The Flood: Varves

[Remus]

The glacial lakes in Scandanavia show uninterupted yearly deposits going back to the last ice age, more than 10,000 years ago. If there had been a global flood, there is no way this sequence would look as it does. While some YEC organizations make an attempt to respond to the Green River varves, described below, since it is so dramatic, they tend to ignore the Scandanavian glacial lake varves.

Just so I understand, what would it look like if there was a flood?

 

[Vance]

Just so I understand, what would it look like if there was a flood?

Well, first of all, a global flood that could do all the things that it would have had to do (ie, cut the Grand Canyon) would almost assuredly have destroyed all the pre-existing varve layers. If it could shake up all the bones and create a psuedo-geologic column, sorting them out from highest to lowest, laying down all the basic sedimentary layers that we now see all at one time (which is what the YEC scientists assert), it surely could not leave thousands of thin, consistent layers perfectly in place.

Second, remember that these varves in particular are created in glacial lakes from the annual run-off of the glacier melt during the summer. The varves look basically the same in the beginning as they do now, so we know that the glacier creating the particular type of sediment making up the layer must have been there all that time. Now, if we had a global flood, it would be nearly impossible for that glacier to survive in sufficiently the same form to produce the same sedimentary mix and thickness, etc, year after year.

Third, even assuming that the flood didn't disturb the earlier layers, and didn't effect the glacier at all, think about the sedimentary layer that would impose itself on this sequence during the flood year itself! It is simply impossible for it not to leave behind a major sedimentary layer interrupting the sequence. But there is no such interruption. You go back all those thousands and thousands of years, and you have one little double layer after another, nice and easy, all the way up to the present.

Glenn, being an actual geologist, could probably explain all this better.

 

[Remus]

Okay, got a few more questions for you if I may. Just need to clarify what you are saying since parts can be misunderstood.

You say that these varves look the same, but what do you mean by that? Are they the same thickness, the same chemical composition, etc...?

Why do you say that the glacier would not be able to survive a flood?

Are you saying that there's nothing but the same type of varve throughout the entire core samples?

That'll do for now.

 

[Vance]

Yes, the varves in these glacial lakes are generally the same thickness, the same sedimentary composition, etc.

As for the glacier not surviving a global flood, think of an ice cube in water. We are not talking about the type of water we have in the arctic regions, but a suddenly rising and filling body of water, which would thus be generally uniform in temperature.

Really, it just won't work.

Edit to add: actually, I think the flood "geologies" assert that there were no glaciers before the flood, since the world was in a kind of "greenhouse" environment, with a firmament of water over the earth, and all was watered through a form of moisture osmosis, since it had never rained, according to the literal reading of the text. I could be wrong, since it has been a few years since I read through all the flood geology stuff.

 

[Remus]

Okay, I'm going to need a little time to refresh my memory on some calculations. I'll get back to you when I get an idea of what kind of impact a flood would have on a glacier of this size. While we're waiting for this, can you provide me with a reliable source that verifies that these varves are uniform? This should be easy to find since that would be quite different from other glacial lake varves. By reliable, I mean a source that is only starting the facts and doesn't have the ‘fundamentalist Christians say' kind of statement.

Also, I’ll need to know what you are basing your assumption of the water being “generally uniform in temperature”. This is another thing that would be I believe would be highly unlikely.

 

[Vance]

The glacial lake information came from a study done by a Scandanavian scientist, IIRC, and it was not in response to anything to do with Creationism. I studied this many years ago, and had to track that study down. I will see if I can do it again.

As for the water being generally uniform, how could it be otherwise. You have a bunch of water coming down within 40 days from a very specific sources, either from the rain or the underground springs. Uniform source = uniform temperature, no?

But, regardless, the real kicker is the existence of the varves before a date given for the flood, and the complete lack of any significantly different layer. Think about what a sedimentary layer would look like after the flood.

I will try to track down that study.

 

[Remus]

The glacial lake information came from a study done by a Scandanavian scientist, IIRC, and it was not in response to anything to do with Creationism. I studied this many years ago, and had to track that study down. I will see if I can do it again.

Let me know when you find it.

As for the water being generally uniform, how could it be otherwise. You have a bunch of water coming down within 40 days from a very specific sources, either from the rain or the underground springs. Uniform source = uniform temperature, no?

For the water to be uniform, it would have to come from the same source at the same location. There's no reason to expect that. Rain comes down at different temperatures all over the earth and underground springs are different temperatures as well. I see no possibility that the water would be a uniform temperature.

But, regardless, the real kicker is the existence of the varves before a date given for the flood, and the complete lack of any significantly different layer.

After we see the source, we can make this determination.

Think about what a sedimentary layer would look like after the flood.

I'd think that one would have to know where the sediment came from to determine this. Would it not come from the same place as in the normal case, rain/snow, runoff? How would such a layer look compared to the other layers? And how would this water running off effect the varves that were there? But I'm getting ahead of myself. I really don't want to give an argument without the source. Let's see what it says and go from there.

 

[Vance]

In my search for the study I mentioned, I came across this study which discusses a glacial lake in Japan. You can see how they do their work, analyze their degree of error, etc.

http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm

Now, as for a "flood" sedimentary layer, think about what is happening in a world-wide flood. The entire planet is covered in water, that lake is just another part of the "bottom of the sea". So, after all the rain, etc, all the sediment that was mixed up and shifting all over the globe (remember this is a flood which would need to be violent enough to carve the Grand Canyon) would then begin to settle onto the bottom, including on the bottom of the depression where the lake had been, and, presumably would be again. How could THAT sediment landing on the bottom be the same as the annual sediments coming in from the run off of a glacier, before and after (assuming that a glacier could be there both before and after)?

You would have to develop a theory as to how the sedimentary layer that would occur as a result of the flood period would look the same as all the rest of them. I just can't see how that could possibly be.

 

[Remus]

In my search for the study I mentioned, I came across this study which discusses a glacial lake in Japan. You can see how they do their work, analyze their degree of error, etc.

http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm

I scimmed it, but I'll read it in more detail later.

Now, as for a "flood" sedimentary layer, think about what is happening in a world-wide flood. The entire planet is covered in water, that lake is just another part of the "bottom of the sea". So, after all the rain, etc, all the sediment that was mixed up and shifting all over the globe (remember this is a flood which would need to be violent enough to carve the Grand Canyon) would then begin to settle onto the bottom, including on the bottom of the depression where the lake had been, and, presumably would be again. How could THAT sediment landing on the bottom be the same as the annual sediments coming in from the run off of a glacier, before and after (assuming that a glacier could be there both before and after)?

You would have to develop a theory as to how the sedimentary layer that would occur as a result of the flood period would look the same as all the rest of them. I just can't see how that could possibly be.

No, I don't think I was clear. Again, we're getting into this more than I'm ready to, but I would like to pose a possibility and ask you to tell me if you truly think that it isn't possible. Let's say all of this is under water and assume that it doesn't have any noticeable effect on the glacier (I'll calculate it later and see if this is a safe assumption). When this water drains off, this water pulls the majority of what was laid down and most likely some of the varves along with it. As it is draining off of the glacier, it pulls the sediment off of the glacier which some of it ends up in the lake. I'm sure that some sediment from the flood waters could stay and be missed. After all, we are talking about A LOT of layers and the possibility of them all being tested is not plausible. And since the Grand Canyon theory is based on the drainage as well, it fits this as well. Anyway, this is just speculation at this point. I don't want to get bogged down into details that we don't have.

 

[Xaero]

First of all i must say this is really hard evidence and some points are difficult if not impossible to explain otherwise to fit in a YEC scenario.

But some points are wrong: AiG and other creationists don't assume that all varves laid down in a single flood year. Maybe the lakes were created by the flood and after this they began to deposit the sediments.
If most of the varves were laid down in perhaps 3000 years this would be an average accumulation of one varve in 1-2 hours. This could allow footprints , corpolites, flutes etc.
The fossilized fish were muscle fibres etc. were still be visible shows that rapid accumulation must happened, your example with the two dead bodies is not a good example for preservation because a rusty ironcage (the car) isn't a realistic chemical environment like it's found in a lake. This could explain the preservation.

But the seasonal order of pollen is a striking evidence for annual layers. The validity for 7000 varves (Heer) shows that it must be 7000 years. A sorting mechanisms through water flows/gravity etc. cannot explain why it is sorted seasonally. That would be great chance!
Also the cyclicity through sun spots, equinox and the eccentricy , if true, cannot be explained. This data fits only in an older earth.

At last we have the correlation betwenn radiocarbondating and the counting of the layers (Lake Suigetsu is also a good example). Creationists don't assume that C14 dating is totally wrong, but the dating gets stretched in the past because of a lower c14 (raises immediately after the flood) in the atmosphere. But the correlation is too evident. The only possibility can be that the guys who dated the varves were cousins of Prof. Protsch von Zieten who used "mental dating".
The final conclusion is : when the details mentioned in your well written essay about Green River are true, there must be something wrong with the view of young earthers. Or in other words, the earth seems a bit older and their interpretation of genesis is somehow a 'bit' wrong.

Finally i have to say, there are some details i never seen before, but blame it to the guys from talkorigins ( expecting some good written essays from scientists most of the information there is second hand, they are more trying to defend darwinian evolutionary mechanisms) - i never found such a detailed workout about the problems of a young earth, even when some points can be explained (fast sedimentation because of well preserved carcasses) - this evidence is more against the common view of the YECs.

I was always trying to be original not just copying what ICR or AiG said, i wanted to elaborate my views from 'hard data' and from the scripture .But this detailed data changed my mind a bit, but not my strong faith in Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour

Final conclusion: Eccentricity, seasonal Pollen, cyclicity of sun spots etc. (i know there are more problems for a young earth view) MUST be explained in a YEC view. Until this happens, i step back a little from my YEC activity, because i didn't have the knowledge and the ressources to do it myself.

Psalm 119,67 " Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word. "

 

[Vance]

Xaero, that is probably the most honest post by a Creationist I have ever read.

 

[grmorton]

I was always trying to be original not just copying what ICR or AiG said, i wanted to elaborate my views from 'hard data' and from the scripture .But this detailed data changed my mind a bit, but not my strong faith in Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour

I am glad of this last statement. It is not my desire to hurt people's faith. It is my desire to get people to realize that their theological position has real trouble.

Final conclusion: Eccentricity, seasonal Pollen, cyclicity of sun spots etc. (i know there are more problems for a young earth view) MUST be explained in a YEC view. Until this happens, i step back a little from my YEC activity, because i didn't have the knowledge and the ressources to do it myself.

In 1986 I too had to step back from my publishing activity. (I had published about 28 YEC articles by that time. I knew in my heart there were deep problems with YEC and I knew that God called me to be honest with him with others and with myself. It was a very paiinful time.

For more data see http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14566668&posted=1#post14566668

 

[Vance]

While some YEC's might want to step away from the "age of the earth" question or even the global flood, due to evidences like these, I am not sure how they can and still insist with the same degree of assurety that their literal interpretation of Scripture is still the ONLY way it can be read.

 

[Vance]

Any last YEC attempts to address this issue?

 

[Remus]

I'm still owe you the calculations. I underestimated the complexity and the number of variables, and I also got sidetracked. I’m also still waiting on that source that states that the layers are uniform. Could you find that for me? Or can we assume that the layers are like most others and have some layers that differ? Like volcanic ash kind of thing or something else like that?

 

[Vance]

You know, I don't really know the degree of variation offhand other than what is mentioned in that one study I linked you too. Glenn might know though, and I will see if I can track that down.

 

[Remus]

Let me get your opinion on a few things that might help me with the calculation.
Of the floodwater and the water from the glacier, which do you think would have the higher density?
What would you expect the water temp to be?
What would you expect the ice temp to be?

 

[Vance]

Let me get your opinion on a few things that might help me with the calculation.
Of the floodwater and the water from the glacier, which do you think would have the higher density?
What would you expect the water temp to be?
What would you expect the ice temp to be?

Ah, now you are getting into an area outside my expertise, and I would let Glenn answer this one. But it would seem that the flood water would have the higher density, given that it would be more akin to saltwater, and would contain a much broader diversity of elements. The important point would be that it would be completely different than the other annual fresh water run off sediment layers which would have come before and after. It seems dramatically unlikely that that layer could look ANYTHING like the others.

But the varves issue raises two basic issues. First is that the layers are laid annually, in a very specific "double" sequence. First one of heavy sediment and then one of lighter sediment for each year. As soon as the Spring run-off comes, the heavy stuff immediately settles. During the rest of the year the lighter stuff settles. So, for each "double-layer" we have a year. Even if we forgot about the flood altogether, we still have to deal with the fact that these double layers go back more than 10,000 years in these glacial lakes (and coincide with the last ice age), and dramatically longer in other places not effected by the ice age.

The second issue is whether the "flood" can be seen in the varve layer record. If you can develop a convincing model which will explain how a global flood could not only fail to wipe out all these earlier layers, but could fail to leave any dramatic disruption of the layering process, I would be highly impressed! And, you would likely be elible for some type of Creationist award!

 

[Remus]

Ah, now you are getting into an area outside my expertise, and I would let Glenn answer this one.

Just now?

But it would seem that the flood water would have the higher density, given that it would be more akin to saltwater, and would contain a much broader diversity of elements.

Agreed. I'll go with that then.

The important point would be that it would be completely different than the other annual fresh water run off sediment layers which would have come before and after. It seems dramatically unlikely that that layer could look ANYTHING like the others.

I wouldn't expect it to either. I also wouldn't expect any layer, assuming that it could survive the run off, to stand out among the layers that were different among thousands of other layers.

But the varves issue raises two basic issues. First is that the layers are laid annually, in a very specific "double" sequence. First one of heavy sediment and then one of lighter sediment for each year. As soon as the Spring run-off comes, the heavy stuff immediately settles. During the rest of the year the lighter stuff settles. So, for each "double-layer" we have a year. Even if we forgot about the flood altogether, we still have to deal with the fact that these double layers go back more than 10,000 years in these glacial lakes (and coincide with the last ice age), and dramatically longer in other places not effected by the ice age.

Your original argument is it falsifies a global flood. Wanting to change the argument now would be 'moving the goal post'. Besides, the age of the earth is a minor issue, which I believe I've said before.

The second issue is whether the "flood" can be seen in the varve layer record.

I'm not convinced that it would have to be seen or thought to be unusual. Can you tell me what you think such a layer would look like?

If you can develop a convincing model which will explain how a global flood could not only fail to wipe out all these earlier layers, but could fail to leave any dramatic disruption of the layering process, I would be highly impressed! And, you would likely be elible for some type of Creationist award!

If I could develop a model that would convince you, I should get the Nobel Peace Prize and probably every other award out there.

 

[Vance]

Oh, no, I think that varves falsify both a recent global flood AND a young earth. But what do you mean by "run-off", exactly? If you have a body of water, then a global flood, that body of water will be subsumed in the greater "body of water" and then entire "basin" will be filled with the new mixture. Then the waters recede, and the orginal basin is still there, and it would still be full of water, just a very different mixture of water.

Now, the first problem is that the "flood geology" promoted by Creationists has included MAJOR topographical changes, including the raising of mountains, etc, so we would wonder why there would still be a basin there to collect more layers. But, assuming that this particular formation (and every other one in which varves are found) escaped the topographical transformations, we would then have a basin still collecting annual run off as if nothing had happened, but for the flood year, we would have a dramatically different mixture of water in the basin. Why would it be that this event would both leave all the earlier layers in place and create a new layer that looks very much the same? The same sediment type, the same general thickness, etc. Wouldn't that be a major coincidence?

In fact, once the waters receded, there would be this new mixture of water there for a long time. How long would it take for the salty, mineral laden mixture to be replaced with the freshwater glacier run off? Today those lakes are pure freshwater runoff. How would that happen without leaving a significant trace behind?

Oh, and I am not really the one you would have to convince, but all those geologists who know exactly what would likely happen and why.