I think we need to respect the law of superposition, but realize the extent to which one may apply it.Ã‚Â Even in a YEC model, the law is still effective.Ã‚Â If you have a large formation of limestone under a large formation of shale for instance.Ã‚Â It obvious that the vast majority of the limestone was there first.Ã‚Â
The video has no respect for the Law of Superrposition in my opinion. I don't know what your comment about limestone means.
However within the major formations, members, etc. there is every posibility that two or more strata could have been laid simultaneously.Ã‚Â In my opinion, this would not invalidate the LOS, but subject it to limitations, and applications.Ã‚Â By applications, I mean one can not remove the fact that one stratum is superposed upon another, but IN THE TIME that they were deposited, the LOS does not necessarily hold sway, as is suggested by most literature.Ã‚Â
It all has to do with bendng use of terms such as "strata"....it held sway in the experiment and it holds sway in the literature outside of the muck from Berthault.
You keep saying the literature already acknowledges these things.Ã‚Â Please provide a quote where it is stated that two strata could be deposited simultaneously, as was clearly shown in Julienne's research.Ã‚Â
This is textbook geology stuff, and in the literature it is implicit that the principle holds. It depends on your use of the term "strata" as I have said. The video bends terminology in an attempt to make an invalid point. Time startigraphuc units and lithostratigraphic units are understood. I gave stacks of disccusion about this in another thread. Time Stratigraphy
She doesn't draw very well, and the audio is a pain.
There are two things at play here.Ã‚Â First the Law of Faunal Succession is circular and is not constant.Ã‚Â If it was, we would never read of any organism being moved back in geotime.Ã‚Â If everytime you find a new fossil that is associated with fossils of "another period" you simply move the date back, then the LOFS is circular.Ã‚Â You can by no means falsify it.
There is absolutely nothing circular in the Law of Faunal Succession. There is not an element of being "constant" involved, but it is consistent. It is not involved in dating as you imply here.
Of course, conversely, it is of no consquence if I find marine organisms in the upper layers, or I find a mammal, or bird mixed in.Ã‚Â If I find a sponge next to a whale, though the sponge is a cambrian (living) fossil, it "continued" in it's niche throughout time supposedly.Ã‚Â I have dealt with this kind of thing going through the layers of the G. Canyon already in another post.
But you apparently did not understand the principle, for you are not making correct claims involving it here.
Second, the video animated a situation where one fossil that is below another fossil is in an isochrone preceding the top fossil.Ã‚Â Because the strata are layered in isochrones (time unit lines), it is theoretically possible for one fossil that is lower in the strata to be placed there after the higher fossil.Ã‚Â Again, it is because the layering is determined by isochrones, not the interface of the strata.
Once again you are mixing up the concepts of time stratigraphy and lithostratigraphy as the video apparently did intentionally to confuse people to jump to the same wrong conclusions. Once again I already posted about this exact thing in a different thread. They attempt to attack fuanal succession and failed miserably.