How Science Works: One Anomaly Versus A Mountain of Evidence

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

The conditions in one lake have been conducive to forming varves for a few thousand years while conditions in another lake have been conducive to forming varves for >60,000 years. What more needs to be explained?

Well, for starters, their very close proximity to one another!

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

How in the Sam Hill do you think you are going to get a good reading of carbon at the bottom of a lake?

You find bits of leaves and insects that were swept into the lake and settled to the bottom, and then measure the ratios of carbon isotopes in those samples. You then compare those ratios to their depth in the varve record.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Well, for starters, their very close proximity to one another!

What about it? Why can’t lakes close to one another have different conditions, some of which are not conducive to varve formation?

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Why can’t lakes close to one another have different conditions, some of which are not conducive to varve formation?

Well, apparently they can! But why would they demonstrate this? That is the question not being addressed.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Well, apparently they can! But why would they demonstrate this? That is the question not being addressed.

You have already been given those answers:

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

You have already been given those answers:

Not at all. There is no reason that Lake H should show that much variance in varve count given your list of requirements for varve formation.

By the way, are you possibly stating that if all of those requirements are not met in other locations, then YEC’s don’t have to listen to your conclusions?

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@evograd

Seriously, how are you this lazy and/or inept? If you want to find the post where Roy originally posted a link to evidence that lake Hiruga has varves, you might think of doing something like hitting CTRL+F and searching this thread for the word “Hiruga”. As it turns out, literally the very first result is Roy’s comment with the link there clear as day. Why do you need your hand held so tightly?

To be fair, there have been times when a YEC has posted a response of “Google it for yourself” and I’ve criticised them harshly for it. So I think it’s only fair to give YECs the treatment that I expect to receive from them.

Accordingly, @r_speir, here is a link to Roy’s post.

How Science Works: One Anomaly Versus A Mountain of Evidence

Have been looking further at this and have some concerns and a question. First, the concerns This area near the Sea of Japan is a five lake system. Of the quintet of lakes, only Lake Suigetsu has raised any interest in the study of varves. Why would it be the only lake of the five to contain varves worthy of study? Quick search, find this: Formative Process of varve sediments and recent cyclic change in the Lake Hiruga, Fukusima Prefecture, central Japan. So there have been studies of varves in the other lakes, and this is yet another YEC claim that takes less time to refute than to type a response to. Ok, I’m not that fast a typist, but still…

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

There is no reason that Lake H should show that much variance in varve count given your list of requirements for varve formation .

Based on what evidence?

@r_speir

By the way, are you possibly stating that if all of those requirements are not met in other locations, then YEC’s don’t have to listen to your conclusions?

I’m not stating that at all. What I am saying is that there needs to be specific conditions for annual varves to form.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

What I am saying is that there needs to be specific conditions for annual varves to form.

Now we are getting somewhere. What are those?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Now we are getting somewhere. What are those?

Already given to you. Here it is again:

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

It’s worth pointing out that nowhere does the citation claim that there are only 3000 years worth of varves in Lake Hiruga. It says they took a 2.45m core sample, and dated the bottom of that core at 3300 years old. It doesn’t tell us if the core consists entirely of varves, or how many varves may be found if deeper core samples were taken.

Their focus was more recently formed laminations, apparently caused by the construction of the artificial Saga tunnel that connected Lake Hiruga to Lake Suigetsu.

From the 19th century, the lake basin shows high sedimentation rate, and distinct lamina sediments are formed. It is considered that this is caused by the construction of the Saga tunnel.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@jammycakes

To be fair, there have been times when a YEC has posted a response of “Google it for yourself” and I’ve criticised them harshly for it. So I think it’s only fair to give YECs the treatment that I expect to receive from them.

Of course I’m happy to provide citations for my claims, but it bugs me when people ask questions that are so incredibly basic it really reveals that they haven’t bothered spending any time whatsoever trying to find out the answer on their own. In this case, r_speir even refused to scroll up in the thread.
I’m not going to spoon-feed people who aren’t really interested in learning.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

Here it is again:

And here is my question again:

@r_speir

By the way, are you possibly stating that if all of those requirements are not met in other locations, then YEC’s don’t have to listen to your conclusions?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

By the way, are you possibly stating that if all of those requirements are not met in other locations, then YEC’s don’t have to listen to your conclusions?

So let me get this straight. If there is a lake somewhere else that doesn’t have the right conditions to form varves you think this allows you to ignore the varves found in lakes with the right conditions? Do I have that right? If so, this is one of the most ludicrous things I have seen you write, and that is saying something.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@evograd

I’m not going to spoon-feed people who aren’t really interested in learning.

You’re absolutely right there. After all, I did make the point on a different thread that I thought he was trolling.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

So let me get this straight. If there is a lake somewhere else that doesn’t have the right conditions to form varves you think this allows you to ignore the varves found in lakes with the right conditions?

This is not “straight” and you know it. You twist words of others and put a spin on them to try and make them look ignorant or confused.

Question: what is your list of requirements for annual varves? Plain and simple. List them here.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

what is your list of requirements for annual varves?

It is the features of the varves that evidence their annual nature. In the case of Lake Suigetsu, annual varves have a layer predominately made of diatoms and a layer predominately made up of fine grained clay. This is consistent with the passing of seasons over a single year.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

It is the features of the varves that evidence their annual nature. In the case of Lake Suigetsu, annual varves have a layer predominately made of diatoms and a layer predominately made up of fine grained clay. This is consistent with the passing of seasons over a single year.

But we may not find that elsewhere where you are claiming annual varves, so you have a problem already.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

But we may not find that elsewhere where you are claiming annual varves,

We may find other features that indicate an annual cycle. Why is that a problem? Different geologic formations are going to contain different evidence.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

We may find other features that indicate an annual cycle. Why is that a problem? Different geologic formations are going to contain different evidence.

Two problems 1. You have no idea what standard you want to use for annual varve count, 2. you still have not told us why two lakes side by side have such different varve counts