Jump to content


Photo

Uluru--a Flood Composition


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
48 replies to this topic

#21 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 27 November 2010 - 03:50 AM

Mama, I agree.  Mt St Helens was an eye opener.  I remember hearing the news of how scientists were surprised concerning the floral regrowth.  They figured it would take much longer than just a year or two.

The reason I am sticking to the experiments, is that it is part of the scientific method.  It strengthens the support for the rapid ocean sediment deposition over the continents during the flood.

It is counter intuitive to think that current could organize strata into an organized unit in  a rapid fashion.  This is the very reason the initial challenge of flood geology came in the late 1700s by Hutton and others, and later Lyell. 

The experiments are a counter punch to anyone who wants to honestly look at the feasibility of rapid strata organization by water.


Like the experiment in the video, there is nothing here that is any sort of geologic eye-opener.

The experiment you cite does not strengthen support for rapid deposition in oceans beyond what was already known in previous work. Additionally the experiment was designed to use only one grain size, which is very rare in actual depositional environments, and in one flow environment. Trying to make this one case fit most all deposition is very bad science, yet the video makes just that case. Try the same experiment with silt or clay sized sediment and see the results.

#22 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 27 November 2010 - 04:29 AM

I think we need to respect the law of superposition, but realize the extent to which one may apply it.  Even in a YEC model, the law is still effective.  If you have a large formation of limestone under a large formation of shale for instance.  It obvious that the vast majority of the limestone was there first. 


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.  In my opinion, this would not invalidate the LOS, but subject it to limitations, and applications.  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. 


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.  Please provide a quote where it is stated that two strata could be deposited simultaneously, as was clearly shown in Julienne's research. 


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.  First the Law of Faunal Succession is circular and is not constant.  If it was, we would never read of any organism being moved back in geotime.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.

#23 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 27 November 2010 - 04:47 AM

"Explanations like this are disingenious in that they attempt to cloud true geologic principles through a confusing mish-mash of re-defined terminology. Layers is a poor term. I pointed out the correct terminology months ago in a different thread. The average person does not study or think about chronostratigraphic units vs. lithostratigraphic units so we have not really been "fed" anything in this regard in terms of the general population. Geologists have known about time-tramsgressive strata for a long time. There is no challenge. Nothing you have discussed here pertains to a claim about slow sedimentation. By definition consecutive strata cannot form simultaneously. Juliene is fine in what he claims, unless he says it refutes the principle of Superposition. His T1 and T2 is fine as far as it goes, but it does not show this. It also has no impact of the concept of geologic time. Progading sequences are well-understood and fit in completely with the concept."


Many things in science have been "redefined." You are reviewing it, and there is nothing wrong with your criticism of the terminology. I have suggested the term "isochrone layers" denoting the linear path through time, which is what an isochrone is.


I would suggest using the term "time lines" ....

Again, the paper does use "isochrones." The point of the paper is to challenge the hypothesis that layers interface on the strata. They rather interface on the isochrones.


They play around a lot with the term "layer" vs. "strata" in what appears to be an attempt to muddy the waters. Geologists outside of this team have no problem keeping chronostratigraphy straight from lithostratigraphy.

Geode wrote...
By definition consecutive strata cannot form simultaneously.


I find it quite amazing, that in light of the fact that two superpsosed layers were forming in the flume simultaneously before all to evidently see, that you would deny the possibility of this ever happening.

If you had said "did not" instead of "can not" then I would have found that you are being guided by underlying belief in modern geology. But you said "can not," which puts into a situation where you aer arguing from non-evidence. It is quite obvious the flume experiments show your statement to be invalid.


I find it amaqing that you don't seem to know the definition of the word "consecutive"....which is about following successively. I also find it amazing that you haven't paid attention to my past posts on this very aspect of the experiment, and my current reprise of explaining that this is all the bending of terms to make a false YEC point. There are clearly not two "superposed layers" that were forming simulaneously, using the term correctly. I beat my head against the wall explaining this. Apparently there is no point in trying to do so again as you seem unable or unwilling to accept very standard geologic principles such as this one. Sediments are being deposited simulataneously, but they are better termed facies. I told you how to test the Law of Superposition as it is accepted and applied yet you declined to do so. I thought at the time that your were afraid that you would see the truth in what I was saying. No need for fear. God remains God whether of not a stratigrapher has failed to invalidate solid principles of geology.

I said that by "definition" your comment was not possible. No need to even involve evidence.

Moreover, are you not contradicting yourself? In post # 12, the first paragraph, you wrote this.


"What was shown and recorded in the experiment does show science that cannot be refuted."

Why do you then pick and choose the science you wish to acknowedge? Two strata were formed simultaneously in the video. Did you not see it? 


No, I was not contradicting myself. See above. But here you go again using terminology to make a false conclusion. It all comes down to what I have been saying about the disingenious nature of the video. I talked about this months ago. Yes, more than one facies was deposited simulateously. But in the context of strata defined by the Law of Superposition.....no.

#24 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 27 November 2010 - 05:16 AM

So how do these ash flow observations refute the Law of Superposition? That is the discussion at hand. And what relevence is what you are citing to the discussion here?

View Post

I have repeatedly said the LOS is not refuted, but there must be conditions as to it's application, as shown by the experiments, the video, AND the paper. Austin did extensive research at St. Helens, which could have implications not necessarily connected to the LOS.

I saw a presentation about 25 years ago by Austin on St. Helens. If memory serves there are strata, or layers of ash and mud that were formed catastrophically though. Austin also presented the canyon cut by the flow, and did other research on the floating trees of Spirit Lake that could have implications for multiple forest interpretation.

#25 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 November 2010 - 08:54 AM

Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each.


So how do these ash flow observations refute the Law of Superposition? That is the discussion at hand. And what relevence is what you are citing to the discussion here?

View Post

Geode, you have changed the wording to say "ash flow". I am afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to explain how the occurrences at Mt. St. Helens are not relevant.

As a result of the volcanic eruptions, thick deposits of fine laminate accumulated that was later eroded into large canyons. Naturalists have long claimed that these features, which are common to earth's geology, were accomplished over great lengths of time. The rapid production of these formations at Mt. St. Helens provided evidence that catastrophic mechanisms, such as those ongoing during the Biblical flood, could instead be responsible.


Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.


Okay, fine, lets look at this law. Let's say it is true... The canyon at Mt. St. Helens with all of the sedimentary layers formed in one day. Maybe the the oldest layer is a few minutes or hours older than the youngest.

#26 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 27 November 2010 - 03:43 PM

Geode, you have changed the wording to say "ash flow". I am afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to explain how the occurrences at Mt. St. Helens are not relevant.
Okay, fine, lets look at this law. Let's say it is true... The canyon at Mt. St. Helens with all of the sedimentary layers formed in one day. Maybe the the oldest layer is a few minutes or hours older than the youngest.

View Post

Mama I'm not ignoring you. Anyone can easily see that if one stratum is superposed on another, at least part of the lower was there before the higher. But not necessarily all of it. It was shown in the flume that it was possible for one part of the lower to be deposited AFTER the higher.

This is what Geode keeps evading by saying they already knew about these things, or taking issue with one statement Julienne said in the video. Instead of seeing the real issues. Namely the speed of the deposition, the way particle segregation organized the strata, change of current speed started another stratum, and (in the paper) drying out caused a "seperation," or the appearance of bedding planes between the strata.

None of these things are ever communicated to the general public, so nearly everyone takes for granted that one stratum was placed at a time. Geode also said that Julienne can not prove that all strata were placed this way. On the contrary, I would like him to show us some strata that have no current indicators, or could not be explained by current or water.

The fact that solid rock has crystallized tells us that water was present. The basic principles of crystallization require a substrate in a supersaturated solution. This can happen in a gas, but more often it happens in water.

#27 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 27 November 2010 - 05:42 PM

Mama I'm not ignoring you.  Anyone can easily see that if one stratum is superposed on another, at least part of the lower was there before the higher.  But not necessarily all of it.  It was shown in the flume that it was possible for one part of the lower to be deposited AFTER the higher. 

This is what Geode keeps evading by saying they already knew about these things, or taking issue with one statement Julienne said in the video.  Instead of seeing the real issues.  Namely the speed of the deposition, the way particle segregation organized the strata, change of current speed started another stratum, and (in the paper) drying out caused a "seperation," or the appearance of bedding planes between the strata.

None of these things are ever communicated to the general public, so nearly everyone takes for granted that one stratum was placed at a time.  Geode also said that Julienne can not prove that all strata were placed this way.  On the contrary, I would like him to show us some strata that have no current indicators, or could not be explained by current or water. 

The fact that solid rock has crystallized tells us that water was present.  The basic principles of crystallization require a substrate in a supersaturated solution.  This can happen in a gas, but more often it happens in water.

View Post

Yep. Thanks AFJ.... and it appears that the water needs to be warm or hot for some rocks, which I found very interesting.

#28 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 November 2010 - 02:52 AM

"Mama I'm not ignoring you.  Anyone can easily see that if one stratum is superposed on another, at least part of the lower was there before the higher.  But not necessarily all of it.  It was shown in the flume that it was possible for one part of the lower to be deposited AFTER the higher.

This is what Geode keeps evading by saying they already knew about these things, or taking issue with one statement Julienne said in the video.  Instead of seeing the real issues.  Namely the speed of the deposition, the way particle segregation organized the strata, change of current speed started another stratum, and (in the paper) drying out caused a "seperation," or the appearance of bedding planes between the strata.

None of these things are ever communicated to the general public, so nearly everyone takes for granted that one stratum was placed at a time.  Geode also said that Julienne can not prove that all strata were placed this way.  On the contrary, I would like him to show us some strata that have no current indicators, or could not be explained by current or water.

The fact that solid rock has crystallized tells us that water was present.  The basic principles of crystallization require a substrate in a supersaturated solution.  This can happen in a gas, but more often it happens in water."
*

Yep. Thanks AFJ.... and it appears that the water needs to be warm or hot for some rocks, which I found very interesting.


Too bad almost all of what AFJ has posted is in error.

I have not evaded anything stated as results in that experiment. I posted at length about this months ago, which he now chooses to ignore. No problem. My debates with creationists have usually gone this way, after time has passed they raise the exact same questions as if I had never addressed them. Studies involving the speed of the deposition and lamination were published long before this experiment was conducted. These things had been part of the understanding of stratigraphy and sedimentation long before this experiment too place. It basically re-affirmed what was known. This video has not been presented to the general public either, or at least I hope not as it is basically inaccurate propagandistic tripe. But here is another paranoid sounding comment about some conspiracy of science to hide something from people. But AJF seems to now be backing the claim that all strata are formed as that shamefully dishonest video claims. Julienne would not make that claim. One can look to flume experiments done with different grain sizes and velocities and see quite different results. I'll bet some of these are online, look at them. I posted months ago that all one has to do to see this is not the case is go out and watch sediments being deposited today. Go to a riverbank and look at the sand distribution there. You can look at a section through it and see strata that do not remotely resemble the prograding sediments in the video in the form they take. Walk through the outcrops of the Book Cliffs and you will see that this notion is complete nonsense. All sedimentation is not done "sideways" as the video claims.

Not once did I say anything about the results of the experiment not been valid, the results speak for themselves. I said that the conclusions about superposition were wrong. I am tired of going over and over the same territory. I have posted about all this before and AJF simply ignores it now, so what is the point? There are very well documented eolian deposits. As with his comments about carbonate cementation, what he is implying is just jumping to conclusions about paleocurrent indicators. There are massive strata, notably limestone with subtle or no apparent indicators.

AJF earlier ignored a post by Scanman where provided the following link. I can give my own comments about what is written here as necessary, but it also shows with a plan diagram how The Law of Superposition holds fine in the results of this experiment. If my explanation didn't work, which was along the same lines, I doubt that teh comments of this other geologist will be accepted either.

Bad Science

I don't know where this comment about crystallization comes from, as the particles in the experiment shows clastic deposition, but the claim that solid rock has crystallized and tells of water being present ignores the creation and presence of igneous rocks. The basic principles of crystallization do not require either a substrate or supersaturated solutions. I would suggest that people do some study of basic geology and chemistry before throwing such statements out as fact.

Something being lower or higher in rocks is not all there is to the "Principle of Superposition"...this has been carefully explained in some past posts I made. It is the basic lie that the video makes about this principle of geology.

#29 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 November 2010 - 02:56 AM

I have repeatedly said the LOS is not refuted, but there must be conditions as to it's application, as shown by the experiments, the video, AND the paper.  Austin did extensive research at St. Helens, which could have implications not necessarily connected to the LOS.

I saw a presentation about 25 years ago by Austin on St. Helens. If memory serves there are strata, or layers of ash and mud that were formed catastrophically though.  Austin also presented the canyon cut by the flow, and did other research on the floating trees of Spirit Lake that could have implications for multiple forest interpretation.

View Post



The video claims that it is refuted. Are you now refuting the video? I am aware of Austin's work at Mt. St. Helen's which proves nothing new, or actually gives factual support of the YEC concept of the flood.

By definition a volcanic eruption is rather catastrophic. I saw nothing in what he has written on the subject which has any real bearing on the Grand Canyon. which seems to have been the intent of what he was up to.

#30 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 28 November 2010 - 03:00 AM

Geode, you have changed the wording to say "ash flow". I am afraid that I have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to explain how the occurrences at Mt. St. Helens are not relevant.
Okay, fine, lets look at this law. Let's say it is true... The canyon at Mt. St. Helens with all of the sedimentary layers formed in one day. Maybe the the oldest layer is a few minutes or hours older than the youngest.

View Post


The studies at Mt. St. Helens I have seen are about ahs flows from the eruption being eroded and re-deposited. The sediments involved are quite different than what were used in the experiment at hand. I don't think Dr. Austin made any attack on the Law of Superposition as Berthault and the video did.

#31 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 28 November 2010 - 08:24 AM

Too bad almost all of what AFJ has posted is in error.

I have not evaded anything stated as results in that experiment. I posted at length about this months ago, which he now chooses to ignore. No problem. My debates with creationists have usually gone this way, after time has passed they raise the exact same questions as if I had never addressed them. Studies involving the speed of the deposition and lamination were published long before this experiment was conducted. These things had been part of the understanding of stratigraphy and sedimentation long before this experiment too place. It basically re-affirmed what was known. This video has not been presented to the general public either, or at least I hope not as it is basically inaccurate propagandistic tripe. But here is another paranoid sounding comment about some conspiracy of science to hide something from people. But AJF seems to now be backing the claim that all strata are formed as that shamefully dishonest video claims. Julienne would not make that claim. One can look to flume experiments done with different grain sizes and velocities and see quite different results. I'll bet some of these are online, look at them. I posted months ago that all one has to do to see this is not the case is go out and watch sediments being deposited today. Go to a riverbank and look at the sand distribution there. You can look at a section through it and see strata that do not remotely resemble the prograding sediments in the video in the form they take. Walk through the outcrops of the Book Cliffs and you will see that this notion is complete nonsense. All sedimentation is not done "sideways" as the video claims.

Not once did I say anything about the results of the experiment not been valid, the results speak for themselves. I said that the conclusions about superposition were wrong. I am tired of going over and over the same territory. I have posted about all this before and AJF simply ignores it now, so what is the point? There are very well documented eolian deposits. As with his comments about carbonate cementation, what he is implying is just jumping to conclusions about paleocurrent indicators. There are massive strata, notably limestone with subtle or no apparent indicators.

AJF earlier ignored a post by Scanman where provided the following link. I can give my own comments about what is written here as necessary, but it also shows with a plan diagram how The Law of Superposition holds fine in the results of this experiment. If my explanation didn't work, which was along the same lines, I doubt that teh comments of this other geologist will be accepted either.

Bad Science

I don't know where this comment about crystallization comes from, as the particles in the experiment shows clastic deposition, but the claim that solid rock has crystallized and tells of water being present ignores the creation and presence of igneous rocks. The basic principles of crystallization do not require either a substrate or supersaturated solutions. I would suggest that people do some study of basic geology and chemistry before throwing such statements out as fact.

Something being lower or higher in rocks is not all there is to the "Principle of Superposition"...this has been carefully explained in some past posts I made. It is the basic lie that the video makes about this principle of geology.

View Post

I am not ignoring you. The video never claimed that all sedimentation is done in a prograding manner. It also presents at the beginning, sedimentation in dry settings, and in still water. So you are strawmanning what I said. There should be no problem with this in flood geology, as there were different stages of the deluge, different regional events on the earth during the flood.

So you hold to what is current to compare what is in the past by your comments, and throw in some catastrophes, to nullify any contrary research. But that will not stop the research. Nor the reviewing of old research by credentialed creationist scientists.

That still does not explain the mechanism in the uniformintarian model of how oceans transgressed the continents to transport so many evident, now lithified ocean sediments. And how, if these sediments did accumulate so slowly, the fossil graveyards formed, the majority of the larger fauna having broken but well preserved fragments that are in the fossil record. The many soft tissue and ichofossil finds. The many evidences of trasport and paleocurrent indicators in the strata. The cross bedding, and other evidences of turbidity in the strata. This is not indicative of slow sedimentation.

A global flood could have easily produced both slow and fast sedimentation, depending on the stage of the flood, and the regional events.

Perhaps you have not been reading my posts. I used the word "evading" intentionally to provoke your attention to my requests.

If you be so kind as to refer me to the specific post # and thread to your rebuttals I will read them, as I do not read every single post on this site.

I have been requesting links to earlier research as to rapid strata development in current, particle segregation in still and moving water links, and the formation of bedding planes as a result of dessication.

#32 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 28 November 2010 - 09:07 AM

I don't know where this comment about crystallization comes from, as the particles in the experiment shows clastic deposition, but the claim that solid rock has crystallized and tells of water being present ignores the creation and presence of igneous rocks. The basic principles of crystallization do not require either a substrate or supersaturated solutions. I would suggest that people do some study of basic geology and chemistry before throwing such statements out as fact.


I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are truly a geologist as you claim. Surely you are not saying that solid rocks are "uncrystallized" are you?

All minerals that rocks are made up of are crystals. I am completely aware that many rocks are cemented, which has to do with aggregation on the molecular level, and requires water. Portland cement forms calcium hydrate crystals and binds the aggregates together. http://www.osti.gov/.../948133-9lhceF/
This happens as a result of water and calcium chemical reactions. Quartz crystals, on the other hand, which are not hydrated, can be grown in a marketed science kit. They are grown in WATER.

And your statement...

The basic principles of crystallization do not require either a substrate or supersaturated solutions.


This is wrong. You need to go study.

The crystal growth is the subsequent growth of the nuclei that succeed in achieving the critical cluster size. Nucleation and growth continue to occur simultaneously while the supersaturation exists. Supersaturation is the driving force of the crystallization, hence the rate of nucleation and growth is driven by the existing supersaturation in the solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallization

As far as your comments on me ignoring igneous rocks. Who is ignoring anything? Vocanic activity is a part of flood models, and igneous rocks also have crystal lattice. I don't understand your point. We were talking about sedimentary, so I was talking in that context. You are trying to paint the "ignorant creationist" picture, when you yourself have made an error about crystallization.

Note: Please read preceding also

#33 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 November 2010 - 12:52 PM

All minerals that rocks are made up of are crystals. I am completely aware that many rocks are cemented, which has to do with aggregation on the molecular level, and requires water. Portland cement forms calcium hydrate crystals and binds the aggregates together. http://www.osti.gov/.../948133-9lhceF/
This happens as a result of water and calcium chemical reactions. Quartz crystals, on the other hand, which are not hydrated, can be grown in a marketed science kit. They are grown in WATER.



Look at the cross section in this post:


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=64625


It obvious that the bottom layers being solid layered rock was formed in water. Why isn't the dry sand layer on top cementing? That question should be obvious to anybody seeking a true answer.


The same can be said of other "alleged" eloin strata (e.g. Coconino Sandstone, Navajo Sandstone).




Thanks.

#34 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 28 November 2010 - 05:29 PM

Correction--I made the statement in my preceding post that all minerals are crystals. Most have crystal lattice structure but some are glasses. That means they are amorphous, and have no organized geometrical structure. I thought I would catch it, before Geode did.

And Jason, you make a good point.

#35 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 28 November 2010 - 08:01 PM

AJF earlier ignored a post by Scanman where provided the following link. I can give my own comments about what is written here as necessary, but it also shows with a plan diagram how The Law of Superposition holds fine in the results of this experiment. If my explanation didn't work, which was along the same lines, I doubt that teh comments of this other geologist will be accepted either.

Bad Science

View Post

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In this link we are also provided Berthault's response to Kevin Henke.

INTRODUCTION

You qualify me as a "young-Earth creationist". This is incorrect. I am not a creationist. I do not use the Bible to construct geological models to accord, in particular, with the Deluge.

If it is true, that being a Catholic, the contradictions between biblical Genesis and historical geology motivated my research, I, nevertheless, took great care to avoid bias and conduct my work with objectivity. Not to do so would have prevented publication of my reports inter alia by the French Academy of Sciences, The Geological Society of France and recently by the Russian Academy of Sciences....

The modern principle of superposition

You say, "The modern principle of superposition …layered sediments or sedimentary rocks tend to be older than any sediments or sedimentary rocks directly above them".  Steno says the same thing, "Therefore, at the time when the lowest stratum formed, none of the superior strata existed". 

Several pages later you write, "Also, contrary to Berthault's claims, Steno's Law of Superposition is not violated in his Figure 7B. In the vertical direction, the overlying materials are still younger than (were deposited after) the underlying materials". Clearly you have not understood Figure 7B which represents stratified superposed beds prograding simultaneously in the direction of the current. In time t1 the topset is older than the bottomset in t2 and t3. The principle of superposition, therefore, is invalidated. The same reasoning applies to all superposed deposits resulting from a continuous turbulent current with fluctuating velocity.


Why is this so hard to understand? It is therefore in the afore mentioned conditions that the law of superposition does not apply as defined by Henke himself! The only thing that is preventing the acceptance of this is stubborness.

You also say, "Large age differences between the two layers are especially common if an erosional plane (unconformity) exists between them". In our flume experiments, a temporary increase in current velocity eroded the deposit, creating a surface erosion covered by the new sediment when the  velocity reduces. There is, therefore, no sedimentary hiatus. It is the "scour and fill" movement. It follows that these discordances must be interpreted not from the rocks but the sediments of which they are constituted.


I wonder if unconformities being caused by this were also previously known by modern geology.

Lower down you write, "In the 1960s and 1970s, long before Berthault's research, geologists knew that laminae …can form under a variety of conditions".  My lamination experiments in France were in 1974. At that time, I knew about the earlier flume experiments in lamination. In my report to the Academy I cited Edwin Mc Kee's work in 1965. But the originality of my experiments was to have reduced a sample of  friable laminated sandstone to its constituent particles. The resultant particles were then poured dry into a flask, and then with the flask filled with water. It could be seen that the deposit in both cases reproduced the original lamination irrespective of the speed of sedimentation. This showed a property of mechanics, and not chronology, applies to heterogranular mixtures, producing segregation of the particles according to size. It explained that the resulting lamination was not formed by successive layers. Similarly, the explanation of larves by successive deposits is challenged. 


Geology says varves are based on chronology through multiple seasons. No "pre-knowledge" by geologists of the research, which shows that particle segregation can explain varves.


Berthault well qualifies the conditions by which his findings make implication. Nowhere does he make sweeping generalities that each finding is applicable to the entire sedimentary record.

He is defining specifically the conditions by which he limits and/or challenges the accepted understanding of modern geology. If an actualist challenges an actualist, then it is review. But if someone (who does not preclude the flood and is honest about his motivation) challenges "traditional" interpretation for lake varves (in still water), or the LOS in any circumstance, he is supposedly dishonest, or is doing BAD SCIENCE.

#36 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:24 AM

I am not ignoring you.  The video never claimed that all sedimentation is done in a prograding manner.  It also presents at the beginning, sedimentation in dry settings, and in still water.  So you are strawmanning what I said.  There should be no problem with this in flood geology, as there were different stages of the deluge, different regional events on the earth during the flood.

So you hold to what is current to compare what is in the past by your comments, and throw in some catastrophes, to nullify any contrary research.  But that will not stop the research.  Nor the reviewing of old research by credentialed creationist scientists.

That still does not explain the mechanism in the uniformintarian model of how oceans transgressed the continents to transport so many evident, now lithified ocean sediments. And how, if these sediments did accumulate so slowly, the fossil graveyards formed, the majority of the larger fauna having broken but well preserved fragments that are in the fossil record.  The many soft tissue and ichofossil finds.  The many evidences of trasport and paleocurrent indicators in the strata.  The cross bedding, and other evidences of turbidity in the strata.  This is not indicative of slow sedimentation. 

A global flood could have easily produced both slow and fast sedimentation, depending on the stage of the flood, and the regional events.

Perhaps you have not been reading my posts.  I used the word "evading" intentionally to provoke your attention to my requests.

If you be so kind as to refer me to the specific post # and thread to your rebuttals I will read them, as I do not read every single post on this site.

I have been requesting links to earlier research as to rapid strata development in current, particle segregation in still and moving water links, and the formation of bedding planes as a result of dessication. 

View Post

The video attempts to get viewers to assume that all sedimentation is done "sideways"...as in a prograding sequence. It makes a big deal about this. Didn''t you notice? No, I am not making a strawman, and I said it about the video. Yes, I think it could be accomodated in "flood geology" and that is what makes that video even more surprising in its claims.

No, I don't do anything to nullify "contrary" research. There is no contrary evidence to the model to which I follow that I have encountered. It is not as you attempt to describe it here, as if I am Charles Lyell and looking for an occasional "out" from everything being very slow....but you are like every other creationist I have encountered. Not one really understands the application of uniformitarianism or if they do they purposely mis-represent it.
Let creationists review the old literature. I just wish they would represent it more honestly than the usual qoute mine technique I see so often.

Fossil graveyards are usually a creationist strawman concept. Yes, there are places where fossils are preferentially gathered. You can find that same situation today, with places that dead remains accumulate together more than in other places. Some of these may be due to flooding conditions. Once again with the "slowly"...which is not implicit in the application of the principle. You have just given a hodge-podge of ideas here that do not connect with a need for a flood. You have not made any sort of unified explanation that argues towards a flood any more than having sedimentation with non-flooding conditions typically found today. None of the aspects you have listed speak of only flood conditions or even such conditions at all. Some in general speak against such a flood. Cross-bedding is shown to occur in conditions that are not any sort of flood. You throw oput terms that I don't think you really understand in the context you use them

A global flood could have easily produced both slow and fast sedimentation, depending on the stage of the flood, and the regional events.


And so could non-flooding conditions.

Months ago I cited the earlier sources. They are cited in the links Scanman posted. I personally was not evasive and you can find them as I state. Since the search function no longer allows to search out individual posts and just directs to a thread it takes a long time to find anything. I suggest looking at those links.

Sedimentation in rapid velocities was studied long before this experiment, often to study Bouma sequences in turbidites. Segregation of sediments was shown. I am skeptical of the so-called "bedding planes as a result of dessication" you talk about as I have no idea what these are supposed to be. You say they are in a paper that I don't think you have ever posted.

#37 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:48 AM

What if the evidence and experiments do not prove a global flood? What if they simply make it a possibility? Is it possible that a global flood could have left behind this evidence? Let's not forget that flood geologists see evidence of sedimentation and erosion left after the flood as well. They are not saying that the flood has done everything.

Considering the numbers of fossils that have evidence of falling into the water, running from flood waters, asphyxiation, rapid burial, warm or hot water forming sand into stone, calcite deposits, marine fossils covering most of the earth, erosional evidence, mass extinctions, vast climate change, numerous fossils that seem younger than they should be... I just don't see how a global flood can be ruled out.

Here is an example of evidence that fits into both worldviews. I don't see anyone ignoring this evidence. I see them drawing conclusions from it. Conclusions that are equally plausible.

http://creationwiki......Talk.Origins)

#38 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:05 AM

Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382.
Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324.


I am hoping to get these articles about similar experiments to the one being discussed. Perhaps it will answer this quandry:

However, not surprisingly, Berthault’s work is neither mentioned nor referenced in the Nature articles.

We are naturally heartened by this ‘high-profile’ confirmation of Berthault’s experimental results, but readers of Nature could have read all about it more than a decade ago in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. However, what this also confirms is that creation scientists do undertake original research, in this case, research on sedimentation that is applicable to the catastrophic processes of deposition during the Flood, contrary to the establishment’s uniformitarian (slow-and-gradual) interpretation of the formation of such sedimentary strata. And furthermore, creation scientists not only do original research applicable to Flood geology (even if Nature doesn’t recognise it), but the type of research they do is valid and good enough to be published in peer-reviewed secular scientific journals.

:D http://www.answersin.../nature.asp#r11

#39 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:13 AM

http://www.nature.co...df/386379a0.pdf

http://www.nature.co...df/386323a0.pdf

A mixture of two different types of grain can undergo spontaneous stratification simply by being poured. This surprising behaviour may be significant in fields from pharmaceuticals to geology.

Well, there you go. Found it. I will need the whole thing to see if it actually supports Berthault’s work, though this quote seems to fit. It takes a lot of time to check up on sources.

I hope I am not repeating things in this really long thread. :D

#40 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:40 AM

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are truly a geologist as you claim.  Surely you are not saying that solid rocks are "uncrystallized" are you? 

All minerals that rocks are made up of are crystals.  I am completely aware that many rocks are cemented, which has to do with aggregation on the molecular level, and requires water.  Portland cement forms calcium hydrate crystals and binds the aggregates together.  http://www.osti.gov/.../948133-9lhceF/ 
This happens as a result of water and calcium chemical reactions.  Quartz crystals, on the other hand, which are not hydrated, can be grown in a marketed science kit.  They are grown in WATER.

And your statement...

This is wrong.  You need to go study.

http://en.wikipedia....Crystallization

As far as your comments on me ignoring igneous rocks.  Who is ignoring anything?  Vocanic activity is a part of flood models, and igneous rocks also have crystal lattice.  I don't understand your point.  We were talking about sedimentary, so I was talking in that context.  You are trying to paint the "ignorant creationist" picture, when you yourself have made an error about crystallization.

Note: Please read preceding also

View Post


Yes, I am in fact a professional geologist with almost 31 years of working experience in this field and I do in fact have an MS degree in geology.

I don’t understand your bringing up Portland cement as this seems off-topic. I think the growth of quartz crystals as you indicate is also basically a red herring. You were talking about clastic sedimentary rocks. Such rocks do not "crystallize" out of water.

There are non-crystalline rocks.

The fact that solid rock has crystallized tells us that water was present.  The basic principles of crystallization require a substrate in a supersaturated solution.  This can happen in a gas, but more often it happens in water.


The fact that solid rock has crystallized does not tell us that water was present. Crystallization does not always require a supersaturated solution. It can occur in saturated solutions. You have brought up the actions of life before. Life organisms can precipitate crystalline solids out of solutions that are not super-saturated.

Crystallization




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users