The Flood: Varves

[Remus]

Oh, no, I think that varves falsify both a recent global flood AND a young earth.

This was not your original argument.

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.

I'm not so sure it would be "very different". I would expect the runoff to be rather fast and not some slow drainage.

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.

Yes, some have proposed this, but I don't see why you would expect me to consider that or defend it if I don't necessarily believe it to be the case. If you want to debate what others say, then perhaps you should talk to them instead of me.

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?

I've said this many times now and I'm beginning to wonder if you are reading what I'm saying. I don't believe that they are pristine layers that are exactly alike throughout. This is something that has yet to be established.

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?

What do you mean by "significant"?

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.

No, I just have to make a case for a possible solution that refutes your original argument. I really don't have to convince anyone.

 

[Vance]

The geologists use the varve sequences to determine annual sedimentary layers. These go back through and past the date of any proposed flood and the geologists describe no break in the layering process which would indicated a catastrophic flood. This is entirely sufficient, by any reasonable standard, to provide a prima facie case that no such flood occured, thus switching the burden of proof.

So, the burden would be on someone claiming a worldwide flood to show that such a flood could have happened and still be consistent with the evidence. Do you think that if such an argument could be made, some Creationist "scientist" would not have made it by now?

And, again, what do you mean by "run-off"? We are talking about deep glacial lakes. A global flood would come in and temporarily bury the basin in which the lake sits, then would recede down to the level of the original lake surface, and now the lake would be full of "flood" water rather than the water previously in it. All of that stuff would settle on the bottom over the year that the flood water took to recede. Then the next year's glacial melt would come.

Now, do you really think the sedimentary layer would be sufficiently identical to the other layers (within a given degree of variation) to not be a dramatic break in the pattern? Sufficient for a trained geologist to be able to notice?

 

[Remus]

The geologists use the varve sequences to determine annual sedimentary layers. These go back through and past the date of any proposed flood and the geologists describe no break in the layering process which would indicated a catastrophic flood.

The problem is there are usually "events" (floods, volcanic ash, etc...) in varve layers which they use to correlate dates with other varves. I would think it would be odd if these layers are missing something like this.

This is entirely sufficient, by any reasonable standard, to provide a prima facie case that no such flood occured, thus switching the burden of proof.

All we have is your claim so far. In fact, I can find very few details of the Scandinavian varves.

So, the burden would be on someone claiming a worldwide flood to show that such a flood could have happened and still be consistent with the evidence.

Again, we just have your claim.

Do you think that if such an argument could be made, some Creationist "scientist" would not have made it by now?

I haven't seen anyone raise this Scandinavian issue before (except here), which is why I thought it would be interesting to take on. Perhaps there's a reason for that.

And, again, what do you mean by "run-off"? We are talking about deep glacial lakes. A global flood would come in and temporarily bury the basin in which the lake sits, then would recede down to the level of the original lake surface, and now the lake would be full of "flood" water rather than the water previously in it. All of that stuff would settle on the bottom over the year that the flood water took to recede. Then the next year's glacial melt would come.

Run-off of the flood waters. I mean something faster than "recede down". Like draining off. Or rushing on its way to get out of there. Like someone pulled the drain plug.

Now, do you really think the sedimentary layer would be sufficiently identical to the other layers (within a given degree of variation) to not be a dramatic break in the pattern? Sufficient for a trained geologist to be able to notice?

As I said previously, I don't believe they would be identical. I'm just speculating that they could be mistaken as something else. Like one of those "events" that we see in most of the other varves. To know for sure, we really need a good description of these varves.

 

[Vance]

Well lets take the one that we DO have the detailed evidence for, the one I posted earlier for you. Do you see any evidence there of an anomoly which would explain the flood? Again, I think this data provides a prima facie case which would now need to be rebutted.

In the meantime, I will try and track down the data on the Scandanavian lakes I read about. But the one I linked to would seem just as good an exemplar.

As for the pulling the plug idea, again think of a deep-water lake. It would never BE drained. It would never run off as you describe. Think of a bowl of koolaid sitting in a sink. Then you let the sink fill up with tap water. The bowl stays on the bottom, but the koolaid in the bowl gets completely intermixed with the rest of the tap water. Now, you drain the sink, with the bowl still sitting on the bottom. Now, as the water recedes in the sink, would there be any major run-off out of the bowl? No, the water would just recede down below the level of the bowl and the bowl would still be full, but now with a different liquid mixture.

 

[Remus]

Well lets take the one that we DO have the detailed evidence for, the one I posted earlier for you. Do you see any evidence there of an anomoly which would explain the flood? Again, I think this data provides a prima facie case which would now need to be rebutted.

Okay, I'll read it again.

As for the pulling the plug idea, again think of a deep-water lake. It would never BE drained. It would never run off as you describe.

I was thinking on a global scale. I didn't mean to imply that the lake would drain.

 

[Remus]

Well lets take the one that we DO have the detailed evidence for, the one I posted earlier for you. Do you see any evidence there of an anomoly which would explain the flood? Again, I think this data provides a prima facie case which would now need to be rebutted.

The article doesn't mention the "event" layers that are sure to be there, so I really can't say based on that one article. If you want to see what I'm talking about on these "event" layers, just google "glacial lakes varves events" or something like that.

 

[Vance]

Ah, then that study may not be helpful to us in answering this very specific question. Your idea is that the flood WOULD leave an "event" layer, but that it would not be so dramatically different as to not be confused with some other "event". I find this highly unlikely, since there would be NO event like a global flood, but that is just an argument from incredulity and I can't use that argument since I am not a YEC. ;0)

I will have to ask around about it to those who know more, or we can wait for Glenn to come and give us some more information.

 

[Remus]

Ah, then that study may not be helpful to us in answering this very specific question. Your idea is that the flood WOULD leave an "event" layer, but that it would not be so dramatically different as to not be confused with some other "event".

I can see this as possible, yes. Depends on a lot of factors, so I'm not going to say this for sure.

I find this highly unlikely, since there would be NO event like a global flood, but that is just an argument from incredulity and I can't use that argument since I am not a YEC. ;0)

Har har.

I will have to ask around about it to those who know more, or we can wait for Glenn to come and give us some more information.

ok

 

[Vance]

Here is another issue on this point. The entire Creationist "flood geology" is based on the idea that the geological column we have is based on the flood laying down the entire column at the time of the flood. Tons of sediment settling itself all over the world into the distinct layers we see today. Without the flood doing this, they have a real problem with the geologic column. While this "flood geology" has many other "issues", I see a real problem with the varves.

How could that type of flood leave the entire geologic column with all those layers of rock and sediment (and fossils) over the rest of the planet, but leave an ongoing sequence of annual varve layers in a given lake untouched, other than possibly an additional "event" layer?

 

[Remus]

Here is another issue on this point. The entire Creationist "flood geology" is based on the idea that the geological column we have is based on the flood laying down the entire column at the time of the flood.

Is this accurate? Most that I've seen dispute the quality of the geological column.

 

[gluadys]

Ah, then that study may not be helpful to us in answering this very specific question. Your idea is that the flood WOULD leave an "event" layer, but that it would not be so dramatically different as to not be confused with some other "event". I find this highly unlikely, since there would be NO event like a global flood, but that is just an argument from incredulity and I can't use that argument since I am not a YEC. ;0)

I will have to ask around about it to those who know more, or we can wait for Glenn to come and give us some more information.

I am just guessing here, but it seems to me that while the flood waters were above the level of the lake, sediment from the flood waters would precipitate in a fairly uniform way across the whole lake bottom, effectively burying any and all varves that occurred pre-flood.

So what we should have is varves from post-flood to now, beneath that a layer of flood sediment, and beneath that pre-flood varves. The flood sediments should be a distinctive layer that effects all of the lake bottom, not just the area of glacial run-off that produces the varves.

 

[Remus]

I am just guessing here, but it seems to me that while the flood waters were above the level of the lake, sediment from the flood waters would precipitate in a fairly uniform way across the whole lake bottom, effectively burying any and all varves that occurred pre-flood.

So what we should have is varves from post-flood to now, beneath that a layer of flood sediment, and beneath that pre-flood varves. The flood sediments should be a distinctive layer that effects all of the lake bottom, not just the area of glacial run-off that produces the varves.

It’s possible, but I tend to think that when the floodwaters drained off, it would churn up the lake sufficiently to disrupt any layer that was laid down while the floodwaters were over the lake. I’d think that the drainage would also pull a lot of ‘stuff’ off of the glacier so after the floodwaters were gone, it would settle down and there’d be a layer that would be a combination of whatever came out of the floodwater and some sediment off of the glacier. I think it would be safe to assume that it would take several years to fully clear out, so there would be some differences in the layers, but I have to wonder just how obvious it would be since there are so many layers and they vary in a lot of ways.

But then, I’m just guessing too.

 

[Vance]

Is this accurate? Most that I've seen dispute the quality of the geological column.

It has been a while since I read the flood geology stuff, but yes, they do dispute the quality of the geologic column as it is understood by science. But what I mean is that what we DO have, all the layers of sediment, rock, etc, that we see just about anywhere we dig, is attributed to the flood. The Creationist idea in general is that the flood deposited tons and tons of sediment which sorted itself into layers as it came down and then became the rock layers we see.

In short, they see all of the geological layers as being laid down during the flood year. I just don't see how this squares with varves.

 

[Remus]

It has been a while since I read the flood geology stuff

You should read up on it then because what you are presenting it a big fat straw man.

 

[Vance]

You should read up on it then because what you are presenting it a big fat straw man.

Then feel free to correct me on what the flood geology really says about the amount of sediment that was deposited by the flood. I could very well be wrong on this point, but that is my recollection and it is what I have seen YEC's argue before.

 

[Remus]

You know the websites. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Vance]

You know the websites. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Well, you are the one saying I got it wrong, and that they don't say that about the sediment. If you have a source that shows that I got it wrong, just say so. Why play coy with it?

 

[Remus]

Well, you are the one saying I got it wrong, and that they don't say that about the sediment. If you have a source that shows that I got it wrong, just say so. Why play coy with it?

Let's see. You make a claim and I have to back up that it's false? That doesn't seem right. Why don't you provide a source for what you said?

 

[Vance]

This flood geology has been discussed by Creationists for decades, it is not some big secret, and even a former YEC author who knows the Creationist flood geology better than any of us (Glenn), has recently discussed their views in his threads on the other forum. If you think that I have mistated the general flood geology, but refuse to provide the source for that rebuttal, then I will go and track it down.

 

[Vance]

Here is one I found on the first search I did:

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologyflood.html