Jump to content


Photo

Uluru--a Flood Composition


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

#41 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:43 AM

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.

View Post


I can't find the picture to which he is talking about, but eolian deposits have been well-documented amd the rocks he mentioned were deposited by winds. Saying something is obvious without giving reasons is not much of an argument.

#42 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:45 AM

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 does not tell us that water was present.  That was a sweeping generality and that is why I mentioned igneous rocks. 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

View Post



#43 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:54 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)

View Post


There are rather vast deposits in the stratigraphic record that do not contain marine fossils. But as with AFJ, you list a hodge-podge of occurences that do not need a flood to explain them. I really do not understand the fixation on calcite and limestone deposits in explaining a flood, they seem to do just the opposite to me.

The thing about the whale sounds like creationists jumping to a conclusion and then finding they were wrong. And their verson started out with the usual strawman about uniformitarianism.

#44 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:05 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:
:D http://www.answersin.../nature.asp#r11

View Post


I am not surprised that Berthault's work was not referenced. The results he found had been seen before amd his experiments were not particularly significant.

#45 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 - 08:51 AM

I am not surprised that Berthault's work was not referenced. The results he found had been seen before amd his experiments were not particularly significant.

View Post

Why then do we have articles about similar experiments? Are they not as similar as I have been led to believe?

#46 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2010 - 01:38 AM

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

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.


All we have here is Berthault stubbornly sticking to his same wrong conclusions yet again, in his very own words. Just where in all of this do you find “afore mentioned conditions that the law of superposition does not apply as defined by Henke himself!”. I don't see this in my reading of the article anywhere, or in any competent geologist’s explanation of the “Law of Superposition.” Are you not using the misguided Berthault’s comments about his own comments as proof? Did you even bother to read Henke’s long and detailed explanation about why Berthault is all wet? All you quote is from Berthault, who makes no more sense here than he did in the work being critiqued. Yes, I agree that you are being very stubborn in not accepting that Bethault is dead wrong about this.

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.


“Scour and fill” features have been known for a long time. When the terminology was first used I am not sure but this was common usage when I first started the study of geology, and that predates Berthault’s experiments. A description is found in my 1975 edition of “Depositional Sedimentary Environments” by Reineck and Singh. “Under certain conditions water flowing over an unconsolidated sediment surface scours out shallow depressions. These depressions are usually asymemetrical with a deep up-current slope and a gentle down-current slope. In a few cases up-current slopes are more gentle and the down-current slopes. When the current velocity decreases, these depressions are back-filled with somewhat coarser sediments that the substratum.” (Schrock, 1948). Schrock, R.R. (1948) Sequence in layered rocks, 507p new York, McGraw Hill Book Co.

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.


You do realize how thick some sequences of varves are, and how many alternating layers are shown? How many changes in velocities did the flood create as in the experiment? You must also know that the bedforms in varves are nothing like what was produced in Bethault’s experiment, none of the “sideways” deposition or cross-bedding, etc. and that the grain sizes are quite different? Wisely the video “Drama in the Rocks” did not stretch credibility even thinner by making the claim Bethault and you make.

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.


Perhaps Bethault is simply inept and not dishonest. But the result of his bumbling claims is in fact very bad science. The video made just such a sweeping generality about the entire sedimentary record. He obviously was very involved with it as it is constructed around his so-called scientific findings, using Berthault’s experiment and his thoughts on the matter which he shares on camera. He may be honest in his motivation, in which case he is either inept or suffering from cognitive dissonance, but his challenges are very bad science and based and his ignoring the principles of geology. His experiment showed bedforms which are the result of high current velocity. Varves are forming today, and have been studied in quiet water conditions. It doesn’t take much of an “actualist” viewpoint to see that the modern examples much more closely match the varves in the stratigraphic record that anything shown by Berthault. He has taken just being wrong to being ridiculous in attempting to make this case.

#47 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 04 December 2010 - 01:50 AM

Why then do we have articles about similar experiments? Are they not as similar as I have been led to believe?

View Post


The experiments don't look at all similar to me. Berthault's experiment involved basically one grain size being deposited in high current flow. These other experiments appear to have not been conducted in running water at all. But there are more similar studies being done today that involve Stoke's Law in terms of sedimentation. and settling velocities. But all of this is mid-19th century stuff and not new with Berthault.

One of the Nature articles cited by Snelling.

Granular materials1–5 segregate according to grain size when exposed to periodic perturbations such as vibrations6–12. Moreover, mixtures of grains of different sizes can also spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations: when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely to be near the top13–20. Here we report another size-separation effect, which arises when we pour a granular mixture between two vertical plates: the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have larger angle of repose than the small grains. We find only spontaneous segregation, without stratification, when the large grains have smaller angle of repose than the small grains. The stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches: during each avalanche, the grains separate into a pair of static layers, with the small grains forming a sublayer underneath the layer of large grains.



The other one that Snelling cites:

Fineberg agrees.14 Both the stratification and segregation of a mixture of two types of grains can be observed to occur spontaneously as the mixture is poured into a narrow box, the mixture flowing as the slope of the ‘sandpile’ formed steepens. When the angle of repose of the larger grains is greater than that of the smaller grains, the flow causes spontaneous stratification of the medium to occur, and alternating layers composed of large and small particles are formed, with the smaller and ‘smoother’ (lower angle of repose) grains found below the larger and ‘rougher’ grains (there was a beautiful colour photo in Nature). Even within the layers, size segregation of the grains occurs, with the smaller grains tending to be nearer the top of the pile.


In both cases this is about different grain sizes and involved different angles of repose. These are different variables than in the experiment by Berthault. Neither of these even involved deposition in water. Where are these even remotely similar to Bethault's experiment? Why does Snelling cite these? That was really cheeky of him in my opinion, and really grasping at straws.

#48 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 08 December 2010 - 07:33 PM

Thanks Geode.

The experiments don't look at all similar to me.

View Post



#49 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 22 December 2010 - 07:31 PM

Varves are forming today, and have been studied in quiet water conditions. It doesn’t take much of an “actualist” viewpoint to see that the modern examples much more closely match the varves in the stratigraphic record that anything shown by Berthault. He has taken just being wrong to being ridiculous in attempting to make this case.

View Post

Varves are forming today. The extrapolation would therefore be uniformintarian. No one denies sedimentation is going on today, but unfortunately you deny the flood. If you didn't name the name of Christ I could understand your assumptions, but you disagree with a direct quote of Christ. You take the assumptions of men over the Son of God.

You can't conceive of faster sedimentation? Because varves are forming today does not mean all laminae formed at the same speed. I was just reading the other day, in the Green River formation there are two ash layers which would be time markers. The number of varves between them as you go horizontally changes. So what would cause this? If varves are laid in a lake, what would erode the varves away. Lakes are calm, very slow current. Yes--a flood, here it comes--how convenient. Borrow the catastrophe when you need it, then put it back in the closet.

Perhaps Bethault is simply inept and not dishonest. But the result of his bumbling claims is in fact very bad science.


And speaking of bad science. The only bad science I see is when people get on Discovery channel and tell the laity that volcanic lava from the oceanic ridges is pushing untold megatons of crust under another plate. Did they ever take a physics class? Maybe they missed the lessons on friction. It would take an unfathomable amount of directional pressure to push crust under crust. The ridges are a testament of catastrophe--the only thing that could produce that kind of energy.


By the way, did you know the brick walls on my house are bumping into one another, and one is sliding through the other one?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)