You attempt to concern us with semantics and definitions.Ã‚Â Why don't you try to falsify the actual principle of particle sorting in water currents, or that in places of stratafied rock, this principle is evident, rather than attempt to cloud the issue by accusations?
There is nothing for me to falsify in terms of real sedimentation evidence. It is the conclusions that are falsely made that I object to, and have commented upon. The video claims one form of sedimentation in the formation of rocks. I have already falsified that conclusion by showing a braided stream example. I am not engaging in the semantic games that the viodeo does.
He also calls the "banks" facies, which "is a distinctive rock unit that forms under certain conditions of sedimentation, reflecting a particular process or environment." wikiÃ‚Â That would be an applicable term, as the video concerns a particular process of sedimentation in the rock units.
Then call them the term geologists use for such a unit, which is facies. But where is this term used in the video? I haven't watched most of it recently.
A "cut bank" on a river is cut by water, and forms an outcrop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_bankÃ‚Â Ã‚Â If the outcrop with the polystrate trees was cut by water, why would it not be a "bank."Ã‚Â Either way, it seems you like to throw the baby out with the bathwater.Ã‚Â
I was very careful months ago when I discussed the term "banks" in a reply I think was made to you. I did not say that it was not a term used by geologists in any application. You have found one of the the proper uses of the term in sedimentology. I work with sorting out features of river deposits almost every week. To apply it to facies is wrong. A cut bank may contain multiple facies. If a river eroded into rocks containing "erect fossil tree trunks" the rocks in which they are contained would be in a cut bank. The cut bank in question is an erosional term and not a depositional one as misused in the video.
No, I stick to proper terminology. I threw nothing usuable or worth having out with the bathwater. I just pointed out a strawman argument.
The truth is Geode, you are strawmanning.Ã‚Â You say "right at the beginning a frequently used strawman argument is set forth, that it has been assumed that the 'banks' have taken millions of years to deposit."Ã‚Â Then you talk about polystrate fossils which were not at the beginning.Ã‚Â I just watched the first half of the video, and nothing at all was mentioned about polystrate fossils.Ã‚Â
The discussion of "fossilized trees" is in the very first thing covered in the video after the main title. Watch it again and you will find the presenter launches into this subject starting at 20 seconds into the video. Or is the place at 20 seconds not close enough to say "right at the beginning"...?
Whether or not geologists have concluded that polystrate fossils were covered in short periods of time is irrelevant.Ã‚Â The belief is that the sedimentary record took millions of years. It is that belief the video is attempting to falsify, not one particular facies.Ã‚Â
It is relevent because the presenter attempts to discredit geologists using this false claim. It backfires. for it shows either a lack of scholarship and knowledge of what was being published or it an example of dishonesty in making an argument, a strawman. I think the later is the most likely case. I suspect Dr. Betrhault wrote most of this and he should know better.
If feet and feet of sedimentation can take place before bacteria can disentegrate the wood, then we have evidence that it is possible that stratification can take place rapidly.Ã‚Â Secular geologists want to make exception only where they have to, so they can deny the Biblical record of the flood.
Some of the trees showed evidence of adapting to the sedimentation in their roots structures. But I commented on the fallaceousness of this decay assumption last year on this board. I said that anybody can go to a forest and see for themselves why this reasoning is false. I have seen logs lying on forst floor that are intach andmany years old.
Most geologists could not care less about the Biblical record of the flood in terms of geology and do not have this in mind when doing their work. We know that rapid sedimenation is often taking place for we see sediments forming rapidly in modern depositional analogues. That is how uniforimtarianism is really applied. not in the strawman construct YECs attempt tpo apply to us.
If polystrate fossils can go through coal and other stratified rock, and show that rapid forming of strata is possible, then it is possible that the entire record can form rapidly.Ã‚Â If the strata and 100 foot canyon at Saint Helens can form in less than a day, then ikt is theoretically possible, given a big enough catastrophe that the Grand Canyon could form by the same means.
The coals formed around them. They do not penetrate strata. It is of course possible that "an entire record" forms rapidly. It is theoretically possible that hundreds of feet of sediment can form rather rapidly. The Grand Canyon did not do so for the analysis of the rocks shows many units with unique fossil content. Independent dating of these shows that vast periods of time were involved in the deposition, and vast period of time are represented by unconformities.
"Early on the video shows an outcrop limestone, shale and sandstone which the makers would have us believe was deposited in the same way as shown in the flume experiment even though it clearly is not progradational and is made up of a mixture of grains with different specific gravities and in the case of the limestone is not even deposited as clastic particles at all."
What do mean by this statement?Ã‚Â First, there are different mixtures in limestone, you know that. There are sand size particles, and larger shelled organisms found in some limestone.Ã‚Â And even if it is pure lime mud, made of microscopic organisms, are you saying this can't be deposited rapidly?Ã‚Â The fact that limestone laggerstattes have some of the best preserved fossils argues for rapid transport and deposition of lime mud. If it can happen in one area, rapid depostion in any area can not be ruled out--even though it is done by assumptive default.
You are just making my case that there are different mixtures in rocks. The video wants us to believe that all sedimentary rocks are deposited "sideways" s in a progradation deltaic setting. The rocks shown in the picture are not of the very limited type used in the experiment. the results you see are because of that very limited set of sediment size and density as Dr. Julian explains.
Some limstones show relatively little difference in grain size. The fact that there are sometimes sand sized particles is true, I saw some in my thesis area. But you seem to just have missed my point.
Preservation of fossils does not always mean rapid transport, in fact it often indicates just the opposite. You do not need rapid deposition either. Some of the great preservation in laggerstattes is thought to be due to anoxic conditions.
Again you attempt to divert attention from the obvious fact that even soft bodied preservation has taken place in a limestone matrix, by stating that limestone was "not even deposited as clastic particles."Ã‚Â What difference does this make in the speed and manner of deposition?
The fact that limestones are usually chemically deposited means that they are not similar to the sediments used in the experiment, and that the experiment shows a form of deposition that would not be active in the formation of limestones except in very rare instances. The video attempts to imply that limestones are deposited in the same way as delta sands and clays.