is John Morris - PHD

it's "PhD"....like that. The h is lowercase. Fyi.

"The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.

at no point have I said there are no such things as couplets of less than one year. I am unaware of such things, but I did not deny their possible existence.

But let's examine this UNEVIDENCED claim (ie I don't see a reference Dr Morris is talking about, so I will wait for you to be as good as your word and provide one).

A 35% variance. How many YEARS does this work out to be (again I don't see a reference by which I can check this claim out). Does it still match up with a 40 day biblical flood?

Do the math. Get back to me on it. Or not. I haven't seen a yec actually DO math so I won't hold my breath.

There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.

so it sounds like Dr Morris missed the part about the dark layers in these varves. Could indicate anoxia. And remember the earlier posts about how fossils form.

Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?

so I assume Dr Morris has never been to a lake or wetlands either?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

a good site, a college site.

But not a peer review, you almost had one document for us to look at.

I know you by the fruit you bear.

I have now provided several peer reviewed articles on this along with the text references and university webpages. Yet you keep DENIGRATING my efforts.

I think you might wish to check the beam in your own eye, "christian".

Seems like your bible love only extends to Noah.

you did provide peer reviews of a whole lot of unrelated material to our discussion.

oh you mean the numerous articles on how varves form?

For someone who DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PALEONTOLOGY AND BIOLOGY (and yes it is spelled paleOntology, not "paleantology" as you repeatedly write it), you talk awfully big.

Are you a "PHD"? Lol.

Well, thats good. But what do all those peer reviews actually have to do with annual varves?

that was explicitly spelled out for you with just about every citation.

If you are going to demand this stuff AT LEAST BE DECENT ENOUGH TO READ THE ABSTRACTS!

or were you just giving us a non sequitor,

it is spelled " non sequitUr". Your spelling is so attrocious it is difficult to read your posts!

providing info not relavant

"relEvant"

I can post dozens of peer reviews, but have I?

I have seen you post mostly ICR and the like. Trust me when I tell you those carry no real weight in geology circles.

Only when they are needed as by the subject at hand as it would seem that I was merely trying to impress the audience with superiour knowledge, rather than actually debating and allowing others to learn.

I started off trying to pass along information. The fact that you spit on it is not MY problem.

I know you by the fruit you bear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny thing, mentioning Ice.

Because if you remember Ice melts relatively fast.

Why are there still comets in space?

If it's billions of years old.

Oh I forgot,

It comes from the never observed "Oort cloud"

and "kuiper belt"

but the kuiper belt average sizes for comets are no where near close to the sizes of comets in our solar system, so how can they be supplying them?

See I have many questions too.

But some of them don't have to do with sea shells on mountains.

Space, on the average is dang cold, in case you forgot. Even the temperature at the Earth's orbit is below 0 C.

And no, short term comets come from the Kuiper belt. Objects in the Kuiper belt have been observed, now that technology has improved enough. We do observe objects in the Oort cloud occasionally. Long period comets are from the Oort cloud and we should see a Lulu later this year.

ETA: I missed your claim about the Kuiper belt.

What fool said that objects in the Kuiper belt are nowhere near cometary size. If anything they are too large, since we would of course observe the largest objects first.

It seems that you are getting your science claims from a lying source.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

yeah but what you did was flood the air waves with an much information as you can and hope that someone will be overwhelmed with the amount of information and not know where to start.

you could start by reading at least the abstracts.

I mean instead of just ACCUSING me of posting trash.

like I said before if I genuinely offended you, I apologize. But whats happening here is I am telling you that all the time you have spent the last 5-10 years, all the money you spent....was a lie.

You may come out with a degree and a job, but at the sacrifice of what?

morals?

at least I am not " moral" like you. Incessantly rude and poorly educated.

Is that what your biblically based learnings have wrought?

You incessantly insult and belittle AND WON'T EVEN MAN UP AND ACCEPT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO!

Little man with a big ego.

I mean you can't tell me that when woodmorappe tells us of all the hypocrisy in dating methods, like What do you think of another term "cooling ages"? Or rejuvinated isochrons? "so-called "rejuvenated" isochrons are being invoked on an ad-hoc basis, as high-grade metamorphic events are no longer believed to be necessary to disturb the Rb-Sr isochron system"

what about those orwellian terms?

I am glad you got SOMETHING from a high school english class...but I don't think it means what you think it means when you call technical terms " orwellian". At least you spelled it right which a refreshing change for you.

 

[Tomk80]

okay so this would be what I am talking about,

it's a Non-Sequitur obviously,

meaning you don't actually have the information so you flood the thread with link spamming.

Nice try.

Again do you or do you not have simply one single edition of a peer review regarding the annuality of varves over the semiannual varves

Gradyll, you asked for peer-reviewed articles that the varves are annual. Lucy provided multiple ones. You could have picked any single one and start there. Instead, you accuse Lucy of dishonest tactics and then spam a non-peer reviewed article. I can't help thinking that you were more than a little dishonest with your orginal request.

Of course, this doesn't surprise me, given that you balked at college level text book references. College level text books contain information that is considered settled by the scientific community. It is a simplified overview of the state-of-the-art in the field, and thus derives from the peer-reviewed literature. It should be your (and I do mean your) starting point in this discussion, given the abysmal lack of basic knowledge you have shown in this field. That you balk at these textbooks again tells me a lot about the honesty with which you enter into this discussion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Gradyll, you asked for peer-reviewed articles that the varves are annual. Lucy provided multiple ones. You could have picked any single one and start there. Instead, you accuse Lucy of dishonest tactics and then spam a non-peer reviewed article. I can't help thinking that you were more than a little dishonest with your orginal request.

Of course, this doesn't surprise me, given that you balked at college level text book references. College level text books contain information that is considered settled by the scientific community. It is a simplified overview of the state-of-the-art in the field, and thus derives from the peer-reviewed literature. It should be your (and I do mean your) starting point in this discussion, given the abysmal lack of basic knowledge you have shown in this field. That you balk at these textbooks again tells me a lot about the honesty with which you enter into this discussion.

The original positive statment about varves was given by her, so the burden of proof lies with her,

If I gave any positive statement about varves, I would have given a peer review.

I only made negative statements, i.e. "not every varve is annual" etc.

the burden of proof still lies in her court.

I produce articles showing my view, but do I in no mean use those articles as my sole argument as I do have any burden yet.

Secondly, you missed the whole section on peer review, coming this late in the game.

Evolutionist have repeatedly told me that my peer review documents are not in fact peer review for one reason or another, so I accempted their challenge and now only accept peer review of certain standards.

Is a PHd bad?

no it is a good thing, it makes sure that the peer review is in fact legitimate.

So I didn't mind.

Thirdly, many of the peer reviews in her list were non sequitor, meaning they did not have anything to do with the topic and were listed as a distraction of fact to gain an audience. None had to do specifically with "annual varves", all she could find was a college essay on it from indiana university I believe.

Which hardly qualifies as peer review,

So If you can help her out, I would appreciate it!

Just find one peer review having to do with "annual" varves, as this is the debate in topic.

Peer review author(s) must all have PhD or equivelant in related field of study (Geology),

There are other things evolutionists have challenged me before regarding the peer reviews I submitted, but I won't bother you with any more details,

Simply find one, thats it.

We can go from there.

thanks for the comment

 

[createdtoworship]

you could start by reading at least the abstracts.

I mean instead of just ACCUSING me of posting trash.



at least I am not " moral" like you. Incessantly rude and poorly educated.

Is that what your biblically based learnings have wrought?

You incessantly insult and belittle AND WON'T EVEN MAN UP AND ACCEPT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO!

Little man with a big ego.




I am glad you got SOMETHING from a high school english class...but I don't think it means what you think it means when you call technical terms " orwellian". At least you spelled it right which a refreshing change for you.

well all of this started with a quote from woodmorrape, the only text I have literally quoted this whole forum!

So if you can't answer the only text book I have quoted, then at least we all know where you stand.

The other accusations about morals, lies, dishonesty.....are basless and are simply ad hominems and strawmans to promote your agenda here on a christian forum.

 

[createdtoworship]

Space, on the average is dang cold, in case you forgot. Even the temperature at the Earth's orbit is below 0 C.

And no, short term comets come from the Kuiper belt. Objects in the Kuiper belt have been observed, now that technology has improved enough. We do observe objects in the Oort cloud occasionally. Long period comets are from the Oort cloud and we should see a Lulu later this year.

ETA: I missed your claim about the Kuiper belt.

What fool said that objects in the Kuiper belt are nowhere near cometary size. If anything they are too large, since we would of course observe the largest objects first.

It seems that you are getting your science claims from a lying source.

the kuiper belt has huge comets, nothing the size of what we see in the universe as considered short term. That is the only thing observed! you literaly have no other answer for short term comets other than the kuiper belt, seconldy you have no other answer for long term comets! As the Oort cloud was something completely fabricated in order to explain for the existence of flying comets in an "old" universe- (thats cold) but also in a universe that is constantly tearing the ice from the comet! As you can tell the tails on the comets are ice trails! Meaning every comet is literally falling apart at the seams! (generally speaking). Basically flying ice should not last millions of years, and not billions. Maybe thousands, maaaayyybbee.

So there is evidence for a young universe!

but this really has nothing to do with seashells, and the flood.

So message me if you want more info.

(It is really not fair to debate astronomy with geologists)

however continental drift (modified by continental sprint from a christian global flood creationist)

was formally invented not by a geologist, but by an astronomist!

as because He was a lettered person, His view was accepted while the Bible guy in the 1800's,

His view was forgotten.

So now everyone thinks continental drift was invented by an evolutionist, when it was invented by a creationist and adapted to a slower time scale.

but anyway thats another issue.

thanks for the comment