Scientific proof of flood.

[zeontes]

Evidence for the Ark:


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2222753#post2222753

WT

The link didn't work for me.

 

[h2whoa]

The link didn't work for me.

Me neither. Now there's a message!

h2

 

[Jet Black]

fine for me. what does it say for you chaps?

 

[zeontes]

Me neither. Now there's a message!

h2

That is as much evidence as anyone else has found.

 

[Jet Black]

oh silly me, I just realised that I just split that thread in two, and deleted the original, but I can get to the original because I am a moderator.

The relevant bit of the thread that WT wanted you to read is this bit:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2257020#post2257020

 

[zeontes]

oh silly me, I just realised that I just split that thread in two, and deleted the original, but I can get to the original because I am a moderator.

The relevant bit of the thread that WT wanted you to read is this bit:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/t118996

Now that is really roll on the floor humor!

 

[Jet Black]

Now that is really roll on the floor humor!

oi, I edited it. for some reason the software here deleted the php section. this should be it, in principle:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2257020#post2257020

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

No site, no research. Hmm...

I hate to have to say this but isn't your last statement hypocritical.

No it isn't. I've been over this countless times in the past and have even been to places like Wyoming to see varved formations.

My entire point was that you were neglecting the composition of varves.

If you ignore the dual composition of varves and their specificity to certain environments, you can postulate any explanation at all.

You are putting the conclusion of a global flood ahead of the evidence. You are ignoring even the most basic pieces of evidence regarding what varves actually are in terms of composition. You are neglecting that they involve alternating organic and freshwater evaporite/terrigenous clastics.

I gave you a site data and research showing why the varves in a specific case are not annual.

The website did not say that.

It certainly didn't support the conclusion of a global flood either, nor does such a case apply to all varved formations.

It supported how the chemistry and temperature of a lake combined with annual burial allowed for the burial and preservation of fish.

You have stated your opnion without a site or data or research.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact that you ignoring what the composition of varved formations is observed to be.

Generally speaking, varves are interbedded dark organic layers and lighter evaporite layers. (1) The dark organic layers are deceased organisms such as algae combined with fine grained sediments to form a kerogen-rich shale. (2) The lighter organic layers are evaporites and freshwater carbonates like trona, marlstones, and fine-grained micrite (a limestone or dolomite with a fine grained sedimentary matrix).

There are two problems you can't overcome by excusing them away by a global flood we already know did not happen: (1) their actual composition is not consistent with marine deposition and cannot account for the alternating organic layer which requires such organisms to exist for each layer to be deposited (you were only trying to address layers being deposited in general) and (2) there are fine grained sediments that require time to settle out of suspension. This doesn't happen in turbulent waters, especially when you submit recurrent tidal wave action that requries a new input of water particularly when you need several varve couplets to form rapidly in a matter of seconds (and going on for a year).

Here are abstracts regarding two different varved formations, that briefly go on about composition, which only confirms what I've been saying all along (and what you've been ignoring) and also confirms that lamination thickness is correlatable to seasonal changes.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001AGUFM.U12A0005M&db_key=PHY

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=7e03f6df02a349f4881ae39aaa64e3b1&referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,9;journal,24,67;linkingpublicationresults,1:100294,1

 

[duordi]

Here is site that you might find useful on the subject of both kinds of varves:

www.unr.edu/homepage/fbiondi/WeinheimerBiondi.pdf


One of my recent searches dealt with data concerning the end of the ice age. The last major cold snap of 1300 years duration was called the Younger Dryas here a few studies concerning that time frame. These graphs show the data used to come up with the dates for that event.

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/hughen2000/hughen2000.html

"Based on a marked change in ring-width and growth pattern, the YD termination is clearly identified in the German pine chronology. Its absolute age of 11,570 BP appears synchronous, within the errors of the respective chronologies, to related signals in the Greenland ice cores (GRIP, GISP2) and in lacustrine varve sequences."

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/scientific_foci/ql_dfg/friedrichabstract.html

So in this last source, they have an absolute age that appears synchronous using tree rings, C-14, ice cores and varve sequences. These folks are not trying to pull a fast one on us, they are using every means possible to come to an understanding of the world that we live in. I can understand the desire to have literal understanding of the Bible. I have come to accept that what is written in the Bible is the way that they believed it to be. To me that makes more sense than to try to fit the Bible into the five senses science category.

The senses and sciences are limited, take for instance walking on water: when it comes to walking on the water, 50 years ago there was nothing in the sciences that could explain how Peter and Jesus walked on the water. Yet slowly, but surely, science has come up with more and more information that indeed shows that matter is both particles and electromagnetic waves, energy. My mind takes that in. I can comprehend with my senses mind, if we can float a frog in mid air using a magnetic field, then certainly walking on water is possible. (I would bet there are some folks on this board who still do not believe that they walked on water.) So what if we cannot get to the flood through the senses or support the first few chapters of Genesis, that does not change the truth that we are here and that God is very real.

I know that God did not lie. I also know that men have embellished the texts as they saw fit to reflect what they believed. So I have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time trying to poke holes in what others have come up by way of the senses. The old trees exist, you can go see them in California. I have no doubt that if you line up the rings yourself you would see that they go back as far as they say. That is the nature of science, it has to be repeatable in order to pass peer reveiws. But it still does not change the truth, it just adjusts our understanding.

The data is fine.
The time scale is an assumption.
The fact that there data agees only proves that they have all chosen the same time scale.

I have been where you are and understand your perspective.
If you want to keep your faith in science don't check to see if anyone can prove the time scale is correct.
I have checked so for me its to late.

Duane

 

[duordi]

oi, I edited it. for some reason the software here deleted the php section. this should be it, in principle:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2257020#post2257020

A lot of interestion information.

I do have a question.

Why are there not hundreds of people on the site?

Is their some owner ship of the dig?

It would seem that qualified experts would be trying to get in on this even if it was only an outside chance of being in on the biggest find in our decade.

If not setting behind a desk isn't going to get them anywhere.

Duane

 

[duordi]

No it isn't. I've been over this countless times in the past and have even been to places like Wyoming to see varved formations.

My entire point was that you were neglecting the composition of varves.

If you ignore the dual composition of varves and their specificity to certain environments, you can postulate any explanation at all.

You are putting the conclusion of a global flood ahead of the evidence. You are ignoring even the most basic pieces of evidence regarding what varves actually are in terms of composition. You are neglecting that they involve alternating organic and freshwater evaporite/terrigenous clastics.



The website did not say that.

It certainly didn't support the conclusion of a global flood either, nor does such a case apply to all varved formations.

It supported how the chemistry and temperature of a lake combined with annual burial allowed for the burial and preservation of fish.



It's not an opinion. It's a fact that you ignoring what the composition of varved formations is observed to be.

Generally speaking, varves are interbedded dark organic layers and lighter evaporite layers. (1) The dark organic layers are deceased organisms such as algae combined with fine grained sediments to form a kerogen-rich shale. (2) The lighter organic layers are evaporites and freshwater carbonates like trona, marlstones, and fine-grained micrite (a limestone or dolomite with a fine grained sedimentary matrix).

There are two problems you can't overcome by excusing them away by a global flood we already know did not happen: (1) their actual composition is not consistent with marine deposition and cannot account for the alternating organic layer which requires such organisms to exist for each layer to be deposited (you were only trying to address layers being deposited in general) and (2) there are fine grained sediments that require time to settle out of suspension. This doesn't happen in turbulent waters, especially when you submit recurrent tidal wave action that requries a new input of water particularly when you need several varve couplets to form rapidly in a matter of seconds (and going on for a year).

Here are abstracts regarding two different varved formations, that briefly go on about composition, which only confirms what I've been saying all along (and what you've been ignoring) and also confirms that lamination thickness is correlatable to seasonal changes.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001AGUFM.U12A0005M&db_key=PHY

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=7e03f6df02a349f4881ae39aaa64e3b1&referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,9;journal,24,67;linkingpublicationresults,1:100294,1

Very good, now you are getting some where.

You did find some sites that have annual vavres as I have also found.

But no research indicating if varves can be caused by a rain cycle or not.

Well I guess I will keep searching.

Thanks for you help.

Duane

 

[leccy]

A lot of interestion information.

I do have a question.

Why are there not hundreds of people on the site?

Is their some owner ship of the dig?

It would seem that qualified experts would be trying to get in on this even if it was only an outside chance of being in on the biggest find in our decade.

If not setting behind a desk isn't going to get them anywhere.

Duane

Good point.

Apparantly many Turkish geologists who have examined the site in some detail have concluded that it's natural and isn't Noah's Ark. The point you raise is perfectly valid- if this were a huge ancient ship, those Muslim geologists would be falling over themselves to validate that theory (they after all have their own flood story) and yet that isn't happening. Where are the peer-reviewed reports claiming that this is an archeological site of such immense significance? Apparently they are not to be found in the Turkish literature or in journals with wider circulation. The Turkish authorities have protected the site by making it a National Park but, apparently, and I'm afraid all I have on this is an email from a geologist who has examined samples from the site so cannot provide a weblink to authenticate the claim, the money raised from foreign visitors to the site go towards funding their geological researches in other areas.

Oh and it wouldn't just be the find of the decade, the first modern recorded trips to look at the structure were in about 1960, it would be the archeological find of the Millenium. Or maybe not.

The guy who has done most to describe it, Ron Wyatt has also claimed to have found the Ark Of the Covenant, complete with the posthole into which the Cross was placed during the crucifixion. According to Wyatt the Ark also bears samples of Christ's blood, which reveals 23 chromosomes under the microscope! Not to mention him also having found the ruined cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, buried in brimstone, the chariot wheels of Pharoahs army underneath the Red Sea, the real Mount Sinai, complete with the stone tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and the split rock, Noah's Grave, Mrs Noah's Grave and sundry other minor items from the Bible. That's a pretty impressive collection of finds for one single amateur archaeologist in half a century of research. Indiana Jones would be proud of such prowess.

Little wonder that even the other Creationist organisations such as AIG and ICR advise not putting any credence on the claims of the now deceased Mr Wyatt and his followers.

 

[leccy]

Even if we, purely for the sake of argument, discount the issue of the composition of the varves that Mechanical Bliss has rightfully pointed out as being rather significant and accept the model that Duordi proposes, that each varve couplet represents a single rain cycle then I'm still at a loss as to how a year long flood could achieve this. The numbers just don't add up.

http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/varvetct.htm

Indicates that the number of varves in JUST ONE FORMATION would require the deposition of a varve couplet every 2 minutes, which would require some bizarre rain-sunshine cyclicity, repeated throughout the entire year and contrary to the Biblical account where the rains , iirc, lasted for 40 days and nights. remeber that this is just for the one formation and maintaining a perfectly predictable and repeatable sequence for the entire time, with little disruption of lacustrine sedimentation, whilst buried under a monstrous oceanic flood, within the same year as the other millions of cubic kilometres of sedimentary rocks of all types are being deposited above, below and all around this particular formation.

 

[duordi]

Good point.

Apparantly many Turkish geologists who have examined the site in some detail have concluded that it's natural and isn't Noah's Ark. The point you raise is perfectly valid- if this were a huge ancient ship, those Muslim geologists would be falling over themselves to validate that theory (they after all have their own flood story) and yet that isn't happening. Where are the peer-reviewed reports claiming that this is an archeological site of such immense significance? Apparently they are not to be found in the Turkish literature or in journals with wider circulation. The Turkish authorities have protected the site by making it a National Park but, apparently, and I'm afraid all I have on this is an email from a geologist who has examined samples from the site so cannot provide a weblink to authenticate the claim, the money raised from foreign visitors to the site go towards funding their geological researches in other areas.

Oh and it wouldn't just be the find of the decade, the first modern recorded trips to look at the structure were in about 1960, it would be the archeological find of the Millenium. Or maybe not.

The guy who has done most to describe it, Ron Wyatt has also claimed to have found the Ark Of the Covenant, complete with the posthole into which the Cross was placed during the crucifixion. According to Wyatt the Ark also bears samples of Christ's blood, which reveals 23 chromosomes under the microscope! Not to mention him also having found the ruined cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, buried in brimstone, the chariot wheels of Pharoahs army underneath the Red Sea, the real Mount Sinai, complete with the stone tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and the split rock, Noah's Grave, Mrs Noah's Grave and sundry other minor items from the Bible. That's a pretty impressive collection of finds for one single amateur archaeologist in half a century of research. Indiana Jones would be proud of such prowess.

Little wonder that even the other Creationist organisations such as AIG and ICR advise not putting any credence on the claims of the now deceased Mr Wyatt and his followers.

You misunderstood the intension of my question.

If there is no credible evidence for or against the site in the scientific communities opnion, then it is the duty of the scientific community to go and prove it one way or another.

Doesn't the fact that you could give no data disproving the site bother you.

To leave it to an armature and then criticize him is hypocritical.

Don't we claim to be guided by logic and information collection instead of emotion?

Are we scientists or anti-religious-fanatics that allow our social agenda to dominate our thoughts.

The evidence is strong enough to warrant a documented investigation.

If it is the Ark, fine, parts of the Bible have been proven correct before and the world did not end.

Also the investigation should not be done by someone with an agenda from either side.

More then the Ark, I think our reputation as scientists is at stake here.




The Turkish Government seems to be as afraid they will prove a part of the Koran
correct as the Western science is of providing a part of the Bible is correct.




Turkey is not a Muslim state and the leaders seem to like it that way.


Duane

 

[Numenor]

Turkey is not a Muslim state and the leaders seem to like it that way.

[oftopic]Turkey is not officially be a muslim state because the government want into the EU. But on a cultural, societal and religious level, it most certainly is a Musilm state.[/offtopic]

 

[duordi]

Even if we, purely for the sake of argument, discount the issue of the composition of the varves that Mechanical Bliss has rightfully pointed out as being rather significant and accept the model that Duordi proposes, that each varve couplet represents a single rain cycle then I'm still at a loss as to how a year long flood could achieve this. The numbers just don't add up.

http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/varvetct.htm

Indicates that the number of varves in JUST ONE FORMATION would require the deposition of a varve couplet every 2 minutes, which would require some bizarre rain-sunshine cyclicity, repeated throughout the entire year and contrary to the Biblical account where the rains , iirc, lasted for 40 days and nights. remeber that this is just for the one formation and maintaining a perfectly predictable and repeatable sequence for the entire time, with little disruption of lacustrine sedimentation, whilst buried under a monstrous oceanic flood, within the same year as the other millions of cubic kilometres of sedimentary rocks of all types are being deposited above, below and all around this particular formation.

Good question.

There would of course have to be a flood which reached a very high level.

The tidal effect would cause a varve to form twice a day ( two cycles in a 24 hour peroid )

Assuming of course the ocean had enough disruption to provide the proper sediment creation.

365 days x 2 cycles per day = 730 varves per year.

260,000 varves would take

260,000 varves / 730 varves per year = 357 years.

Of course varves would be caused by yearly cycles or rains etc. before and after the flood water level cause tidal varves.

The best varves would occur in a lake surrounded by high elevated edges with small inlets to enhance the sediment relocation.

Locations which are at high elevations would be expected to contain less varves then a lake at a lower elevation as the tidal varves would stop when the water level of the flood was to low to cause a tidal water movement in an out of the lake.

There are lakes which should be experiencing tidal varves at the present time if they are low enough to have ocean tides cause water movement in and out of an area and where settling of particles is allowed.

If a dead fish is 10 varves high then the fish would be covered with tidal varves in 5 days which is fast enough to produce an excellent fossil and does not require the fish to be preserved for 10 years while it is covered.

The Bible flood was 40 days of rain 150 days before the mountains were seen.

Noah was on the Ark over a year and the present Ark dig site is 10,000 feet above sea level on top of a mountian.

No information is given as to how long it would take to have the water go all the way down but it may still be elevated as made evident by the underwater pyramids recently found under 100 foot of water.

Duane

 

[duordi]

[oftopic]Turkey is not officially be a muslim state because the government want into the EU. But on a cultural, societal and religious level, it most certainly is a Musilm state.[/offtopic]

And if the Koran was proven true by the discovery of an Ark, it may become an official Muslim state?

Some people may loose their jobs, or even more then that.

Not all countries are as stable as the western nations.

Duane

 

[caravelair]

The tidal effect would cause a varve to form twice a day ( two cycles in a 24 hour peroid )

why would it have done that? tides don't create varves. we haven't observed that. the only way we have observed varves forming is on a semi-annual scale. also, some varve layers are so fine that they would take at least a month to settle. even if you could form one varve per month, there are still formations that are millions of layers thick.

 

[duordi]

why would it have done that? tides don't create varves. we haven't observed that. the only way we have observed varves forming is on a semi-annual scale. also, some varve layers are so fine that they would take at least a month to settle. even if you could form one varve per month, there are still formations that are millions of layers thick.

Waste treatment is a science.

A tank 30 foot high will settle out in about an hour.

several hours of setteling time is adiquate.

Duane

http://www.phadjustment.com/recycle/exmetl.htm

 

[caravelair]

Waste treatment is a science.

A tank 30 foot high will settle out in about an hour.

several hours of setteling time is adiquate.

Duane

http://www.phadjustment.com/recycle/exmetl.htm

but we're talking about varves, so this is totally irrelevant. you did not answer my question at all. why would tides produce varves when we never see them doing that?