Jump to content


Photo

Lack Of Full Stratigraphy


  • Please log in to reply
193 replies to this topic

#101 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 22 December 2009 - 06:52 AM

It's not rapidly forming crude oil.  It's one of two things, partially converted biomass which does not fit the bill as its useless or reservoir seepage.  I've dealt with both of them multiple times in the past year.  Petroleum formation isn't something that stopped a long time ago.  It's ongoing.  Unfortunately for those of us who drive cars, it often isn't "trapped".

I'll stack the deck for you though, lets assume that high viscosity crude with low sulfur content can be created quickly, how is it trapped???  Liquid petroleum is less dense than water and by extension solid earth so it migrates upwards until something stops it.  What stopped the rapidly forming oil from ascending???

While we're on the subject, would any creationist like to take a shot at explaining stratigraphic markers left by specific forms of algae???  All petroleum contains markers that point to their origin. 

Shell pays me, and the rest of their exploration and production employees, very well because we use current geological theories to make them billions of dollars a year.  There's a reason it works.

View Post


Rock,

Is it true that ~95% of crude producing biomass is never fully trapped and is lost to seepage? I believe that I got that number from one of Glenn Morton's post.

Peace

#102 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 December 2009 - 12:12 AM

Rock,

Is it true that ~95% of crude producing biomass is never fully trapped and is lost to seepage?  I believe that I got that number from one of Glenn Morton's post.

Peace

View Post


Could you link me to the post??? I have no idea what the percent is. On top of seepage, you also get bacterial degradation that turns a trillion barrels of crude into 250 barrels equivelant of bitumin.

#103 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 December 2009 - 07:41 PM

It's not rapidly forming crude oil. [regarding the video from post 50]

View Post

Hey tharock. I will not presume to know more than you concerning your profession. What is your opinion then of:

1. David Gentry's comments in the video concerning "researchers at Exxon"--the discovery of a layer of "oil" being produced by using superheated water on the "source rock?" Citing from Science News, "Water, Water Everywhere."

2. And what is your opinion of his statement..."A researcher...from Oregon State University has published reports showing...present day oil formation in the Guayomas Basin in the Gulf of California." At 6000 feet the seafloor is marine algae "and other sediments." Superheated water is being pushed up through these sediments.

Is Gentry Lying about these reports when he says this "hydrothermal oil is virtually indistinguishable" from crude oil being pumped from the ground?


It's one of two things, partially converted biomass which does not fit the bill as its useless or reservoir seepage.

View Post

Seepage is through soils isn't it? This is calcerous/planktonic material at 6000 feet which I believe would fit the description of an ooze.

I'll stack the deck for you though, lets assume that high viscosity crude with low sulfur content can be created quickly, how is it trapped???  Liquid petroleum is less dense than water and by extension solid earth so it migrates upwards until something stops it.  What stopped the rapidly forming oil from ascending???

View Post

To answer this we're going to assume that vast amounts oil were not already formed from "a different" subterranean structure and mechanism than what exist post-deluvian. And that there is a mechanism whereby superheated water is passing through permeable "source" rock in the crust.

Yes, oil is less dense than water. But hydrocarbons are larger molecules than water molecules, and oil is obviously a viscous bituminous (in some cases) mixture. So water or steam will pass through permeable material X and in some cases the oil would not pass the same material. Almost like a filter or strain net.

While we're on the subject, would any creationist like to take a shot at explaining stratigraphic markers left by specific forms of algae???  All petroleum contains markers that point to their origin.

View Post

Are talking about the specific kinds of forminefera found at different levels in the crust? I have a geologist friend who did what you are doing (and I have also read some on this)--and he has told me about the abundance of forminefera. Also he tells me of the extreme complexity of the lenses and other formations--not so organized as a journal paper.

Please be more specific as to what you are asking and why this would be an issue.

Shell pays me, and the rest of their exploration and production employees, very well because we use current geological theories to make them billions of dollars a year.  There's a reason it works.

View Post

I have no reason to doubt it does work. Is this a reason for us to lay down and go with the flow of every interpretation of modern geology which is layed on the foundation of Hutton--a farmer who found some odd rock strata and rejected the scripture?

Also the age of a material has nothing to do with why it works.

#104 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 24 December 2009 - 07:47 PM

Could you link me to the post???  I have no idea what the percent is.  On top of seepage, you also get bacterial degradation that turns a trillion barrels of crude into 250 barrels equivelant of bitumin.

View Post


Rock,

I came across the link several days ago...I will try to go back and find it.

#105 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 28 December 2009 - 09:47 AM

[quote name='Otto13' date='Dec 21 2009, 11:24 AM']
Exactly what is found at the Grand Canyon (sandstone,shale,limestone).Sucessive layers that are always sorted according to density....Hmmmm.
Enjoy.

View Post

[/quote]
Always?
If deposition of sediments depended solely on density, why would there not be a simple gradation from denser to less so rather than the sharply defined strata in the Grand Canyon?

View Post

[/quote]

Anyone? Anyone?

#106 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 December 2009 - 10:13 AM

It is clear in this diagram there are at least 4 rapid depositions layed down compressing the vegetable material which formed the coal seams. If you view the outline of the seams like puzzle pieces, you can see the sequence of depositions.


Exactly what is found at the Grand Canyon (sandstone,shale,limestone).Sucessive layers that are always sorted according to density....Hmmmm.
Enjoy.

View Post

Always?
If deposition of sediments depended solely on density, why would there not be a simple gradation from denser to less so rather than the sharply defined strata in the Grand Canyon?

View Post




Anyone?  Anyone?

View Post

Piece of cake.

You underestimate the readership. You have inserted at term, "solely", in order to create an illusion of having a point.

#107 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 28 December 2009 - 01:47 PM

[quote name='CTD' date='Dec 28 2009, 01:13 PM']
Exactly what is found at the Grand Canyon (sandstone,shale,limestone).Sucessive layers that are always sorted according to density....Hmmmm.
Enjoy.

View Post

[/quote]
Piece of cake.

You underestimate the readership. You have inserted at term, "solely", in order to create an illusion of having a point.

View Post

[/quote]
No I simply rephrased Jason777's post (#87) where he said that " successive layers are always sorted according to density" with the term "solely". Feel free to explain.
While you are at it, explain the distinct strata. If things are always sorted according to density, explain how there is no gradation between sandstone, shale and limestone but they are distinct.
I await your cogent response. Thanks

#108 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 December 2009 - 02:20 PM

Hi Otto,

Please note in the chart below,when a contiuous sediment flow of fine and coarse particles are mixed together,they sort themselves into distinctly different layers even though they were deposited contemporaneously.

All we have to do now is to make our sediment mixture "sandstone,shale,and limestone" and we would see the same layering found and repeated successively all aroung the world.In fact,I challenge anybody to find a chunk of the geologic column anywhere in the world that does'nt follow that pattern.

Posted Image

Here is the same experimental data on video.

7exxtkN8610&hl=en_US&fs=1






Enjoy.

#109 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 29 December 2009 - 12:24 AM

Hi Otto,

Please note in the chart below,when a contiuous sediment flow of fine and coarse particles are mixed together,they sort themselves into distinctly different layers even though they were deposited contemporaneously.

All we have to do now is to make our sediment mixture "sandstone,shale,and limestone" and we would see the same layering found and repeated successively all aroung the world.In fact,I challenge anybody to find a chunk of the geologic column anywhere in the world that does'nt follow that pattern.



How do you explain the Eolian deposition of the Coconino sandstone below the marine depostion of the Toroweap and the Kaibab layers?

#110 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 December 2009 - 07:38 PM

It follows the pattern,does'nt it?

Sandstone being the heaviest should be found below the Kaibab limestone.And from a Creationists prespective it should also show evidence of being transported by water and be transported from a great distance as well.

Posted Image

Sand Transported Cross Country.

The desert sand dune model for the origin of the Coconino Sandstone has also recently been challenged by Glen Visher12, Professor of Geology at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and not a creationist geologist. Visher noted that large storms, or amplified tides, today produce submarine sand dunes called ‘sand waves’. These modern sand waves on the sea floor contain large cross beds composed of sand with very high quartz purity. Visher has thus interpreted the Coconino Sandstone as a submarine sand wave deposit accumulated by water, not wind. This of course is directly contrary to Young’s claims, which after all are just the repeated opinions of other evolutionary geologists.

Furthermore, there is other evidence that casts grave doubts on the view that the Coconino Sandstone cross beds formed in desert dunes. The average angle of slope of the Coconino cross beds is about 25° from the horizontal, less than the average angle of slope of sand beds within most modern desert sand dunes. Those sand beds slope at an angle of more than 25°, with some beds inclined as much as 30° to 34°, the angle of ‘rest’ of dry sand. On the other hand, modern oceanic sand waves do not have ‘avalanche’ faces of sand as common as desert dunes, and therefore, have lower average dips of cross beds.

Visher also points to other positive evidence for accumulation of the Coconino Sandstone in water. Within the Coconino Sandstone is a feature known technically as ‘parting lineation’, which is known to be commonly formed on sand surfaces during brief erosional bursts beneath fast-flowing water. It is not known from any desert sand dunes. Thus Visher also uses this feature as evidence of vigorous water currents accumulating the sand, which forms the Coconino Sandstone.

Similarly, Visher has noted that the different grain sizes of sand within any sandstone are a reflection of the process that deposited the sand. Consequently, he performed sand grain size analyses of the Coconino Sandstone and modern sand waves, and found that the Coconino Sandstone does not compare as favourably to dune sands from modern deserts.

He found that not only is the pitting not diagnostic of the last Process to have deposited the sand grains (pitting can, for example, form first by wind impacts, followed by redeposition by water), but pitting and frosting of sand grains can form outside a desert environment.13 For example, geologists have described how pitting on the surface of sand grains can form by chemical processes during the cementation of sand.


http://www.answersin...15/i1/flood.asp


The Navajo Sandstone forms some of our nation's most impressive scenery, yet the scale of this sand deposit is hard to imagine. For example, the 2,300-foot-high cliffs at Zion National Park represent the exposed edge of a gigantic sheet of sand that once stretched from southern California to central Wyoming, and from Idaho to New Mexico. Bury the entire state of Texas to a depth of 285 feet and you have some idea of its volume.

The quartz sand is not piled horizontally, but is instead arranged as internally layered cross-beds that tilt 20-30 degrees to the south and southeast. Strong currents (water or air) are required to produce this effect. The sandstone is nearly barren of fossils, but in occasional lens-shaped limestone pockets in between some of the big dune-forms are found fossil clams, brachiopods, ostracods (microscopic bivalves), a variety of dinosaurs, and plant remains that include permineralized wood (conifer), horsetails (equisetum), and ferns. Some of the clam shells are current-aligned, and at least one is arguably a marine form, which is not surprising, for the Navajo Sandstone interfingers with marine fossil-bearing strata to the west. The place from which all this quartz sand was eroded has long mystified geologists, but in 2003 the Appalachian region was identified as the likeliest source area! An immense transcontinental "river system" is imagined to have delivered the sand.

A 1975 study by scientists Freeman and Visher (Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 45:3:651-668) provides some important insights as to the origin of the Navajo Sandstone. The investigators pointed out that underwater sand dunes are known to accumulate on portions of the sea floor swept by strong currents--for example, beneath the North Sea. Superficially they look a lot like desert (windblown) sand dunes, but careful analysis of their grain size distribution reveals major differences. It turns out that disaggregated sands from the Navajo Sandstone match very well with modern submarine dunes, and very poorly with desert dunes. If the Navajo Sandstone formed underwater, as the data seem to indicate, then one must imagine water depths on the order of 300 feet and current velocities of 4 feet per second across large portions of North America!

Freeman and Visher also observed a bedform called "current lineation," which so far has been found only in marine dunes. Furthermore, folds in the Navajo Sandstone indicate that thicknesses in excess of several hundred feet were in a water-wet and unconsolidated state at the same time. This too suggests rapid underwater burial.

No amount of marketing or repetition can change the fact that the Navajo Sandstone bears the marks of having been deposited in underwater, Flood-like conditions. We weren't there to see it deposited and there remains much mystery, but the Genesis Flood continues to provide a credible framework for interpreting its origin.



http://www.icr.org/a.../view/3883/272/




Enjoy.

#111 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 31 December 2009 - 01:53 AM

It follows the pattern,does'nt it?

Sandstone being the heaviest should be found below the Kaibab limestone.And from a Creationists prespective it should also show evidence of being transported by water and be transported from a great distance as well.

Posted Image

Sand Transported Cross Country.
http://www.icr.org/a.../view/3883/272/
Enjoy.

View Post



Freeman and Visher were torn apart by other geologists after their paper was published.

ASA article on the Freeman and Visher paper

"Stratigraphic Analysis of the Navajo Sandstone: A Discussion"


Picard, M. Dane (pp. 475-483)
Folk, R.L. (pp. 483-484)
Steidtmann, James R. (pp. 484-489)
Ruzyla, K. (pp. 489-491)


They all take Freeman and Visher to task. Let's look at some of their
comments about Freeman and Visher's work:


"Much of their conjecture is based on the rejection of criteria
advanced by others for interpreting the Navajo Sandstone as dominantly
an eolian deposit. Little new evidence is advanced by Freeman and
Visher in support of their ideas" (Picard, pg. 481)


"My comment concerns only the grain size data which the authors
(Freeman and Visher, 1975) claim offers no evidence for an aeolian
origin. On the contrary, their published results do, quite clearly,
support an aeolian origin for the Navajo sands." (Folk, pg. 483)
[Folk is a world-recognized authority on sandstones]


"...I have found that:
1. The data they have presented are equivocal
2. they fail to recognize probable weaknesses in their methods and to
give alternative explanations of their observations
3. they ignore pertinent findings from other studies, and
4. They do not critically examine certain evidence which appears to support their conclusion and casually discredit equally valid and overwhelming evidence to the
contrary." (Steidtmann, pp. 484-485)




Collinson, J.D. & Thompson, D.B. 1989. Sedimentary Structures (2nd
edition). Unwin Hyman, London.

state that, for aeolian dune cross-beds, that while the large-scale
dunes do have slip faces of 33 to 42 degrees, trenching of modern dunes has
indicated that there are also smaller-scale bedding structures inside the
larger dunes with foresets dipping at 18 to 34 degrees (pages 95-97). This
is consistent with what we see in the Coconino.



Dunes that are formed underwater are typically less then 10 degrees, which in no way resembles the structure of the Coconino sandstone.


"We cannot emphasize too strongly that sand waves possess low to mild
slopes ... it is clear that the sides of the waves rarely dip more steeply
than 10 degress overall and can slope as little as 1 degree ..."


Allen, John R.L. 1982. Sedimentary Structures: Their Character and
Physical Basis. Volume I. Developments in Sedimentology 30A. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.


Petrographic Analysis of the Coconino Sandstone

Little has been published about the mineral composition of the Coconino Sandstone, except that it consists of medium-grained and well-rounded quartz sand, which is expected for an aeolian deposit.


There are still other factors that detract from a water deposition, tetrapod tracks and raindrop impressions.

taken from a Coconino thread
Strata Thread Link

excerpts from "Strata of the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase"
(no longer available as a valid link)


"Desert dunes have distinguishing physical properties that set them apart from all other known forms of well graded sand deposits. The dune surfaces are devoid of plant cover and are formed into great wavelike ridges with sharp crests and steep lee slopes. The sand, usually almost entirely of quartz composition, is extremely well-graded in terms of size. The grains are spherical to a degree of perfection not found in water-transported sands. The grains surfaces are frosted by the force of intergrain impacts in free air, not subject to the cushioning effect that is found in water. Under prevailing strong winds, with dry conditions, the sand is carried up the windward slopes by low leaps and rebounds. Upon reaching the dune crest, the grains are projected into the air to fall in the comparitvie calm of the protected lee slope, where they build up the sand slope to a steeper angle of inclination. This slope is the slip face. At an unstable surface layer under gravity slides down the slip face until stability is resumed. This process, repeated innumerable times, gives the dune an internal structure or long, steep sand laminae. This structure is called dune bedding, or planar lamination" (p. 217).

And,

The Coconino Sandstone also preserves a variety of trace fossils which, like the sediment structure itself, are indicative of subarial deposition processes. For example, some laminae preserve perfectly formed raindrop prints (see figure 6 in Middleton et al, p.194). Also present are a variety of vertebrate (small reptiles, some possibly early mammal-like reptiles) and invertebrate (millipedes, spiders) trackways. Pictures of some of these traces and tracks can be seen here.

Hunt and Santucci note:
". . . Coconino tracks fall within three species of Chelichnus [also called Laoporus -- Lockley. ed.] [McKeever and Haubold, 1996]. Chelichnus is characterized by rounded manual and pedal impressions that are of nearly equal size and which exhibit five short, rounded toe impressions (though less than five may be preserved). Trackways have a pace angulation of about 90o and the manual and pedal impressions are close together [McKeever and Haubold, 1996]. The three valid species of Chelichnus are distinguished on the basis of size alone and are presumed to be the tracks of caseid-like animal [e. g. Haubold, 1971]. Chelichnus bucklandi has pedal impression lengths of 10-25 mm, C. duncani of 25-75 mm and C. gigas of 75-125 mm [McKeever and Haubold, 1996]" (Taxonomy and Ichnofacies of Permian Tetrapod Tracks from Grand Canyon National Park, 1998)."



#112 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:16 PM

The Coconino Sandstone also preserves a variety of trace fossils which, like the sediment structure itself, are indicative of subarial deposition processes. For example, some laminae preserve perfectly formed raindrop prints (see figure 6 in Middleton et al, p.194). Also present are a variety of vertebrate (small reptiles, some possibly early mammal-like reptiles) and invertebrate (millipedes, spiders) trackways. Pictures of some of these traces and tracks can be seen here.


They must be talking about these.

Posted Image

As you can see the ground must have been wet and pliable when those tracks were made.How did they lay there for 380 million years without eroding?

In fact,the entire canyon must have been wet and pliable because the layers are folded without any evidence of cracking or heat deformation.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured

Fossils found in The Navajo Sandstone have scientists rethinking it as a marine deposit and not a desert.

The discovery of giant stromatolite fossils in the Navajo Sandstone is part of a growing body of research challenging some long-held assumptions about the Paleo-environment of the Navajo erg.


This is a dramatically different picture of the Navajo than previously thought. The Navajo erg “may not be analogous to the present Sahara” in that it had the “potential for heavy rain and long lived episodes of water,” Loope says. Long lived episodes of water would also translate into extended periods of erg stabilization.


http://www.nps.gov/c...tromatolite.htm













Enjoy.

#113 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:51 PM

Dunes that are formed underwater are typically less then 10 degrees, which in no way resembles the structure of the Coconino sandstone.




Posted Image



Posted Image

Allow me to introduce what a crossbed is.  This photograph is from the Navajo formation, taken within Zion National Park.  You'll notice thick layers on top of each other, and within those layers are angled layers.  These angled layers are called crossbeds, and the crossbeds are composed of three parts:  The topset (the top, swooping downward curve), the foreset (the face of the slope), and the bottomset (the curve leading from the slope, leveling out against the top of the last layer).


Posted Image


This experiment led, serendipitously, to the most dramatic find of the two weeks.  We merely tilted the flume so that the water and sediments had to go uphill a mere 2 degrees.  This produced some rather dramatic crossbedding.



http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

#114 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 31 December 2009 - 06:56 PM

They must be talking about these.

Posted Image

As you can see the ground must have been wet and pliable when those tracks were made.How did they lay there for 380 million years without eroding?


The point that I am making, is how could these type of tracks have been made by land animals while the Flood waters over their heads were laying down the Toroweap and the Kaibab layers?

Keep in mind that these type of tracks are found sandwiched under the overlying layers.

Also, why aren't there impressions of aquatic creatures?...how do you explain the raindrop impressions?

The structure of the Coconino Sandstone is thoroughly consistent with the angles of eolian dunes. Unless you can give me examples of high angled > 10 degrees)aquatic dune structures, the argument is mute and is merely a grasping at straws. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Peace & Happy New Year!

#115 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 31 December 2009 - 07:01 PM

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

View Post



The lab experiment of underwater dunes is not consistent with what is found in nature.

Do you have any pictures of underwater dune structures?...other then ones that are artificially produced?

Peace

#116 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 December 2009 - 07:29 PM

The point that I am making, is how could these type of tracks have been made by land animals while the Flood waters over their heads were laying down the Toroweap and the Kaibab layers?


They left tracks behind afterwards.There is also an experiment conducted with Newts in the flume.

Further crossbeds, and the reactions of newts:

We also ran one experiment which produced crossbeds with newts in the water.  This was done to examine their behaviour in flood conditions which produce crossbeds, in hopes that our observations would shed light on the prolific fossil tracks found in the coconino sandstone crossbeds - which I think it did.

To finish off the experiment and produce crossbeds to be left for the next day when a TV crew that was there, we cleaned up the flume and loaded the mixer with a double load of sediments.  We left the 4-inch high "dam" at the end of the flume and put in some standing water, though it was not filled completely.  The newts being as newts are, were quite content in the water and very docile.  It probably would have been better to have creatures (such as lizards which are not amphibian) which are not inclined to "hang out" underwater, but the newts still provided quite an education.

The crossbeds were produced, same as before.  While one newt swam around, the second was quite content to stay at the bottom of the crossbeds being formed.  The answer became obvious:  he was sitting the eddy currents; the place where the water was the slowest.  Thus, the newt really didn't have to move or fight any current.  He was quite content to just sit there.
The encroaching crossbeds would eventually begin to cover him up, so the newt would simple "step up" onto the new crossbed.

Several lessons were learned:

# This can explain why fossil tracks are so prolific on the foreset and bottomset of crossbeds.  The tracks in the coconino have not been positively identified but could be either lizards or salamanders.  They are quite consistent in only traveling uphill.  If the tracks are from salamanders, the same salamander could potentially be producing multiple trackways on the foresets of hundreds of feet, or perhaps even miles, of crossbeds.  The salamander would "hang out" in the eddy at the bottom of the crossbed, and would simply walk up the crossbed when he was getting buried, float away and catch the eddy once more, returning to the bottom of the next crossbed.
# Animals (such as lizards) which are swept away by the flowing waters would be sucked into the hydraulics and trapped by the eddy currents.  Every year people die by being trapped in the hydraulics at the bottom of decorative dams and small waterfalls - the water is very powerful, even in small volume.  In this case, the forming crossbeds make the escarpment that the hydraulics form at, thus trapping animals in them.  The only way out was to go up the hill.  Thus we see why the trackways in the coconino are almost always going uphill, and often show the creature being bouyed up to produce a trackway that goes from heavy foot impressions, to lighter, to claws only, to completely disappearing - often within only a few feet.
# The preservation of tracks within the crossbeds is now easily explained:  The water along the face of the foreset is virtually still.  Simultaneously, there is a continuous dumping of sediments on top of any freshly made tracks, thus protecting them until lithification of the sediments.




http://ianjuby.org/sedimentation/




Keep in mind that these type of tracks are found sandwiched under the overlying layers.


Honestly,they are always found on the surface.The ones that are covered up are almost always covered by mud or silt,but not between the coconino layers.

Also, why aren't there impressions of aquatic creatures?...how do you explain the raindrop impressions?


The sand sank faster than the shells of marine organisms,which are found above the coconino.

The structure of the Coconino Sandstone is thoroughly consistent with the angles of eolian dunes. Unless you can give me examples of high angled > 10 degrees)aquatic dune structures, the argument is mute and is merely a grasping at straws. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.


High velocity turbid seas "The North Sea" has dunes approaching the coconino.

The catastrophic flows of the flood are hard to find in nature,but we can reproduce them in flume experiments.

Peace & Happy New Year!




Thanks.

#117 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 December 2009 - 09:42 PM

The lab experiment of underwater dunes is not consistent with what is found in nature.

Do you have any pictures of underwater dune structures?...other then ones that are artificially produced?

Peace

View Post


Scanman,
I hope you watched all four videos associated with this one. Please be more specific when you say it is "not consistent with what is found in nature."

I really don't think you saw the part where they cut the sand perpendicular to the flue. It most certainly does appear to be strata!

I believe you are aware that many strata contain smaller laminations. Lamination in the flue was shown mathematically on the video 3/4 (I am not a physicist). It was caused by the fact that larger particles have more kinetic energy than small particles, causing the smaller particles to separate from them when in motion.

Please remember that there is alot of chemical foliation in rocks like shale, slate and gneiss also. Point being, it is not completely fair to compare lithified rock with freshly laid sediment. There will be more change as the sediment dessicates and crystallizes.

The fact that 1) the results of something that looked like strata but was laid by particle sorting--and sideways, not vertically-- is quite amazing. And 2) that it took place in moving water does not remove the possibility of flood geology explanation.

Thanks,
AFJ

#118 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 01 January 2010 - 11:35 AM

Scanman,
I hope you watched all four videos associated with this one.  Please be more specific when you say it is "not consistent with what is found in nature."

I really don't think you saw the part where they cut the sand perpendicular to the flue.  It most certainly does appear to be strata! 

I believe you are aware that many strata contain smaller laminations.  Lamination in the flue was shown mathematically on the video 3/4 (I am not a physicist). It was  caused by the fact that larger particles have more kinetic energy than small particles, causing the smaller particles to separate from them when in motion.

Please remember that there is alot of chemical foliation in rocks like shale, slate and gneiss also.  Point being, it is not completely fair to compare lithified rock with freshly laid sediment.  There will be more change as the sediment dessicates and crystallizes.

The fact that 1) the results of something that looked like strata but was laid by particle sorting--and sideways, not vertically-- is quite amazing. And 2) that it took place in moving water does not remove the possibility of flood geology explanation.

Thanks,
AFJ

View Post



Rather then duplicate the effort by paraphrasing, here is a critique of Berthault's work:

Critique Link

The Curious Case of the One-Man Band

The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?


Alec MacAndrew



Introduction

Guy Berthault (1) is an outspoken critic of the conclusions that practically every professional geologist accepts about the chronology for the laying down of the sediments in the geological record. Monsieur Berthault claims to have demonstrated that all the strata in the geological record could have been laid down rapidly, that his findings revolutionise geology, and that a young earth can be supported by the science. Berthault is a Young Earth Creationist who is an adviser to the Kolbe Center (2), an ultra-conservative traditional Roman Catholic creationist propaganda group (Kolbe Center's "advisers" also include Bob Sungenis (3) whose absurd geocentrist ideas I address here). Unusually for Young Earth Creationist apologetics, Berthault bases his claims on work that he has published in peer reviewed scientific journals (4), (5), (6) and this fact has been gleefully trumpeted by other religiously motivated Young Earth Creationists. So, does he represent a real challenge to the entire professional geological community? In this article, I show that he does not.

Background

Let’s consider, first of all, what Berthault set out to do.  Having determined that the consensus interpretation of geology is a problem for the Young Earth Creationist’s view of the age of the earth and the chronology of the emergence of species, he attempted to undermine the stratigraphic principles (the principle of superposition, ie that younger strata deposit above older strata, and the related principles of original horizontality and continuity as set forth by Nicolas Steno in his book titled "De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento Dissertationis Prodromus", published in 1669) on which geology is based, thereby calling into question the very foundations of geology (and with it the concept of evolution).

All the experimental work on which he bases his claims was carried out fifteen years ago or more, and reported at the time in French journals (4), (5), (6). He was careful, in those papers, not to make the radical claims that he and his followers have become known for. The assertion that his work has fundamental implications for geology was made later, in informal presentations and communications, on his website and by his creationist colleagues, quite outside the scientific peer review process. In the last few years, he has published three papers (7), (8), (9) in Chinese and Russian journals. None of these later papers report any new experimental work, and they contain nothing more than highly speculative and tendentious interpretations of his earlier work. Owing to their complete lack of new findings and their very poor quality, it is not surprising that these more recent papers are quite unpublishable in mainstream geology journals (and you can be sure that if Berthault could have published in Sedimentology, Geology, Journal of Geology or Sedimentary Geology then he would).

Much of his experimental work in the 1990s took the form of flume studies. Flumes are laboratory tanks or channels in which sedimentologists study the deposition of sediments carried by water. They are, by necessity, limited in length and depth, particularly in comparison to the huge extent and great depth of floods that would be capable of depositing major geological sequences. Berthault’s experimental work was focused on the sorting by particle characteristics of sediments carried in flows of limited width (streams) with different flow velocities or in which the flow varies in time. His experimental work shows that sediments can be sorted in currents by size and density, vertically (ie into layers lying one upon another), longitudinally (ie in the direction of the flow), and laterally (ie across the flow). His work also illustrates the effect of prograding sediments (ie sediments which are moved downstream and sorted by the action of currents). He concludes that sorted layers can be laid down rapidly and concurrently.  He uses this fact to claim that he has undermined several of the basic principles of stratigraphy originally set forth by Steno (superposition, initial horizontality, and continuity), and that therefore the conventional interpretation - that strata are the record of sedimentation and other sorts of deposition which can occur at widely separated times - is wrong. Other commentators, in particular Dr Kevin Henke (10), (11) have explained that Berthault does not attack these principles as understood by modern sedimentology (what Henke calls "actualism"), but with Steno’s principles as originally formulated. Henke correctly points out that the interpretation of these principles has been much modified in the light of field geography in the last 340 years, and to that extent, Berthault is attacking a straw man.

Berthault, and his YEC supporters (1), (12), (13), (14), (31), (32), (33) make an unwarranted leap from the result that strata can be laid down simultaneously and quickly to claim that this "proves" that the major strata (formations, groups and supergroups) were deposited simultaneously and quickly in a single catastrophic event. That conclusion would undermine the entire stratigraphic foundation of geology, which is that major strata are often laid down over long periods of time, that different strata often represent different depositional environments separated by long periods of time, and that therefore fossils in different strata represent a record, through time, of the evolution of species. Of course, if Berthault were correct, he would be the greatest geologist of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as he would have revolutionised the field more or less single-handedly (his collaborator on ref 3, Pierre Julien, who is a professional and well-regarded sedimentologist with a very extensive publication record and many awards, does not appear to endorse the radical and umwarranted conclusions Berthault has drawn from the work). In contrast, professional geologists have ignored Berthault since his 1993 paper, and this is not surprising, since his more recent publications in obscure journals are little more than thinly disguised and poorly argued pieces of creationist propaganda unencumbered by new findings.

So, does he have a point? Well, no, there are very obvious reasons why Berthault’s work does not undermine the consensus view of geology, and his work is certainly no reason to call into question the old age of the earth or the evolution of species because:

His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology
The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated
The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically is not credible
Radio-dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata.


His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary

His work was neither the first nor the only flume study in sedimentation and it does no more than confirm principles of size sorting in the presence of currents and shear velocities (20) – (28). It is relevant to bedding within a layer, as well as to turbidity events such as those caused by underwater landslips, to pyroclastic flow and to prograding sedimentation.  Since these sources of rapid sedimentary formation are already well known, geologists, in reconstructing the environment of the original sedimentation when interpreting sediments in the field, already consider them.

The sorting of sediments into laminae according to particle size and density in a turbidity event is known as a Bouma sequence (15), and it is well known that such a sequence can be deposited in a short period.  In addition, volcanic pyroclasts are known to form laminae rapidly (16). Berthault is unique amongst researchers, as far as I know, in claiming that his valid but limited laboratory findings can be interpreted as a fundamental revolution in geology. He fails in all of his work to demonstrate that major stratigrahic groups, some of which are hundreds of metres thick, could have been or were, as a rule, laid down rapidly.

But perhaps, most fundamentally, his work fails to refute the basic principle of Steno that in undisturbed sedimentary layers, those above were deposited after those vertically below nor does it challenge the principles of sedimentation as understood by modern geology (10), (11).

His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology

One cannot simply extrapolate the findings of size-sorting from a sedimentation experiment in a flume, carrying at most a few feet depth of water, to conclude that the whole post-Cambrian geological column, more than a mile thick in some places, was laid down rapidly in a single event.

Take, for example, Berthault’s recent paper speculating on the process which led, so he believes, to the Tonto Group (Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone) of the Grand Canyon being deposited in a single huge energetic flood (9). He openly follows the flood geology of the Young Earth Creationist, Steve Austin (17), referencing Austin's work, using Austin's diagram and taking Austin's model for the formation of the Grand Canyon as a given, even though Austin's model is utterly rejected by professional geologists.  It is astonishing to me that the editors of the Russian journal, Lithology and Mineral Resources, did not seem to recognise the fundamental creationist import of this paper or to detect its lack of rigour and quality.

Let us be clear about what we are considering here: the consolidated sedimentary rocks of the three formations of the Tonto Group total up to 1000 feet or 300 metres thick. Conventional geology holds that these were deposited partly concurrently (but obviously sequentially in any one location) over a period of about 50 million years in the Cambrian.  Berthault’s model requires the sediments of the Tonto Group to be eroded directly from the underlying Vishnu Group and he makes no attempt to demonstrate that this is mineralogically feasible. (Curiously, Berthault completely ignores the presence of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, a major group of seven formations that in places are as much as 2 miles thick, that lies above Vishnu and Zoroaster and below Tonto, but which do not outcrop in the Western Canyon). He speculates that not only the Tonto Group, but also the strata overlying it were formed in the same event. He claims that the unconformities between the Tonto and Supai Groups can be explained by high velocity flow scouring previously deposited but unconsolidated sediments.

Other than Berthault’s experiments with sediment beds a few inches thick in his flume, there is absolutely nothing to support his contention that the Tonto Group was or could have been deposited in a single flood. Features such as water ripple marks, trilobite trails and brachiopod fossils in the Tapeats Sandstone (deposited, according to the mainstream view, on the shore of a transgressing sea), and the fact that each formation is by no means homogeneous in particle size, with, for example, coarse-grained inclusions in the Bright Angel Shale, stand strongly against it.   And even if, for the sake of argument, the Tonto Group was deposited in a single flood event, that says nothing about the 2700 feet or 800 metres of the Temple Butte, Redwall, Supai Group, and the Hermit, Coconino, Toroweap and Kaibab formations overlying it which certainly do not follow the basic coarse to fine sequence displayed in Tonto. Berthault claims that the unconformity between the Muav limestone and Temple Butte or Redwall (depending on where in the canyon one looks), conventionally assigned to the missing Silurian and Ordivician ages, was formed during the flood as a result of erosion of already deposited material by fast-flowing water. If this were true, then the whole sequence from Tapeats to Kaibab would represent a deposition of considerably more than 4000 feet in a single event – if we associate this single event with the Noahic flood then this entire sequence must have been deposited at an average rate of more than 35 feet a day, which is simply not supported either by features in the Tonto group such as ripple marks and trilobite trails, or by settling conditions for finer sediments contributing to fine shale and limestone strata.

Even more telling, in the strata above the Tonto Group, we find the Surprise Canyon Formation filling what were canyons in the Redwall, cut by rivers. Above that, we find deposits which were formed both by wind- and water-borne sediments interleaved, including both aeolian beds and karst limestone, deposited in air and not in water.

Berthault’s claims that the Tonto Group was deposited rapidly in a single event such as a flood, is based entirely on unwarranted extrapolation from his flume experiments. There is no evidence to support this claim, and, as we have seen, considerable evidence against it.

The geological column contains deposition mechanisms that lie outside the processes that Berthault investigated

Berthault goes much further than his immediate claims for the Tonto Group – in fact, he uses his flawed conclusions for the Tonto Group to claim that all sedimentation in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere was deposited rapidly in a violent flood. He claims: "The sequences are correlated to the series and systems of the stratigraphic column. The above reasoning for the Tonto Group applies equally to all the series and systems and, consequently, to all parts of the stratigraphic scale.” (9). But the geological column, including major elements of the Grand Canyon formations, contains many strata which cannot possibly have been deposited rapidly or in an underwater environment:

Varves are sediments which are typically deposited two laminae per year over thousands or millions of years in a shallow low current lacustrine environment. The famous Green River varves have accumulated over a period of four million years,  What is more the Green River varves show variation in thickness in cycles that correspond to known periods for sunspot (11 year), earth’s precession (20,000 year) and earth’s orbital eccentricity (100,000 year) periods (18), (19), (29). The same deposit cannot form over many millions of years in a low current environment and at the same time in an unimaginably violent flood in half a year
Stromatolites are lithified sheets of microbial colonies such as cyanobacteria or algae. Where these occur embedded in other sediments, it is quite clear that they are neither size-sorted nor deposited in the course of a violent flood
Volcanic tuffs, pumice, lapilli and other tephra, igneous rock and breccias formed by volcanic ash and lavas, and beds of lava lie between strata of sedimentary rock, and frequently show the unmistakable signs of having been deposited above sea level which is a rather peculiar process to find in the middle of a global all-encompassing flood
Aeolian beds are clearly formed above the water surface – they are formed from air borne sands and display the characteristic properties of dunes. They frequently interbed marine or lacustrine sediments.  One example is the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon
Evaporites are strata which are formed by the evaporation of water in air, leaving strata containing significant salt deposits.  Salts include halides: halite (such as common salt), sylvite (KCl), and fluorite; sulfates: such as gypsum, barite, and anhydrite; nitrates: nitratite (soda niter) and niter; borates; and carbonates. They also cannot have formed in a rapid sequence with underwater sedimentary rocks.
In the several miles of depth of the geological column that is present in some places, many of these different processes can be found in a vertical section through the column, indicating that the environment in which the individual strata were deposited has changed over time. So, for example, we get fossiliferous lacustrine strata (bearing index species which clearly support the conventional chronology) separated by volcanic tuff, evaporites or aeolian deposits under marine strata overbedded by lava all in the same place.

The suggestion that fossil organisms are sorted, not chronologically, but ecologically and hydraulically, is not credible

Berthault and his supporters suggest (9), (33) that the sorting of fossils in the geological column is a consequence of ecology and hydraulics – ie organisms are buried where they live, or where they can reasonably be expected to be transported in the putative floods. But this is simply unsustainable. Even in the Grand Canyon, Berthault’s prime example, the fossil species support the chronological rather than the hydraulic sorting of fossils – as they do everywhere in the world. Below the Tonto Group, in the Grand Canyon Supergroup, there are only fossils of very early pre-Cambrian organisms such as stromatolites (fossilised mats of cyanobacteria); there are brachiopods and trilobites in the Cambrian rocks of Tonto above this; in the overlying late Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian and Permian deposits we find more advanced species such as sponges, corals, molluscs, crinoids, sea urchins, fish, amphibians, reptiles and green plants. But we do not find fossils of organisms that evolved later than the Late Permian anywhere in the Grand Canyon sediments all the way from the Great Unconformity up to Kaibab. There are no Mesozoic or Cenozoic fossils to be found anywhere in Grand Canyon rocks. In fact there are no fossils in the Grand Canyon that are out of place according to a conventional view of chronological sorting, other than some instances of reworking of underlying eroded strata immediately above an unconformity.

This is true throughout the geological column worldwide.  To my mind, the single most telling evidence against the idea that a global flood is responsible for most of the post-Cambrian column is that fossils are quite clearly sorted chronologically – no Young Earth Creationist has ever proposed a remotely credible hypothesis to explain the sorting of fossils in the geological column. Berthault certainly hasn't.

Radiometric dating supports both the immense age and the chronological ordering of strata

Radiometric dating of layers of volcanic tuffs, lava beds and so forth that interleave major sedimentary strata, confirm not just the immense age of the strata, but also their chronological ordering. Berthault has criticised radiometric dating technology, but he has consistently failed to explain why the dates produced by radiometric dating are consistent with the consensus view of geology (34) and utterly inconsistent with his idiosyncratic interpretation.

Conclusion

Guy Berthault’s claims simply do not stand up to detailed scrutiny. We can safely conclude that his claims, far from revolutionising sedimentology and the science of geology, are no more than extravagant hubris.

References

1. M Berthault’s website can be found here:

http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/

2. http://www.kolbecenter.org

3. See the ‘Advisory Council’ link at ref 2

4. Berthault, Sedimentation of a Heterogranular Mixture. Experimental Lamination in Still and Running Water, C.R. Acad. Sc., 1988, vol. 306, Serie II, pp. 717—724

5. Berthault, Sedimentologie: Expériences sur la lamination des sédiments par granoclassement périodique postérieur au dépôt. C.R. Acad. Sc., 1986, vol. 303, Ser., 2, no. 17, pp. 1569-1574.

6. Julien, Lan and Berthault, Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 1993, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 649--660.

7. Berthault, Geological Dating Principles Questioned, in the Chinese journal Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics 22, No 3, 2002, pp. 19-26

8. Berthault, Analysis of Main principles of Statigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data, in the Russian Journal Lithology and Mineral Resources, English translation of Litologiya i Polznye Iskopaemye 37, No 5, 2002, pp. 509-515

9. Berthault, Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River), Lithology and Mineral Resources 39, No 5, 2004, pp 504 – 508

10. Henke, Berthault's "Stratigraphy": Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawman Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles, available here:

http://noanswersinge...henke_steno.htm

11. Henke, Some Questions for Dr Berthault, available here:

http://noanswersinge...ult_k_henke.htm

12. http://www.answersin...ation_reply.asp

13. http://www.creationo...ntent/view/681/

14. http://www.answersin...1/i2/nature.asp

15. Bouma, Sedimentology of some Flysch deposits; A graphic approach to facies interpretation, Elsevier (1962)

16. Fisher and Schmincke, Pyroclastic Rocks, Springer-Verlag (1984)

17. Austin, (ed.) Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research (1994)

18. Fischer and Roberts, Cyclicity in the Green River Formation lacustrine (Eocene) of Wyoming: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61, 1146-1154 (1991)

19. Ripepe, Roberts and Fischer, ENSO and Sunspot Cycles in Varved Eocene Oil Shales from Image Analysis, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 61, no. 7, Dec. 1991, 1155-1163

20. Stow and Bowen, A physical model for the transport and sorting of fine-grained sediment by turbidity currents Sedimentology 27 (1), 31–46 (1980)

21. Jackson and Beschta, Influences of increased sand delivery on the morphology of sand and gravel channels Journal of the American Water Resources Association 20 (4), 527–533 (1984)

22. Steidtmann, Size-density sorting of sand-size spheres during deposition from bedload transport and implications concerning hydraulic equivalence Sedimentology 29 (6), 877–883 (1982)

23. Sengupta, Size-sorting during suspension transportation—lognormality and other characteristics Sedimentology 22 (2), 257–273 (1975)

24. Sengupta, Grain-size distribution of suspended load in relation to bed materials and flow velocity Sedimentology 26 (1), 63–82 (1979)

25. Bridge and Best, Flow, sediment transport and bedform dynamics over the transition from dunes to upper-stage plane beds: implications for the formation of planar laminae Sedimentology 35 (5), 753–763 (1988)

26. Ashley, Southard and Boothroyd, Deposition of climbing-ripple beds: a flume simulation Sedimentology 29 (1), 67–79 (1982)

27. Jopling and Forbes, Flume Study of Silt Transportation and Deposition, Geografiska Annaler Series A, Physical Geography  61, 67-85 (1979)

28. Carey and Roy, Deposition of laminated shale: A field and experimental study Geo-Marine Letters 5, (1985)

29. Machlus, Olsen, Christie-Blick and Hemming, American Geophysical Union, Milankovitch Cyclicity in the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado and Wyoming Fall Meeting 2001, abstract #U12A-0000

31. http://www.icr.org/article/473/

32. http://www.kolbecent...r.geocolumn.pdf

33. http://www.noevolution.org/

34. Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press (1994)


What Berthault is describing is the 'Bouma Sequence' and is easily identifiable by geologist. The Tonto Group strata do not fall into this category. The Tonto Group includes shales and limestones. How were the carbonates, evaporites and shales deposited in a very rapid manner?

Tonto Group Link

DEPOSITION OF THE TONTO GROUP

In A New Approach, Berthault attempts to "apply" his principles to explain how the Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon region could hypothetically form during "Noah's Flood".  The ideas and diagrams are largely taken from Austin (1994, p. 67-70). 

The Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon region consists of the Tapeats Sandstone, Bright Angel Shale and Muav Limestone.  According to Berthault, geologists conclude that the formations represent at least 70 million years of deposition.   Detailed reviews of the geology of these and associated formations at Young Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon: Part 1: The Geology of the Colorado Plateau and Van Till et al. (1988, chapter 6) demonstrate that their origins are incompatible with a rapid and violent "Genesis Flood".   , the Bright Angel Shale contains a number of thin, but coarse-grained, conglomerates.  While such features could periodically develop over geologic time, how could these gravelly layers form in the MIDDLE of Berthault's rapid "Flood-based sediment sorting process"?  Furthermore, there are sections of the Bright Angel Shale where the materials become coarser rather than finer moving UPWARD in the formation.  How is this consistent with the origin of "Zone 5" in Austin and Berthault's Figure 14? Fossils of brachiopods and other sessile animals are also present in the Tonto Group.  How could organisms live and build burrows in such rapidly deposited sediments?  Also, if "Noah's Flood" transported the brachiopods into the formations, how would relatively large brachiopods get sorted with finer grained sediments? Why aren't they with the gravels?  In contrast to the oversimplified and inadequate explanations for the origin of the Tonto Group provided by YECs Berthault and Austin (1994), Strahler (1987, chapter 31) and Young Earth Creationism and the Geology of the Grand Canyon by Jon Woolf contain accurate and detailed descriptions of the geologic history of the Canyon. 

CONCLUSIONS

Most of Berthault's "discoveries" are not new.  Although Berthault's hard work is very interesting, he and his YEC colleagues are often unaware that geologists knew about these "discoveries" in sedimentology and field geology decades or even more than a century ago.  In other cases, Berthault's ideas (such as his comprehension of Steno's Principles and uniformitarianism) are grossly outdated.  Because YECs Berthault and Austin's views of the geological properties of the Tonto Group lack sufficient detail, their "Flood model" utterly fails to explain the origin of the Group.


Peace

#119 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2010 - 01:11 PM

Be careful Scanman,it appears that Mr. Mcandrew is an anti-creationists more bent on propaganda than science or facts.

His experimental work is not especially original or revolutionary
His studies do not support a radical reinterpretation of sedimentology


His experiments have empirically falsified the "law of superposition".That has'nt even been thought of or suggested since N. Steno.

Berthault and his supporters suggest (9), (33) that the sorting of fossils in the geological column is a consequence of ecology and hydraulics – ie organisms are buried where they live, or where they can reasonably be expected to be transported in the putative floods. But this is simply unsustainable. Even in the Grand Canyon, Berthault’s prime example, the fossil species support the chronological rather than the hydraulic sorting of fossils – as they do everywhere in the world.


Funny how they claim "the whole of geology" or "hundreds of years of research",but a Creationists can go into the feild and overturn everything in few days,with his own money,and by himself.

http://gsa.confex.co...tract_45610.htm

Remember,all of those fossils and evidence did'nt exist for hundreds of years according to the OE geologists.If it was'nt for Creationists research,nobody would of looked for it.



Enjoy.

#120 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 01 January 2010 - 02:53 PM

His experiments have empirically falsified the "law of superposition".That has'nt even been thought of or suggested since N. Steno.


False, The 'Principle of Superposition is still valid today, but with exceptions.

Principle of Superposition - wiki link

Berthault has misapplied even the current 'Principle of Superposition" by not looking at the strata vertically...one point directly above the other.

Critique by Dr Henke (Link)

When applying the Principle of Superposition, Dr. Berthault should NOT compare the topset of one layer with the DOWN SLOPE bottomset of another and then claim that the law is invalid.  To appropriately apply the Principle of Superposition, topsets must ONLY be compared with overlying and underlying layers in a vertical direction and bottomsets with their overlying and underlying layers, also in a vertical direction (Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, a proper application of the Principle of Superposition creates a series of separate vertical lines, each with its own relative age relationships.  For example, as shown by the vertical line on the right side of Figure 1, the Principle of Superposition correctly indicates that bottomset t3 is younger than bottomset t2, and bottomset t2 is younger than bottomset t1.  Additionally, as shown by the second vertical line from the left in Figure 1, topset t3 is younger than topset t2 and topset t2 is younger than foreset t1.  Whether the sediment layers prograde and dip as shown in Figure 1 or deposit horizontally in still water, the Principle of Superposition can ONLY be applied in a vertical direction. Therefore, the principle CANNOT be used to determine the relative ages of topset t1 with bottomsets t2 and t3 because the bottomsets are NOT directly underneath or above topset t1 (Figure 1 and Figure 7B at Dr. Berthault's website). 

As clearly shown in Figure 2, the Principle of Superposition by itself CANNOT be used to determine whether Layer A is older or younger than the stream sediments.  Cross-cutting and other field relationships are required to determine which layer is older or younger.  If Dr. Berthault is going to misapply the Principle of Superposition in his Figure 7B by going in a lateral (non-vertical) direction, he might just as well also inappropriately attack the principle because stream sediments in valleys are often younger than rocks on the summits of nearby hills (Figure 2). No modern field geologist applies the Principle of Superposition in the way that Dr. Berthault does.

Berthault's Figure 7 simply illustrates how deltas, dunes and some other ordinary prograding sedimentary features can form.  Again, Gilbert figured this out in 1885.  Similar sketches of sloping and prograding beds in deltas have been illustrated in geology books for decades. For example, notice the great similarities in the prograding beds in Dr. Berthault's Figure 7B with those in Figure 21A in Dunbar and Rodgers (1957, p. 41).

(addressed to Dr Berthault)
How can you justify attacking the Principle of Superposition by comparing layers that do not vertically overlie or underlie each other?   What justification do you have for applying the Principle of Superposition in this manner? If you believe that Figure 7B violates the Principle of Superposition, why not my Figure 2? 


Posted Image

Posted Image


Also, You never answered my question...

The Tonto Group includes shales and limestones. How were the carbonates, evaporites and shales deposited in a very rapid manner?
(given the nature of carbonate, evaporite and shale deposition)

Tulane Geology Link

Carbonate Depositional Environments
Most modern, and probably most ancient, carbonates are predominantly shallow water (depths <10-20 m) deposits.  This is because the organisms that produce carbonate are either photosynthetic or require the presence of photosynthetic organisms.  Since photosynthesis requires light from the Sun, and such light cannot penetrate to great depths in the oceans, the organisms thrive only at shallow depths.  Furthermore, carbonate deposition in general only occurs in environments where there is a lack of siliciclastic input into the water.  Siliclastic input increases the turbidity of the water and prevents light from penetrating, and silicate minerals have a hardness much greater than carbonate minerals, and would tend to mechanically abrade the carbonates.  Most carbonate deposition also requires relatively warm waters which also enhance the abundance of carbonate secreting organisms and decrease the solubility of calcium carbonate in seawater.

Evaporites
Evaporite minerals are those minerals produced by extensive or total evaporation of a saline solution.  Because such minerals dissolve readily in less saline rich solutions, like most groundwater and surface water, evaporite rocks rarely outcrop at the surface except in aid regions.  Evaporite rocks are common, however, in the subsurface.  Three different environments result in the deposition of evaporites.

1. Basins of internal drainage. In arid regions with basins of internal drainage rainfall in the adjacent areas is carried into the basin by ephemeral streams carrying water and dissolved ions.  The water fills the low points in the basin to form a playa lake.  These lakes eventually evaporate, resulting in the precipitation of salts such as halite, gypsum, anhydrite, and a variety of other salts not commonly found in marine evaporite deposits, such as trona (NaHCO3.Na2CO3.2H2O), natron (Na2CO3.10H2O), nahcolite (NaHCO3), mirabilite (Na2SO4.10H2O), borax (Na2B4O5(OH)4.8H2O), kernite [Na2B4O6(OH)2.3H2O], and colemanite (CaB3O4(OH)3.H2O).

 
2. Restricted bays or seas. In areas where there restricted input of fresh or marine waters into a basin, coupled with extensive evaporation within the basin, dissolved ion concentrations may increase to the point where form a dense concentrated solution is formed near the surface.
 
These dense saline waters then sink within the basin, become oversaturated with respect to salts like gypsum and halite, and precipitate the salts on the floor of the basin.


3. Shallow arid coasts or sabkhas.  Along shallow arid coastlines where input of fresh water is rare and evaporation increases the salinity of the marine water, evaporation may increase the salinity of the water to a point where evaporite minerals like halite and gypsum are precipitated.


Shale Formation - wiki link

Shale Formation
Most oil shale formations took place during mid-Cambrian, early and middle Ordovician, late Devonian, late Jurassic and Paleogene periods. These were formed by the deposition of organic matter in a variety of depositional environments including freshwater to highly saline lakes, epicontinental marine basins and subtidal shelves and were restricted to estuarine areas such as oxbow lakes, peat bogs, limnic and coastal swamps, and muskegs. When plants die in such an anaerobic aquatic environment, low oxygen levels prevent their complete bacterial decay.

For undecayed organic matter to be preserved and to form oil shale, the environment must remain uniform for prolonged periods of time in order to build up sufficiently thick sequences of algal matter. Eventually, the algal swamp or other restricted environment is disrupted and oil shale accumulation ceases. Burial by sedimentary loading on top of the algal swamp deposits converts the organic matter to kerogen by the following normal diagenetic processes:


Peace




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users