Lake Suigetsu, the Flood and Objects of Known Age

[shinbits]

The graph even shows more than 40,000 layers (closing to 50,000), so that 6.66 per year number is out.

And even if it wasn't...so what?

But that's still about 11 layers a year, after the flood.

Why is this a problem?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

But that's still about 11 layers a year, after the flood.

Why is this a problem?

Because Varves are formed at the rate of one per year and unless you can tell us how they would be produced at a greater rate, 6000 yrs is impossible.

What is your purported mechanism?

 

[jwu]

But that's still about 11 layers a year, after the flood.

Why is this a problem?

That'd be 11 layers a year if they had time to form until now, but due to the C14 dating and the C14 dating of objects of known age you have way less than 4400 years.

E.g. if the oldest object of recorded history is 4000 years old and even creationists accept the C14 dating of that object (which they have to if it fits), then that leaves only 400 years to form these layers - a hundred per year.

And even the 11 per year figure already is utopical. Two per year have been observed rarely. 11 per year over 4400 years is utopical, saying that 100 per year formed for hundreds of years and they still look like today's annual layers is completely delusional.
.

 

[JohnR7]

Because Varves are formed at the rate of one per year

Where is your evidence for this one layer per year theory?

 

[jwu]

The way how we see them forming today, and their composition. They contain pollen, remains of algae and so on which are characteristic for changing seasons.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Where is your evidence for this one layer per year theory?

Its not a Theory, it is the definition. Roughly the annual layer of deposits in a lake including the seasonal variations.

The question is if there are 40 - 50 K in 6 K years, how did they get there.

 

[jwu]

The question is if there are 40 - 50 K in 6 K years, how did they get there.

Especially when we know that even by creationist standards the upmost 4000 or so layers really are annual ones, which leaves only a few hundred years for the rest to form if one assumes that a global flood took place 4400 years ago.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Of course the varve champion is Lake Baikal in Russia which has a sedimentary record that records climate fluctuations over about 5 million years without the slightest indication of a global flood.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Of course the varve champion is Lake Baikal in Russia which has a sedimentary record that records climate fluctuations over about 5 million years without the slightest indication of a global flood.

That is easily explained by the fact that Lake Baikal was in a communist country for the last 100 years and so the Atheists had plenty of time to falsify the evidence. (tongue in cheek smiley)

Actually, that was very informative, Thank You.

 

[jwu]

So...are there no serious attempts to explain this?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Where is your evidence for this one layer per year theory?

particle size depends on the temperature.
distinct layers of fine and coarser particles.
pollen deposited only when the trees blossum.


rinse and repeat.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

How? Why would the flood make varves that look exactly like those being laid down no with no "break in the action"? Why would the C14 in varves laid down in a flood year just happen to decrease in proportion to their position just like those laid down now? Why would there be a correlation to tree ring chronologies by C14? There is a good page on this HERE. Why would the lake varve and tree ring data not only correlate but also correlate with data from ice cores and coral couplets as discussed HERE? There is no possible way to fit the lake varve, tree ring, coral and ice core data calibrating C14 dating into a YEC global flood framework.

I thought I would just bump this thread. The OP, Post 20 and the pages I linked all show conclusively that there was no global flood in the last 40-50 thousand years and further show no evidence of any change in the laws of physics.

To postulate change in the laws of physics that could cause tree rings, coral couplets and lake varves in lakes in different parts of the world to somehow not only begin to form rapidly with no change in their structures or appearance but to also have correlated reductions in C14 that make them all continue to appear to be produced annually just as they are now and just as they were in the past is no different than to claim that earth was created last thursday with the appearance of age. It just pushes last thursday back to some thursday 4,000-5,000 years ago.

There are many refutations of YEC but this one is sufficient in and of itself to show that the earth is far more than 6,000 years old and that the flood of Noah was not a glboal event. .

 

[steen]

And we now have an index of ice cores going back about 500,000 years

 

[Oonna]

So...are there no serious attempts to explain this?

DUH!!!! Of course i can explain it. God did it to trick you!!! He wants you to have faith and ignore all this science mumble jumble so you dont get led astray by EVIL!!! Only those who have so much faith that they can ignore the world around them will be let into heaven!!!

 

[vitodabona]

DUH!!!! Of course i can explain it. God did it to trick you!!! He wants you to have faith and ignore all this science mumble jumble so you dont get led astray by EVIL!!! Only those who have so much faith that they can ignore the world around them will be let into heaven!!!

Wrong!!!!!!
It was quite obviously Loci or maybe Satan!!!!!!!

 

[jwu]

I thought I would just bump this thread. The OP, Post 20 and the pages I linked all show conclusively that there was no global flood in the last 40-50 thousand years and further show no evidence of any change in the laws of physics.

I take a bump of my thread as a compliment...thanks!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I take a bump of my thread as a compliment...thanks!

You're welcome.

YECs often claim they look at the same data and interpret it differently but in many cases such as this one they actually provide no logical scientific interpretation. This is one of many cases wher I have never seen a scientific interpretation that fits with a young earth and recent global flood.

 

[JohnR7]

there was no global flood in the last 40-50 thousand years and further show no evidence of any change in the laws of physics.

There was a global flood at the end of the last ice age and we are still to some degree feeling the effects of that now. People are having to decide now if in places like Venice are they going to try to save the city, or just let it go underwater.

 

[azmurath]

There was a global flood at the end of the last ice age and we are still to some degree feeling the effects of that now. People are having to decide now if in places like Venice are they going to try to save the city, or just let it go underwater.

A Global Flood is a physical impossibility, you just think the very minute evidence that shows there could ahve been outweighs the massive piles of evidence that shows that it could not have happened.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There was a global flood at the end of the last ice age and we are still to some degree feeling the effects of that now. People are having to decide now if in places like Venice are they going to try to save the city, or just let it go underwater.

John,

How many times do you have to be told that flooding of coastal areas around the globe after the last ice age is not the same as a global flood that covered the entire earth at one time including all the highest mountains?

As far as I can tell you are not a YEC so why are you continually trying to move YEC flood geology threads off topic? Wait, don't even answer. The question for this thread is whether any believer in a recent global flood that covered the entire earth at the same time about 5,000 years ago can explain the data in the OP and the data linked in post 10 and those presented in post 20.

The Frumious Bandersnatch