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, Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe modern principle of superposition Ã¢â‚¬Â¦layered sediments or sedimentary rocks tend to be older than any sediments or sedimentary rocks directly above themÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. Steno says the same thing, Ã¢â‚¬ËœTherefore, at the time when the lowest stratum formed, none of the superior strata existed.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
Several pages later you write, Ã¢â‚¬ËœAlso, 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 materialsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. 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.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“afore mentioned conditions that the law of superposition does not apply as defined by Henke himself!Ã¢â‚¬Â. I don't see this in my reading of the article anywhere, or in any competent geologistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s explanation of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Law of Superposition.Ã¢â‚¬Â Are you not using the misguided BerthaultÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s comments about his own comments as proof? Did you even bother to read HenkeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Scour and fillÃ¢â‚¬Â 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 BerthaultÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s experiments. A description is found in my 1975 edition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Depositional Sedimentary EnvironmentsÃ¢â‚¬Â by Reineck and Singh. Ã¢â‚¬Å“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.Ã¢â‚¬Â (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 Ã¢â‚¬Â¦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 BethaultÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s experiment, none of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“sidewaysÃ¢â‚¬Â deposition or cross-bedding, etc. and that the grain sizes are quite different? Wisely the video Ã¢â‚¬Å“Drama in the RocksÃ¢â‚¬Â 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 BerthaultÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t take much of an Ã¢â‚¬Å“actualistÃ¢â‚¬Â 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.