The Flood: Varves

Remus · Apr 13, 2005

Check their wiki. It'll be more up to date.
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=CH550

Then you can check here for even more information.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

And I'm sure you can also use these sites to answer any other question that you might have.

Vance · Apr 13, 2005

Here is another from ICR explaining the sediment deposited by the flood:

http://www.icr.org/research/lv/index.html

I guess my question is whether you think the flood deposited the sediment that makes up the layers we see. Do you think the flood deposited deep layers of sediment all over the earth?

Remus · Apr 13, 2005

Vance said:
I guess my question is whether you think the flood deposited the sediment that makes up the layers we see. Do you think the flood deposited deep layers of sediment all over the earth?

I really don't know. I wouldn't expect there to be a layer all around the earth if that's what you are asking.

gluadys · Apr 13, 2005

Remus said:
Its 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[/c]. Id 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 thered 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, Im just guessing too.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean there was possibly churning action which stirred up flood sediments yet did not affect the pre-flood varves?

Remus · Apr 13, 2005

No, I'd guess that it would probably stir up some of the younger pre-flood varves too.

Vance · Apr 14, 2005

Remus, in case you are interested, here is another thread on varves in the other forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t36270-yec-flood-geology-revisted-varves.html

Remus · Apr 14, 2005

Yes, thank you. I've read it or at least one like it before.

In case you are interested, here's an article that is more up to date than the article on Lake Suigetsu.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5526/2453
But I'm sure that got it right... this time. Then again, it is a few years old.

gluadys · Apr 14, 2005

Remus said:
No, I'd guess that it would probably stir up some of the younger pre-flood varves too.

Exactly. And when the churning motion stopped, the sediments would still precipitate over the whole lake bottom, as I described earlier.

So we should still see (from present to past) post-flood varves, flood sediments, pre-flood varves. The flood sediments ought to make a distinct break in the varves.

But we do not see that.

Remus · Apr 14, 2005

Actually I addressed that in post #43. I know, long thread

gluadys · Apr 14, 2005

Remus said:
Actually I addressed that in post #43. I know, long thread

You mean this?

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.

I think that's a stretch. I don't think flood sediments could be confined to an annual varve "event" but would necessarily cover all pre-flood varves, and even destroy some of the more recent ones as you suggested.

But since neither of us are geologists, I guess we need to take that question to somebody who is.

Remus · Apr 14, 2005

gluadys said:
I think that's a stretch. I don't think flood sediments could be confined to an annual varve "event" but would necessarily cover all pre-flood varves, and even destroy some of the more recent ones as you suggested.

But since neither of us are geologists, I guess we need to take that question to somebody who is.

What do you mean by "an anual varve 'event'"? I agree that it would cover all pre-flood varves and such. I think it would actually cause the new varves for more than one year as well. I just contend that it wouldn't necessarly be obvious. Especially since they aren't looking for it.

"stretch"? possibly

grmorton · Apr 15, 2005

Remus said:
I'm still owe you the calculations. I underestimated the complexity and the number of variables, and I also got sidetracked. Im 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?

Safely moved to Beijing, China now. Somewhat up on the internet.

The layers are not absolutely uniform, but they are close to it in most glacial lakes. To expect absolute uniformity of varve size is like expecting the same quantity of snowfall every winter.. But that doesn't mean that these varves are not yearly in deposition. When one can find pollen cycling through each layer in the same order, one simply has a major problem explaining this in the concept of a global flood.

grmorton · Apr 15, 2005

Remus said:
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?

Assuming that the heat from all the volcanoes which must have gone off in the flood didn't boil the oceans to steam, the glacier water would be the most dense. Water is most dense at 4 degrees, I believe. thus the hot waters of the flood would be less dense.

What would you expect the water temp to be?
What would you expect the ice temp to be?

Flood water temperature > 212 F
Ice temperature 0-32 degrees F

grmorton · Apr 15, 2005

Remus said:
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.

OK, Remus, make a possible solution for this within the flood paradigm!

"A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic matter. Proof that the couplets are annual, and therefore varves, is established on organic evidence, first recognized by Heer(1865). The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically being greatest in the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various genera are stratified systematically according to the season of blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the dark ones fall, winter and spring. Counts of the layers indicate a record that is valid through at least the last 7,000 years B. P. " ~ Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971, p. 400.

grmorton · Apr 15, 2005

Vance said:
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?

It is worse than just pollen. Plankton are tiny lifeforms which float in the oceans. When they die they fall to the bottom where the sediments bury them. All over the world, the plankton are found in the very same order, sorted effectively by decoration. It would be like taking golf balls, painting them different colors and then stirring them into the ocean and having them all fall out all over the world in the same color order. See http://home.entouch.net/dmd/micro.htm

Remus needs to explain why tiny floating things, things which can only be seen under a microscope all sort out at unique levels in the oceans sediments. Bet he can't explain that one.

grmorton · Apr 15, 2005

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

Vance had replied

Vance said:
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.

First off, Remus, the YECs can complain all they want about the geologic column, the fact is it exists, it is found in its entirety in 30 basins around the world and the YECs won't even open a geology book to find this simple fact out. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm )

Secondly, Vance is correct that the YECs believe that the entire geologic column is deposited by the global flood. Henry Morris actually criticised Austin (warning him implicitly) not to believe in an earth older than 6000 years. This was written shortly after Austin et al, published an article saying that the flood only deposited the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediment with the Tertiary being post flood.

"Therefore, it is now becoming a cause for concern that a growing number of young-earth creationists are seemingly about to repeat the mistakes and compromises of the past, arguing that the Biblical Flood cannot really explain the geological record after all. Some are concluding that the Tertiary formations are to be attributed to a number of post-Flood geological catastrophes, and some are even alleging that the Flood can only account for the Paleozoic rocks, or maybe not even all of these. Some are also suggesting that at least a portion of the fossiliferous Proterozoic rocks, were laid down by episodic events of some kind before the Flood.

"If such equivocations continue, the Flood itself will eventually be used only to account for the marine strata of the Cambrian and Ordovician 'periods.' Sooner or later difficulties will be found even in these, and the Flood will once again (as so often in the past) be explained away as only a tranquil flood or a local flood. Some (e.g. Davis Young, Glen Morton) have already gone this whole route, starting out not too many years ago as full‑fledged Flood geologists but then allowing supposed geological difficulties gradually to relegate the Flood to only a trivial part , if any, of the geologic column." ~ Henry M. Morris, "The Geologic Column and the Flood of Genesis", Creation Research Society Quarterly 33:1(June, 1996), p. 50

In a later note to Vance, Remus said about what YECs say about geologic column:

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

Apparently you haven't read too many YEC books, or paid attention to what they say. Vance is right that the YECs do claim that the entire geologic column must be deposited by the flood. At least the most influential YECs do.

Biliskner · Apr 18, 2005

grmorton said:
No it isn't conjecture, Tim. Explain this. Why does pollen emitted at various times throughout the year vary cyclically within the varves?

"A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland
consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer
rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic
matter. Proof that the couplets are annual, and therefore
varves, is established on organic evidence, first recognized by
Heer(1865). The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number
per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically being greatest in
the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various
genera are stratified systematically according to the season of
blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-
colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is
concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the
dark ones fall, winter and spring. Counts of the layers indicate
a record that is valid through at least the last 7,000 years B.
P. " ~ Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971, p. 400.

emphasis mine. But tell me how the Flood does this.

don't take this the wrong way dude, I'm not trying to attack you

but when ppl ask questions like that, everything goes down the gurgler.

my counter-example is:

use evolution to explain Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory

don't know what Ayers Rock is? well google it and see some pics, and be very scared for the evolutionists

if evolution is correct Ayers rock should be flat. IE: it should be "Ayers pancake"

tell me how Evolution can erode the area AROUND Ayers Rock but not touch this gigantic monstrous piece of red earth - oh btw, i think it is eroding so fast at the moment that in 150 years it WILL be ayers pancake, but don't quote me on that 'fact'

Biliskner · Apr 18, 2005

Vance said:
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.

That's dogma. Geologists DON'T know EXACTLY what would and why would something happen.

Example. If I light a candle, how long as it been burning?

The questions that you have already come up to answer my example is exactly what creationists and evolutionists do. they both make assumptions and they both come up with answers. either one is 100% correct/incorrect.

the facts don't dig up with a "i'm 6,000 MYO" tag on it...

Biliskner · Apr 18, 2005

2 questions:

first:
"why do we (YEC) have to explain the Flood?"
as far as I have read AiG has explained the geological strata.
isn't it the evolutionists that have problems explaining geology? like a fossil of a shark/tree fossiled over the geological column such that if evolution was correct the shark/tree would have been fossilzed OVER a few million years?

second Q:
Theological point (sorry if this takes it off course):
"do you believe in the Flood?" If so, how big was it?
sub-question:
You're a Christian, do you believe God will judge the whole earth in Christ's second coming? Or will he judge only a small portion (local judgement)

My understanding of the Scriptures is that God's first judgement on humanity was the Flood which killed every human except Noah...
please explain

Vance · Apr 18, 2005

Biliskner, a few questions:

1. What does evolution have to do with a rock? Evolution is biology, not geology.

2. Are you aware that Glenn is a working, professional geologist?

3. Young Earth Creationists have to explain the flood because the the evidence we have entirely falsifies a global flood. The AiG stuff just doesn't work, whereas the accepted scientific models of geology (again, not evolution) work just fine.

4. The theology of the flood is, indeed, for a separate thread, and one that has been covered many times over.

The Flood: Varves

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Legend

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency