Jump to content


Photo

Limestone And Trilobite Fossils On Mt. Everest


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

#41 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 26 June 2010 - 03:19 PM

Yes, I am a petroleum geologist. As I have been posting all along, I do not dispute any of the physics involved in the experiment. Check back through my posts and you will find this to be the case. Does the experiment in fact show that there were sediments in a stratum above another stratum that was there first? I think the video makes a claim somewhere in the first part  that geologists mistakenly use the terms strata and layers rather interchangeably. It is true the terms may be used a bit loosely, and these are not the most precise terms to be using in some circumstances. I have one book about sedimentation that avoids the use of either term. It becomes apparent in the video that they use a new definition of "layer" basically to exclusively define what earlier geologic studies define as a "genetic increment" as developed by Busch. (Busch, D.A., 1971, Genetic units in delta prospecting. Bull. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 55, 1137-1154,) However, most YEC discussion I have seen also uses the terms in the same way, and not like this video.

View Post

Definitions can always be honed and revised. One thing that Berthault points out in the paper below is that the theory of sedimentation happening as a result of transgressions and regressions of the oceans does not deal with the mechanics of the currents' effects on the sediment.

The Law of Superposition basically is along the drift of what you state but the "all" isn't necessary and can lead to wrong conclusions and the use of "above" is not really correct although it does seem to be a possible source of where Guy Berthault's claim of what the experiment shows goes false. You also used the word above in the description of what the experiment showed.

View Post

When one looks at unfolded relatively horizontal sedimentary rock, there are sequenced strata. It is intuitive to think that the stratum below was deposited, then the stratum above it was deposited.

But you would not intuitively think that laminations or layers in the rock could be there because of density sorting in water currents. This is what Nicolaus Steno did and his assumptions went unquestioned.

However, this research shows how both laminae and strata form in still water and in changing currents--not according to time (e.g. varves) but according to particle segregation taking place, depending on changes of current speed, and variation of particle sizes.


My comment about dishonesty was about Thierry Henry breaking a rule of the game he was playing, yet the French team getting away with it. However, as the Law of Superposition is very basic geology, it is very hard to believe that Berthault is not aware of the correct application. He does not apply it correctly so one has to wonder if he intended to twist the meaning to suit his purposes.

View Post

Before you judge his motivations you should read an excerpt from one of his papers.

Time Required for Sedimentation
Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis
Guy Berthault*

...(1) Principle of superposition
At the time when one of the high
stratum formed, the stratum underneath
it had already acquired
a solid consistency.
At the time
when any stratum formed, the
superincumbent material was
entirely fluid, and, due to this
fact at the time when the lowest
stratum formed, none of the superior
strata existed
(Nicolaus Steno, 1667,
p. 30, CII. 3.d).


(2) Deficiencies of
Steno’s Stratigraphy

The first part of the definition of the
principle of superposition is, “At the
time when one of the highest stratum
formed, the stratum underneath it had
already acquired a solid consistency”
(Steno, 1667, p. 30, CII. 3.d). A stratum
between 50 cm and 1 m is considered
thick. Consequently, submarine drillings
should encounter solid strata in
the stratified oceanic sediments after
a few meters. However, the results of
sea-bottom drilling have shown that
the first semi-consolidated sediments
occur between 400 and 800 m. IsoVolume
46, Spring 2010 263
lated, hardened chert beds have been
found under 135 m of unconsolidated
sediment near oceanic transform faults
(Logvinenko, 1980). Steno’s definition,
therefore, which would significantly
extend the total time of deposition by
his concept of successive hardening, is
not supported by these sedimentological
observations...."


Geode...
Once again, the conclusion that the Law of Superposition is not valid in the experiment has nothing to do with what is shown in the experiment where sorting is due to density except of course that rocks settle out of water or air to form successive units. It happened and nobody would dispute that it happened.


Posted Image

Creation geologists are already using these experiments as a basis to interpret some geologic formations.

I read a paper the other night where a Russian geologist was referring to this research as he interpreted a formation in mountains in the Crimean peninsula.



Geode...
Of course it depends on your definition of what a catastrophic event entails whether or not the experiment shows such an occurrence. What was shown in the experiment may or may not qualify as being representative of such an event. It shows fluid movement in a high flow regime. Is a turbidity current a catastrophic event? They certainly are rapid and can affect a large area. Some probably could easily fit a definition of this for most of us. But what was shown was not as catastrophic as some recorded turbidity events.

Geode, the strata is full of limestone which is marine. In the bioclastic limestone we have broken up but well preserved coral, forminefera, etc.

The southwest united states is covered by red quartz sand. How did this sand get red--it is coated in hematite--it is not opaque.

Posted Image
Sand from Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park, Utah. These are grains of quartz with a hematite coating providing the orange color. Scale bar is 1.0 mm. Red Sand

In other words it had to be in water, and most of the sand in the southwest is considered to transported even by unis.

Most minerals are hydrated or hydrous. Some of them even have water molecules between the crystalline sheets in the minerals.

When you go to court, you always start with a hearing, to see if there is ample evidence to go to trial. I think creation geologists have had their hearing, and despite the hindrances of the education, the science establishment, and legal system, they will continue to be put on trial, until their model is much more perfected, as well as supported by evidence.

#42 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:36 AM

Definitions can always be honed and revised.  One thing that Berthault points out in the paper below is that the theory of sedimentation happening as a result of transgressions and regressions of the oceans does not deal with the mechanics of the currents' effects on the sediment.


Yes, geologists doing field work do not use the original formulation by Steno exactly, but they do adhere to the basic principle, unlike Berthault who wrongly throws it out. He does not apply it like Steno or other geologists. He made a very material change and what he comments upon is not a test of the principle at all. Using it his way makes this valid principle basically meaningless. It is like somebody submitting their brother to the Guinness Book of world records as the "World's Tallest Man" and the officials doing their usual measurement and finding that the guy is six inches shorter than the current holder of the record. But the brother then says, "No, you measured him wrongly." and then taking a tape measure places one end at his brother's right little toe and then stretches it diagonally to the extreme left hand side of the top of his brother's head. The result is seven inches greater than the Guinness official measurement done according to the established definition of what "height" is...

The effects of currents in sediments laid down by marine transgressions and regressions is part of the science of geology that is well documented. There are paleocurrent indicators that record the action of currents on the sediemnts. A wave of the hand from one sedimentologist cannot dismiss that.

When one looks at unfolded  relatively horizontal sedimentary  rock, there are sequenced strata.  It is intuitive to think that the  stratum below was deposited, then the stratum above it was deposited. 

But you would not intuitively think that laminations or layers in the rock could be there because of density sorting in water currents.  This is what Nicolaus Steno did and his assumptions went unquestioned.


There are effects of current velocity that do things that are not intuitive, such as anti-dunes and climbing ripples.

However, this research shows how both laminae and strata form in still water and in changing currents--not according to time (e.g. varves) but according to particle segregation taking place, depending on changes of current speed,  and variation of particle sizes.


We can find and study varves right now by coring lake deposits. Your average lake is a totally different depositional environment than what was modeled in the experiment. Slower deposition in quieter waters is not the same. You are buying in to a sweeping generality that segregation is due just to varying rather high current velocities. The results of the experiment show sedimentation in one set of conditions, other similar and just as valid experiments produce non-clinoform bedding.

Before you judge his motivations you should read an excerpt from one of his papers.

Time Required for Sedimentation
Contradicts the Evolutionary Hypothesis
Guy Berthault*

...(1) Principle of superposition
At the time when one of the high
stratum formed, the stratum underneath
it had already acquired
a solid consistency.
At the time
when any stratum formed, the
superincumbent material was
entirely fluid, and, due to this
fact at the time when the lowest
stratum formed, none of the superior
strata existed
(Nicolaus Steno, 1667,
p. 30, CII. 3.d).


(2) Deficiencies of
Steno’s Stratigraphy

The first part of the definition of the
principle of superposition is, “At the
time when one of the highest stratum
formed, the stratum underneath it had
already acquired a solid consistency”
(Steno, 1667, p. 30, CII. 3.d). A stratum
between 50 cm and 1 m is considered
thick. Consequently, submarine drillings
should encounter solid strata in
the stratified oceanic sediments after
a few meters. However, the results of
sea-bottom drilling have shown that
the first semi-consolidated sediments
occur between 400 and 800 m. IsoVolume
46, Spring 2010 263
lated, hardened chert beds have been
found under 135 m of unconsolidated
sediment near oceanic transform faults
(Logvinenko, 1980). Steno’s definition,
therefore, which would significantly
extend the total time of deposition by
his concept of successive hardening, is
not supported by these sedimentological
observations...."

Posted Image 


Geologists realized that Steno had a misconception about the need for induration of the stratum that was deposited first before a later one could be deposited. So why does Guy Berthault bring up something geologists have known for a long time and do not use as part of the principle in modern practice? This reminds of how so many creationists argue with uniformitarianism as originally embraced by Lyell. Modern geology moved past this long ago.

Despite the inappropriate labeling of cross-bedding in your picture, for instance where are there any "topset" beds? The label conveniently attempts to hide this fact behind a tree but tracing where the label is is placed laterally there are no "topsets" present. But let us assume that there are. This is really where Berthault is so wrong about his comments on Superposition. He measures from a topset point in his experiment to a point that is bottomset. This violates the way Superposition is always applied. Otherwise it loses the meaning that Steno and geologists since his time have been able to gain from the principle. Actually it would be useless to attempt to apply almost anywhere if one is just oing to follow any practice they wish in applying it. If he had measured the "cross-section" that was made and shown in the video using the big blade, he would have seen the principle alive and well and valid. Just for grins, go to that part in the video and tell me in the succession of sediments which is the oldest and youngest of the black or white units shown. Which is in-between in age?

Creation geologists are already using these experiments as a basis to interpret some geologic formations.

I read a paper the other night where a Russian geologist was referring to this research as he interpreted a formation in mountains in the Crimean peninsula.
Geode, the strata is full of limestone which is marine.  In the bioclastic limestone we have broken up but well preserved coral, forminefera, etc


Bioclastic limestones frequently contain fossils that are only portions of the original, but with the fragments well preserved. I studied many bioclastic limestones doing my thesis. The crinoid stems were always disaggregated but many corals were complete and even in situ, apparently in a"growth" position. But you haven't made a point about why you feel this is significant. If you were to go diving today in a carbonate depositional environment you would find intact corals and fragments of bivalves and other organic shell material in association with each other. Some forams are pelagic and some benthonic. Some will not be close to where they once lived before burial.

The southwest united states is covered by red quartz sand.  How did this sand get red--it is coated in hematite--it is not opaque. 

Posted Image
Sand from Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park, Utah. These are grains of quartz with a hematite coating providing the orange color. Scale bar is 1.0 mm. Red Sand

In other words it had to be in water, and most of the sand in the southwest is considered to transported even by unis.


Generally hematite staining on sandstone grains occurs after deposition in terrestrial environments by the actions of ground water that are rich in oxygen. Segregating primary depositional features from diagentic effects is part of what I do on a weekly basis. We deal with "red beds" that were deposited on coastal plains where sub-aerial effects occur.

Most minerals are hydrated or hydrous.  Some of them even have water molecules between the crystalline sheets in the minerals. 


Sorry, I don't agree. The most common minerals include olivine and other silicates that have no water in their structure. Water only occurs relatively rarely in minerals.

When you go to court, you always start with a hearing, to see if there is ample evidence to go to trial.  I think creation geologists have had their hearing, and despite the hindrances of the education, the science establishment, and  legal system, they will continue to be put on trial, until their model is much more perfected, as well as supported by evidence.


Having looked at relevant evidence first hand in outcrop and in the office using electric logs and seismic data for decades I do not agree that creationist geologists have made any good points yet, but they should be allowed to make any case that they wish to make. Most of their work has lacked the rigor or original research that is worthy of publication in leading technical journals, but their are creationist publications and the internet allows their ideas to be distributed widely. I agree with something you touch on, perhaps the main problem is that there is no unified model using creation geology. It is quite ad hoc and such geologists often contradict each other. In that same video we have "polystrate" trees brought up in a discussion attacking the principle of Superposition. The sad thing is that nobody involved in making this production even noticed that they were making incompatible arguments. I find this is common with "creation" geology. Also major lines of evidence are often over-looked to focus on one small detail out of context. .Steve Austin's work in the Grand Canyon shows this. This is comparable to courtroom trials where a lawyer will fight to keep out evidence that does not strengthen his or her case even when valid. Scientific research should not be conducted this way, whatever side one is on.

But it is interesting that you bring up the court analogy. I think creation geology in general attempts to "impeach" the witness of the "opposition." Berthault apparently thinks that in claiming that the Law of Superposition is not valid he can cast doubt on the vast geologic studies that point to a different conclusion than he wishes people to believe. The video shows a model of "layers" containing fossils of equal age. Then he shows subsequent "layer" formation that will also have fossils of equivalent age, but which were encased in sediment at a later time. This does not prove any unique creationist point. All geologists would agree. What I believe was not stated, but implied was that geologists will not be able to distinguish the depositional surfaces that are also "time lines" and misinterpret facies (such as the sandstone facies, etc.) as being the same age. But geologists are usually smarter than this and can unravel the time transgressive nature of deltaic deposits, especially when they map out the shape of the rock formations and not rely on one small view, as the one provided by the experiment. That is a limitation of even the most sophisticated experimental techniques done in a lab.

#43 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 June 2010 - 04:18 AM

Geode,
I just have a question.

You have called the principle of superposititon "the law" of superposition. Do you believe like Steno posited, that a [stratum, varve, and/or laminae] below a superior stratum had completely crystallized (hardened), before the superior stratum was deposited?

If so, what evidence do you have to believe so? Because a law is a universally observed principle. But no one observed the strata laid.

Obviously the strata were laid in the past, so you must interpret what happened forensically. If you don't have anything to compare it to in the lab, you have only intuition and and assumption.

I don't mind you reviewing Berhault's work--that is science. But I think the allegations of dishonesty are not for you to judge. If Berhault is sincere in his conclusions--in his mind he is not lying. Just like I assume you are sincere in your belief in the law of superpositioning. If you were wrong about how you interpret the origin of a formation--I would not say you were dishonest.

If Berhault and Julien are creationists and they believe the flood accounts for the strata, then they are putting forth supporting evidence. They have already suspected the law of superposition--that is that each stratum, varve, laminae, had crystallized before a subsequent one is laid. Now they have researched in the lab to see the effects of paleocurrents on different sediments.

Furthermore, this work was submitted in 1993 to the Congress of Geology in France. They also have a right to make one documentary, as opposed to "How the Earth Was Made," which is on every week!

#44 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 June 2010 - 06:24 AM

Yes, geologists doing field work do not use the original formulation by Steno exactly, but they do adhere to the basic principle, unlike Berthault who wrongly throws it out.

View Post

They adhere to crystallization of one layer then crystallization of another layer in chronological order. But this is not what his experiments showed at all. They showed that different layers can be laid down simultaneously and advance laterally. In this case the law of superposition does not apply. You don't seem to understand that creationists don't expect unifromintarians to agree. But they don't really care either--because more and more consider the evidence presented.

Secondly, if you are going to be that hard on him, why don't you go back and condemn every scientist who "falsified" a theory by using another now falsified theory. Starting with Darwin who believed pangenesis in combination with selection.

He does not apply it like Steno or other geologists. He made a very material change and what he comments upon is not a test of the principle at all.

View Post

Yes it is, because the individual layers were not crystallized in a time sequence as is taught in our schools. I'm not going to sit here and argue all day about the messenger--but I will argue the message that these experiments produced. Namely that there is another explanation for laminae and layering effects in the rocks--showing that paleocurrents had indeed a role in what could easily be rapid deposition of sediments--not slow sedimentation in calm marine settings over millions of years.

Using it his way makes this valid principle basically meaningless. It is like somebody submitting their brother to the Guinness Book of world records as the "World's Tallest  Man" and the officials doing their usual measurement and finding that the guy is six inches shorter than the current holder of the record. But the brother then says, "No, you measured him wrongly." and then taking a tape measure places one end at his brother's right little toe and then stretches it diagonally to the extreme left hand side of the top of his brother's head. The result is seven inches greater than the Guinness official measurement done according to the established definition of what "height" is...

View Post

What are you talking about Geode? Where did he wrongly compare? You are getting hung up on the falsification statement and not acknowledging significant science. It is this kind of "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" mentality that turns people off.

The effects of currents in sediments laid down by marine transgressions and regressions is part of the science of geology that is well documented. There are paleocurrent indicators  that record the action of currents on the sediemnts. A wave of the hand from one sedimentologist cannot dismiss that.


Please. :rolleyes: This is a model, and you are well aware of it. No one saw any marine transgressions. The deluge account, which is not only in the Bible, but on at least 6 other ancient archaeological finds, was around long before anyone thought this modern fable up.


There are effects of current velocity that do things that are not intuitive, such as anti-dunes and climbing ripples.
We can find and study varves right now by coring lake deposits. Your average lake is a totally different depositional environment than what was modeled in the experiment.

So why don't you do an experiment to prove that the anti dunes and climbing ripples could not happen in a deluge. Do an experiment to prove that the sediments in lake bottoms could not produce the same effects as shown in the experiment.

Slower deposition in quieter waters is not the same. You are buying in to a sweeping generality that segregation is due just to varying rather high current velocities.

I'm not buying anything. I already had a worldview, just like you do. I did not obtain my worldview by reading a book of fables, but by the confirming power of God in my life, and agreeing testimony of fellow believers. Not by reading books which are written by men who have observed only modern processes and attempted to interpret past processes of which they have no understanding, proof, or knowledge.

You didn't watch the entire video--there are 4 parts. He starts with experiments with pouring sediment mixtures in both static water and in a dry environment. All of this produced particle segregation, hence lamination.


The results of the experiment show sedimentation in one set of conditions, other similar and just as valid experiments produce non-clinoform bedding.


No one with half a brain should throw the baby out with the bath water. River deltas are slow sedimentation and produce sloped layers, but they don't take millions of years to erode or be produced. Neither do they account for the sloped layering which are in mountains and in hills--I'm not talking about anticlines--I'm talking about similar layering like in the picture I gave you.

ONE OTHER THING.

If particle segregation did happen in the laminae of the strata, then there are different erosion rates. This is exactly what we see in many cases. The sediments between the laminae have eroded out of the facies, and the middle of the laminae is in tact.

Geologists realized that Steno had a misconception about the need for induration of the stratum that was deposited first before a later one could be deposited. So why does Guy Berthault bring up something geologists have known for a long time and do not use as part of the principle in modern practice?

So then why do you still refer to it as a law of superposition. You should change the name, or explain just what you DO mean by it. You are squirming.


Bioclastic limestones frequently contain fossils that are only portions of the original, but with the fragments well preserved. I studied many bioclastic limestones doing my thesis. The crinoid stems were always disaggregated but many corals were complete and even in situ, apparently in a"growth" position. But you haven't made a point about why you feel this is significant.

Posted Image
This fossiliferous limestone is dominated by crinoids (which look like little buttons) and bryozoans (the branched pieces). There are also a few brachiopod shells in this nice sample. Link

Again crinoid heads decay rapidly--a point brought by Austin. No slow burial here--fact. No stems indicate they were broken off. Coral is NOT in a growth position. Perhaps you can give us another picture of one that is. Conglomeration of different species, coupled with evidence of broken yet well preserved parts indicates a catastrophic cause, not a calm marine environment.

Posted Image

Posted Image


But it is interesting that you bring up the court analogy. I think creation geology in general attempts to "impeach" the witness of the "opposition." Berthault  apparently thinks that in claiming that the Law of Superposition is not valid he can cast doubt on the vast geologic studies that point to a different conclusion than he wishes people to believe.


You mean just like acedemia and the legal system "impeached" long held views in science on the creation of the earth. You guys have had a long run of court battles and influential people in acedemia, and in the press running the show. This is why obvious science that has given mechanism to flood geology is so scorned.

#45 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2010 - 09:15 AM

"Yes, geologists doing field work do not use the original formulation by Steno exactly, but they do adhere to the basic principle, unlike Berthault who wrongly throws it out."

They adhere to crystallization of one layer then crystallization of another layer in chronological order.  But this is not what his experiments showed at all.  They showed that different layers can be laid down simultaneously and advance laterally.  In this case the law of superposition does not apply.  You don't seem to understand that creationists don't expect unifromintarians to agree.  But they don't really care either--because more and more consider the evidence presented.


The "layers" really didn't crystallize, they were deposited. The experiment did show Steno's Law of Superposition. Even accepting the term "layer" for the deposits shown, they conform to this principle. The youngest is in fact on top of the oldest. The "layers" in the experiment were not laid down simultaneously. You seem to not be using the terminology used by Berthault. The term he was using for what you seem to describe was strata. A better term would have been facies.

Secondly, if you are going to be that hard on him, why don't you go back and condemn every scientist who "falsified" a theory by using another now falsified theory.  Starting with Darwin who believed pangenesis in combination with selection.


Because Berthault did not falsify anything.

"He does not apply it like Steno or other geologists. He made a very material change and what he comments upon is not a test of the principle at all."

Yes it is, because the individual layers were not crystallized in a time sequence as is taught in our schools (e.g. lake varves). I'm not going to sit here and argue all day about the messenger--but I will argue the message that these experiments produced.  Namely that there is another explanation for laminae and layering effects in the rocks--showing that paleocurrents had indeed a role in what could easily be rapid deposition of sediments--not slow sedimentation in calm marine settings over millions of years


I agree that these are not varves. All geologists working today know that rapid sedimentation occurred in the past. it happens right now. But that is the problem with what is presented. There are real results about lamination and the layering effects produced by currents, by the conclusion that this falsifies superposition is not correct.

]"Using it his way makes this valid principle basically meaningless. It is like somebody submitting their brother to the Guinness Book of world records as the "World's Tallest  Man" and the officials doing their usual measurement and finding that the guy is six inches shorter than the current holder of the record. But the brother then says, "No, you measured him wrongly." and then taking a tape measure places one end at his brother's right little toe and then stretches it diagonally to the extreme left hand side of the top of his brother's head. The result is seven inches greater than the Guinness official measurement done according to the established definition of what "height" is..."

What are you talking about Geode?  Where did he wrongly compare?  You are getting hung up on the falsification statement and not acknowledging significant science.  It is this kind of "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" mentality that turns people off.


Starting with Steno the application of this principle has been the same. This is the crux of what I am posting about, that Berthault makes a false claim about superposition. To assault one of the basic principles of geology is not a trivial matter. Aside from that he did little science that was significant as similar results had already been seen and published earlier.

"If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface."


Geologists have refined this to not be as specific about "all sides" or the part about becoming hard, but the"mutual contact expressing on its own surface the properties of the other surface" is an expression of conformity.

The fundamental change Berthault attempts to make is that the deposits he compares are not in mutual contact. They are even separated by a facies in between. This is why geologists will always measure vertically when applying the Law of Superposition. It is essential to do so. The proper way to look at this test is to compare a topset unit with the topset on top of it, and the same with foresets and bottomsets. If you reference points anywhere in the sediments deposited in the vertical direction, the oldest points will be at the bottom and youngest at the top.Look at the diagram in the video and you will see how this is true anywhere you wish to measure.

If you use this proper application of the sediments in the experiment you will see how the principle holds and is valid.

The effects of currents in sediments laid down by marine transgressions and regressions is part of the science of geology that is well documented. There are paleocurrent indicators  that record the action of currents on the sediments. A wave of the hand from one sedimentologist cannot dismiss that."

Please. :rolleyes: This is a model, and you are well aware of it.  No one saw any marine transgressions.  The deluge account, which is not only in the Bible, but on at least 6 other ancient archaeological finds, was around long before anyone thought this modern fable up.


I am not arguing whether or not a world wide flood occurred. It doesn't matter for this discussion as the rocks deposited in it would still conform to the Law of Superposition.

"There are effects of current velocity that do things that are not intuitive, such as anti-dunes and climbing ripples.

We can find and study varves right now by coring lake deposits. Your average lake is a totally different depositional environment than what was modeled in the experiment."

So why don't you do an experiment to prove that the anti dunes and climbing ripples could not happen in a deluge.  Do an experiment to prove that the sediments in lake bottoms could not produce the same effects as shown in the experiment.


Because unlike creationist scientists I am not attempting to prove or disprove a worldwide flooding event. It is unnecessary for the work I do. These experiments have been done by others, but for other reasons.

I'm not buying anything.  I already had a worldview, just like you do.  I did not obtain my worldview by reading a book of fables, but by the confirming power of God in my life, and agreeing testimony of fellow believers.  Not by reading books which are written by men who have observed only modern processes and attempted to interpret past processes of which they have no understanding, proof, or knowledge.


I'm not selling anything. I am just pointing out that a video which does attempt to sell a bill of goods, a worldview as you term it, states conclusions which are not valid and are based on misinterpretation of the data. Believe as you wish. But there is a body of science which shows that natural laws are valid. The confirming power of God is something I claim for my own life. One does not have to take the words of men in science books on faith, one can actually test what is in there for oneself. I have done tha in my own research in geology. But if you really have a problem with modern tests and observations being applied to the past geologic history of our planet, why would Berthault's findings be any better than other geologists?

You didn't watch the entire video--there are 4 parts.  He starts with experiments with pouring sediment mixtures in both static water and in a dry environment.  All of this produced particle segregation, hence lamination.


I watched them. I even posted earlier in response to part one, as I have also done here in a recent comment about "polystrate" trees.

No one with half a brain should throw the baby out with the bath water.  River deltas are slow sedimentation and produce sloped layers, but they don't take millions of years to erode or be produced.  Neither do they account for  the sloped layering which are in mountains and in hills--I'm not talking about anticlines--I'm talking about similar layering like in the picture I gave you.


This absolute time element is not something I think I have commented upon because it really does not mater in terms of the discussion at hand. River deltas are slower or faster in terms of deposition due to various factors. That is a different discussion.

The picture you showed me was not of rocks that are deltaic, they were wind-blown as show by multiple lines of evidence. They show the classic cross-bedded aspect of eolian deposition. I have actually studied rocks of this formation in outcrop.

#46 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2010 - 09:17 AM

Continued......


ONE OTHER THING.

If particle segregation did happen in the laminae of the strata, then there are different erosion rates.  This is exactly what we see in many cases.  The sediments between the laminae have eroded out of the facies, and the middle of the laminae is in tact.
So then why do you still refer to it as a law of superposition. You should change the name, or explain just what you DO mean by it.  You are squirming.


I don't understand your drift about erosion. I did not notice erosion taking place in the experiment. I saw some sediment traction. I am not squirming, why do you say that?

Again crinoid heads decay rapidly--a point brought by Austin.  No slow burial here--fact.  No stems indicate they were broken off.  Coral is NOT in a growth position.  Perhaps you can give us another picture of one that is.  Conglomeration of different species, coupled with evidence of broken yet well preserved parts indicates a catastrophic cause, not a calm marine environment.


This aspect of preservation of crinoids was noticed long before Steven Austin or I were born. The stems have basically fallen apart. I wouldn't claim they were broken of not from what is shown. Nothing appears to be in a growth position here, it is basically a pile of fossil debris. Sometimes this is an aspect of sorting by waves, etc. even storm events. But such lenses of fossiliferous material are often found in massive limestones where the fossils above and below are much more scarce and in well-preserved growth positions. I'll see if I can find a picture when I have time.


"But it is interesting that you bring up the court analogy. I think creation geology in general attempts to "impeach" the witness of the "opposition." Berthault  apparently thinks that in claiming that the Law of Superposition is not valid he can cast doubt on the vast geologic studies that point to a different conclusion than he wishes people to believe.

You mean just like acedemia and the legal system "impeached" long held views in science on the creation of the earth.  You guys have had a long run of court battles and influential people in acedemia, and in the press running the show.  This is why obvious science that has given mechanism to flood geology is so scorned.


I was talking about what Berthault was attempting to do about one claim. I am not aware of the legal system governing scientific research in geology one way or the other. I have not been involved in any legal proceedings nor am I in academia.

By the way, you didn't mention if you did my superposition experiment. Take a series of points on the cross-section they created in the video. Label them as you assign them vertically from the bottom to the top of the deposits. Then assign them in order of the time of deposition. The cross-section is similar to what geologists see in the field when they apply the Law of Superposition. If you need some help in visualizing look at the diagram of the deposits that Bethault's partner sketches. In fact watch his explanation again.

If I was a teacher of an introductory geology class this would be a good essay question. I could show the pictures of the sediment produced give Bertault's interpretation that they did not conform to the Law of Superposition and ask the students whether of not his conclusion was correct and to give their reasoning. I'll bet the good students would spot his error quickly.

By the way, this experiment is not a very good representation of a real world situation since it is limited to sand sediment only, and of two grain sizes. Silt and clay sediments are always also present in moving water and their cohesive nature will modify the results.

#47 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2010 - 09:37 AM

Geode,
I just have a question.

You have called the principle of superposititon "the law" of superposition.  Do you believe like Steno posited, that a [stratum, varve, and/or laminae] below a superior stratum had completely crystallized (hardened), before the superior stratum was deposited?

If so, what evidence do you have to believe so?  Because a law is a universally observed principle.  But no one observed the strata laid.

Obviously the strata were laid in the past, so you must interpret what happened forensically.  If you don't have anything to compare it to in the lab, you have only intuition and and assumption.

I don't mind you reviewing Berhault's work--that is science.  But I think the allegations of dishonesty are not for you to judge.  If Berhault is sincere in his conclusions--in his mind he is not lying.  Just like I assume you are sincere in your belief in the law of superpositioning.  If you were wrong about how you interpret the origin of a formation--I would not say you were dishonest.

If Berhault and Julien are creationists and they believe the flood accounts for the strata, then they are putting forth supporting evidence.  They have already suspected the law of superposition--that is that each stratum, varve, laminae, had crystallized before a subsequent one is laid.  Now they have researched in the lab to see the effects of paleocurrents on different sediments.

Furthermore, this work was submitted in 1993 to the Congress of Geology in France.  They also have a right to make one documentary, as opposed to "How the Earth Was Made,"  which is on every week!

View Post


Whether or not this should be termed a law or a principle doesn't really bother me. I would say that it always holds true if defined precisely.

No, Steno was wrong about the complete hardening of one set of deposits before another can be deposited on top of them. I have already posted that earlier. This part is not included in any definitions of the principle today.

With Berthault's education I have been assuming that he must be aware of what the Law or Principle of Superposition states and how it has been applied. To make the claim he makes in that video can only be due to two possibilities that I can think of...one is that he is inept and really does not understand basic geology.The other is that he has purposely distorted it to fit a model he wishes to push forward and the principle was in conflict to this so he found a way of misinterpreting it to fit. If he did this it would be dishonest in my opinion. It is dishonest to make up something untrue about a principle if one knows that it materially changes the idea.

What was presented in France in 1993? If it included the conclusion about over-turning superposition I'll bet it found immediate rebuttal. I already stated that they had every right to make the video.

#48 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 27 June 2010 - 10:40 AM

Starting with Steno the application of this principle has been the same. This is the crux of what I am posting about, that Berthault makes a false claim about superposition. To assault one of the basic principles of geology is not a trivial matter. Aside from that he did little science that was significant as similar results had already been seen and published earlier.


It's comical watching you make up sources that don't exist and pretend that experiments that do don't.

Here again is the diagram of the sedimentary deposit witnessed in the experiment. I have included red dots to simulate organisms being covered up by sediment.

Posted Image

As you can see. The organism in the top layer has already been covered up, but the organism in the bottom hasn't yet. This brings in to question the law of superposition and dating fossils by their position in the strata as many geologists from many different countries have acknowledged from the experiment.



Enjoy.

#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 27 June 2010 - 11:22 AM

Geode,

May I suggest you watch the video again. I think you may not have watched intently. In the video, first of all, it is Pierre Julien who conducts the flume experiment, and gives the presentation.

Secondly, if you watch the video you'll see he draws lines on the transparent board which trace where individual sediments rest in the formation at a relatively specific time. The line traces the line of the topset (----), then the angle (\) of the foreset, then the bottomset line ( __ ).

This would be a true layer as is set in time.

In the experiment, the laminae would be what shows in the facies, but the layers are defined by time, not the appearance in the facies. If you watch the video, you will see that this is what Julien is saying.

So then, it is a rule in this context that--

Sediment particle time1 (T1) rests on the

topset

BEFORE


Sediment particle time2 (T2) which rests on the

bottomset.


BUT, according to the law of superpositioning ALL sediment particles in superior strata are there AFTER (not before as in the experiment) sediment particles in the underneath strata. And this is a law of modern geology. A law, especially a foundational or central law implies something that is universally observed. This experiment defies that law.

I don't think, however, any creationist would say that all complete superior strata were deposited before other lower strata. Even in flood geology as the water rose, there would be different events and depostions happening in a seqence of time.

Obvious examples are changes between sandstone and limestone, or an obvious change in the lithology, such as basalt and shale.

#50 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 27 June 2010 - 12:08 PM

Here is another good example of why these types of experiments are so necessary to our understanding of geologic principles instead of just assuming uniformitairianism must be the answer.

Colorado Plateau Stumps Geologists

June 27, 2010 — Many of the West’s greatest parks and scenic areas lie on the Colorado Plateau, a large basin covering parts of Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Colorado. Within its rugged acres are the Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Natural Bridges, Monument Valley, Mesa Verde, Glen Canyon and Lake Powell, and numerous small parks and scenic byways. How this vast region rose 2 kilometers high away from plate boundaries, and maintained sedimentary strata miles thick that often lie flat as a pancake for hundreds of miles, is an enigma to geologists – and it underscores the problem historical sciences have with making pronouncements about the unobservable past.
Rebecca M. Flowers (U of Colorado, Boulder) wrote about “The enigmatic rise of the Colorado Plateau” in the journal Geology this month.

How and when the Colorado Plateau attained its current mean elevation of ~2 km has puzzled scientists for nearly 150 yr. This problem is most dramatically manifest when standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, viewing the extraordinary 1500-m-deep gorge carved into nearly horizontal sedimentary rocks that were deposited during the 500 m.y. prior to plateau uplift when the region resided near sea level. What caused the elevation gain of this previously stable cratonic region in Cenozoic time? Did the source of buoyancy for plateau uplift arise from the crust, lithospheric mantle, or asthenosphere, or through some combination of the three? Why did this low-relief plateau escape significant upper crustal strain during uplift, in contrast to the Cenozoic surface deformation that is so strikingly apparent in the high-relief landscape of the surrounding Rocky Mountain, Rio Grande Rift, and Basin and Range provinces (Fig. 1)?

Folded layers of the Tapeats Sandstone that show no evidence of cracking or heat deformation.
Posted Image

Posted Image

The current issue contains two new theories, but Flowers is not convinced of either of them. Here are a few quotes from the article indicating the degree of doubt and frustration explaining the Colorado Plateau.

* Although there is a first-order understanding of vertical motions in areas close to plate boundaries, there is comparatively little consensus on the causes of such motions distal from these margins. The Colorado Plateau exemplifies this problem.
* Hypothesized mechanisms include partial removal of the lithospheric mantle (e.g., Spencer, 1996), chemical alteration of the lithosphere owing to volatile addition or magma extraction (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2003; Roy et al., 2004), warming of heterogeneous lithosphere (Roy et al., 2009), hot upwelling within the asthenosphere (Parsons and McCarthy, 1995; Moucha et al., 2009), and crustal thickening (McQuarrie and Chase, 2000). It is clear that there is no shortage of mechanisms that could explain the plateau’s origin. The core challenge is determining which mechanism, or combination of mechanisms, is indeed the cause.
* One question arising from these two studies is: are their conclusions compatible?
* The other obvious question that emerges from these efforts is both more important and far more difficult to answer. Do the proposed models accurately describe the true origin and evolution of Colorado Plateau elevation?
* One reason why resolving the cause of plateau uplift is such a tough problem is that deciphering the paleoelevation of continents is extremely difficult, and the plateau’s elevation history is critically important for isolating the correct uplift mechanism.
* Not surprisingly, contradictory interpretations regarding the uplift history of the Colorado Plateau often arise from the diverse information yielded by the many studies in this region.
* The two geodynamic studies in this issue of Geology underscore the probable complexity of the plateau’s history. They especially highlight the unlikelihood of the entire plateau undergoing a single spatially uniform phase of surface uplift, and emphasize the potential for significant geographic and temporal heterogeneity in elevation gain. Such a history would only exacerbate the challenge of accurately reconstructing the plateau’s evolution from the geological record.


The “perplexing story” is not limited to explaining this one region. As Flowers said, if we can’t understand this plateau, we can’t explain a lot of other earth formations. “The answers to these contentious questions are significant for understanding how deep-seated processes control the elevation change and topographic evolution of Earth’s surface.”

They don’t tell you these things on the National Park signs. The parks make it sound so easy. A million years here, a few billion years there, and presto: Grand Canyon. Remember this article next time you travel the Colorado Plateau. They don’t have a clue after 150 years of thinking about it. How much more time should we give the clueless before opening the doors to thinking outside the box?
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for them understanding this region is their insistence on deep time and their denial of the catastrophic power of the Flood. They should really take some creation geology papers more seriously (06/21/2010) unless they find cluelessness somehow comforting. Now why would that be? Job security.



http://www.creations.../crev201006.htm





Enjoy.

#51 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 July 2010 - 05:52 AM

Starting with Steno the application of this principle has been the same. This is the crux of what I am posting about, that Berthault makes a false claim about superposition. To assault one of the basic principles of geology is not a trivial matter. Aside from that he did little science that was significant as similar results had already been seen and published earlier.


It's comical watching you make up sources that don't exist and pretend that experiments that do don't.

Here again is the diagram of the sedimentary deposit witnessed in the experiment. I have included red dots to simulate organisms being covered up by sediment.

Posted Image

As you can see. The organism in the top layer has already been covered up, but the organism in the bottom hasn't yet. This brings in to question the law of superposition and dating fossils by their position in the strata as many geologists from many different countries have acknowledged from the experiment.
Enjoy.

View Post


And what sources have I made up, and do not exist ? Please let me know what they are for I am not aware that I have posted about any sources that do not exist. I also have remarked several times that the experiment is real, with real results and it is just the conclusion about superposition that I find false so I am not pretending anything here.

The added red dots do not conform to what the experiment showed as they appear to be of a large grain size and therefore would not be deposited with the finer grains on top or bottom due to the velocity of the current. They would be deposited with the big dark grains. But even if this was a valid representation of the experiment, which it does not appear to be, it does not show a violation of the Law of Superposition for the reasons I stated a few days ago even if they were smaller. The rocks where "the fossils" appear are not in the relationship needed to apply The Law of Superposition. The one in the higher elevation has not been deposited immediately on top of the previously deposited unit of sediment. In terms of a real delta it could be a hundreds of yards away.

Yes, geologists are fully aware that rocks deposited lower in elevation than some being deposited higher in elevation are close to the same age, or with even those lower in elevation younger. The inclined bedding surface is essentially a "time line" representing equivalent time. If you want to take the unit above each such line (termed a layer in the video) and compare it to similar units between time lines above and below, you will find that successive layers are younger and also are on top of the one deposited earlier which is below it. Each topset portion of each subsequent unit will be on top of the one deposite before it, with the same relationship for the forsets and bottomsets to each other.

I doubt that you will find any non-creationist sources that claim that the Law of Superposition was falsified by this experiment. There is often lively debate with differences of opinion about what evidence shows in the worldwide geologic community. If this experiment had actually shown a case where The Law of Superposition was not valid there would be lively debate, yet there is none outside of creationist circles. With no evidence that the results of this experiment were subject to any supression, I would think this should concern you.

#52 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 July 2010 - 06:22 AM

Geode,

May I suggest you watch the video again.  I think you may not have watched intently.  In the video, first of all, it is Pierre Julien who conducts the flume experiment, and gives the presentation. 

Secondly, if you watch the video you'll see he draws lines on the transparent board which trace where individual sediments rest in the formation at a relatively specific time.  The line traces the line of the topset  (----), then the angle (\) of the  foreset, then the bottomset line ( __ ).   

This would be a true layer as is set in time.

In the experiment, the laminae would be what shows in the facies, but the layers are defined by time, not the appearance in the facies.  If you watch the video, you will see that this is what Julien is saying.

So then, it is a rule in this context that--

Sediment particle time1 (T1) rests on the

topset

BEFORE 


Sediment particle time2 (T2) which rests on the

bottomset.


BUT, according to the law of superpositioning ALL sediment particles in superior strata are there AFTER (not before as in the experiment) sediment particles in the underneath strata.  And this is a law of modern geology.    A law, especially a foundational or central law implies something that is universally observed.  This experiment defies that law.

I don't think, however, any creationist would say that all complete superior strata were deposited before other lower strata.  Even in flood geology as the water rose, there would be different events and depostions happening in a seqence of time.

Obvious examples are changes between sandstone and limestone, or an obvious change in the lithology, such as basalt and shale.

View Post


I think I watched intently enough to get the meaning intended, and I saw Pierre Julien point out the T1 and T2 in his diagram, but they cut from him directly after that and the conclusions about Superposition were stated by Berthault and the guy who acts as host. I am blocked from Youtube just now and cannot compare it again. However. I don't think this is a case of my missing anything they pointed out. I just do not agree with the way they attempt to apply the Law of Superposition. They do not do this correctly and therefore their conclusion that it is not valid is not surprising.

Flood geology will produce rocks that conform to the Law of Superposition, which is one reason that I find the conclusion of this video interesting as apparently what they really want to falsify to make their point against evolution is the Principle or Law of Faunal Succession and the dating of rocks based upon that.

Thanks for diagramming the T1 and T2 but this is still a misapplication of the Law of Superposition as I have stated. The law does not allow for comparing a point of a topset bed that could be a mile away on a delta from a bottomset point. Did you do as I suggested and draw a straight vertical line through either the diagram or the sediment in the flume? If you do that you will be applying Superposition properly. If you do this through the "cross-section" you will be doing the same thing.

All that is really being explained in the video and as re-told by you is that there do indeed exist "time stratigraphic" units, with surfaces that were not strictly deposited as horizontal. Geologists have been fully aware that such units existed long before this experiment was conducted and that clinoform primary depositional surfaces also exist. But any portion of these "layers" compared to the corresponding portions of the layers directly on top and beneath the time lines that define the layers will show the validity of the Law of Superposition. The surface of the "layer" that was defined as I think T2 in the bottomset bed will "take of the character" of the rocks touching this in the bottomset bed identified as T1 (using the original way Steno described the principle). T2 is younger than T1.

#53 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:29 AM

Here is another good example of why these types of experiments are so necessary to our understanding of geologic principles instead of just assuming uniformitairianism must be the answer.

Colorado Plateau Stumps Geologists

June 27, 2010 — Many of the West’s greatest parks and scenic areas lie on the Colorado Plateau, a large basin covering parts of Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Colorado.  Within its rugged acres are the Grand Canyon, Grand Staircase, Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Natural Bridges, Monument Valley, Mesa Verde, Glen Canyon and Lake Powell, and numerous small parks and scenic byways.  How this vast region rose 2 kilometers high away from plate boundaries, and maintained sedimentary strata miles thick that often lie flat as a pancake for hundreds of miles, is an enigma to geologists – and it underscores the problem historical sciences have with making pronouncements about the unobservable past.
    Rebecca M. Flowers (U of Colorado, Boulder) wrote about “The enigmatic rise of the Colorado Plateau” in the journal Geology this month.

How and when the Colorado Plateau attained its current mean elevation of ~2 km has puzzled scientists for nearly 150 yr.  This problem is most dramatically manifest when standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, viewing the extraordinary 1500-m-deep gorge carved into nearly horizontal sedimentary rocks that were deposited during the 500 m.y. prior to plateau uplift when the region resided near sea level.  What caused the elevation gain of this previously stable cratonic region in Cenozoic time?  Did the source of buoyancy for plateau uplift arise from the crust, lithospheric mantle, or asthenosphere, or through some combination of the three?  Why did this low-relief plateau escape significant upper crustal strain during uplift, in contrast to the Cenozoic surface deformation that is so strikingly apparent in the high-relief landscape of the surrounding Rocky Mountain, Rio Grande Rift, and Basin and Range provinces (Fig. 1)?

Folded layers of the Tapeats Sandstone that show no evidence of cracking or heat deformation.
Posted Image

Posted Image

The current issue contains two new theories, but Flowers is not convinced of either of them.  Here are a few quotes from the article indicating the degree of doubt and frustration explaining the Colorado Plateau.

* Although there is a first-order understanding of vertical motions in areas close to plate boundaries, there is comparatively little consensus on the causes of such motions distal from these margins.  The Colorado Plateau exemplifies this problem.
    * Hypothesized mechanisms include partial removal of the lithospheric mantle (e.g., Spencer, 1996), chemical alteration of the lithosphere owing to volatile addition or magma extraction (e.g., Humphreys et al., 2003; Roy et al., 2004), warming of heterogeneous lithosphere (Roy et al., 2009), hot upwelling within the asthenosphere (Parsons and McCarthy, 1995; Moucha et al., 2009), and crustal thickening (McQuarrie and Chase, 2000).  It is clear that there is no shortage of mechanisms that could explain the plateau’s origin.  The core challenge is determining which mechanism, or combination of mechanisms, is indeed the cause.
    * One question arising from these two studies is: are their conclusions compatible?
    * The other obvious question that emerges from these efforts is both more important and far more difficult to answer.  Do the proposed models accurately describe the true origin and evolution of Colorado Plateau elevation?
    * One reason why resolving the cause of plateau uplift is such a tough problem is that deciphering the paleoelevation of continents is extremely difficult, and the plateau’s elevation history is critically important for isolating the correct uplift mechanism.
    * Not surprisingly, contradictory interpretations regarding the uplift history of the Colorado Plateau often arise from the diverse information yielded by the many studies in this region.
    * The two geodynamic studies in this issue of Geology underscore the probable complexity of the plateau’s history.  They especially highlight the unlikelihood of the entire plateau undergoing a single spatially uniform phase of surface uplift, and emphasize the potential for significant geographic and temporal heterogeneity in elevation gain.  Such a history would only exacerbate the challenge of accurately reconstructing the plateau’s evolution from the geological record.


The “perplexing story” is not limited to explaining this one region.  As Flowers said, if we can’t understand this plateau, we can’t explain a lot of other earth formations.  “The answers to these contentious questions are significant for understanding how deep-seated processes control the elevation change and topographic evolution of Earth’s surface.”

They don’t tell you these things on the National Park signs.  The parks make it sound so easy.  A million years here, a few billion years there, and presto: Grand Canyon.  Remember this article next time you travel the Colorado Plateau.  They don’t have a clue after 150 years of thinking about it.  How much more time should we give the clueless before opening the doors to thinking outside the box?
    One of the biggest stumbling blocks for them understanding this region is their insistence on deep time and their denial of the catastrophic power of the Flood.  They should really take some creation geology papers more seriously (06/21/2010) unless they find cluelessness somehow comforting.  Now why would that be?  Job security.

http://www.creations.../crev201006.htm
Enjoy.

View Post


Hi Jason,

This seems to be off-subject to the current discussion, and basically is just cut and paste of several ideas about the tectonic uplift of the Colorado Plateau. I don't really see that you have made much of a point here. You appear to have avoided my request to state what you thought the Law of Superposition means (in your own words), and how that experiment invalidated this after you had basically just said that the experiment was empirical evidence, as if that on its on proved your case. I agreed that it was empirical evidence, but what I disagreed with was the interpretation of that experiment in regards to Superposition. In the same spirit I will ask what your interpretation of this cut and paste about the Colorado Plateau means in terms of the discussion we are having?

Additionally, since you lead off with it, what is uniformitarianism in your own words and how does it apply to the interpretation of the tectonics of the Colorado Plateau? What experiments, as you reference them, could be applied to understand this topic and how would they prove or disprove a hypothesis set forth either from a YEC point of view or from a non-YEC point of view?

#54 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 05 July 2010 - 01:26 AM

I think I watched intently enough to get the meaning intended, and I saw Pierre Julien point out the T1 and T2 in his diagram, but they cut from him directly after that and the conclusions about Superposition were stated by Berthault and the guy who acts as host. I am blocked from Youtube just now and cannot compare it again. However. I don't think this is a case of my missing anything they pointed out. I just do not agree with the way they attempt to apply the Law of Superposition. They do not do this correctly and therefore their conclusion that it is not valid is not surprising.

Flood geology will produce rocks that conform to the Law of Superposition, which is one reason that I find the conclusion of this video interesting as apparently what they really want to falsify to make their point against evolution is the Principle or Law of Faunal Succession and the dating of rocks based upon that.

Thanks for diagramming the T1 and T2 but this is still a misapplication of the Law of Superposition as I have stated. The law does not allow for comparing a point of a topset bed that could be a mile away on a delta from a bottomset point. Did you do as I suggested and draw a straight vertical line through either the diagram or the sediment in the flume? If you do that you will be applying Superposition properly. If you do this through the "cross-section" you will be doing the same thing.

All that is really being explained in the video and as re-told by you is that there do indeed exist "time stratigraphic" units, with surfaces that were not strictly deposited as horizontal. Geologists have been fully aware that such units existed long before this experiment was conducted and that clinoform primary depositional surfaces also exist. But any portion of these "layers" compared to the corresponding portions of the layers directly on top and beneath the time lines that define the layers will show the validity of the Law of Superposition. The surface of the "layer" that was defined as I think T2 in the bottomset bed will "take of the character" of the rocks touching this in the bottomset bed identified as T1 (using the original way Steno described the principle). T2 is younger than T1.

View Post


Geode,

I think it quite strange that you do not see the significance of this experiment. First of all, you yourself have said the law of superpositioning is not the same as what Steno has laid forth. So please put forth the new and improved law, so we can get it into the textbooks and on the internet. Because Steno's law is still propagated as generally true.

If paleocurrents are responsible for many of the strata, which I believe is becoming more acknowledged in the literature, then these experiments have ramifications towards the general assumption of uniform deposition over long periods of time.

Pragmatically, the experiments show what intuitive assumption doesn't. It is easy to assume by looking at successive strata--that they were laid down vertically one at a time. This is what geology has taught for centuries. Your acknowledgment of that would be appreciated. Instead it appears you want to debate about words and definitions of a law that is put in doubt by a hydraulic engineer.

#55 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 05 July 2010 - 05:14 AM

Geode,

I think it quite strange that you do not see the significance of this experiment.  First of all, you yourself have said the law of superpositioning is not the same as what Steno has laid forth.  So please put forth the new and improved law, so we can get it into the textbooks and on the internet.  Because Steno's law is still propagated as generally true.

If paleocurrents are responsible for many of the strata, which I believe is becoming more acknowledged in the literature, then these experiments have ramifications towards the general assumption of uniform deposition over long periods of time.

Pragmatically, the experiments show what intuitive assumption doesn't.  It is easy to assume by looking at successive strata--that they were laid down vertically one at a time.  This is what geology has taught for centuries.  Your acknowledgment of that would be appreciated.  Instead it appears you want to debate about words and definitions of a law that is put in doubt by a hydraulic engineer.

View Post


I fail to see any great significance in the experiment beyond showing some patterns of sedimentation using rather high velocities in the flow of the water. Similar findings had already been published before the experiment was devised and conducted.

I googled and have pasted the first few definitions of the Law of Superposition that came up.

law of superposition of strata (principle of superposition) Strata are deposited sequentially, so that in an undistrubed sedimentary succession each layer of rock is younger than the layer beneath it. Subsequent earth movements may overturn and invert this sequence. The law was first proposed in the 17th century by Nicolaus Steno.


Superposition

(geology) The law that strata underlying other strata must be the older if there has been neither overthrust nor inversion.


Superposition2

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



Superpoistion3

Law of Superposition
The law of superposition states that new rock beds are formed on top of existing rock beds. Therefore, when looking at a geologic column or outcrop, the older rocks are at the bottom of the column, the newer rocks are at the top of the column.


Superposition4

Specifically, in geology, noting the relations of stratified formations to one another from the point of view of the relative time of their deposition. That underlying beds are older than those which cover them is called the law of superposition. The apparent exceptions to this law are those instances in which stratified masses have been so disturbed and overturned since their deposition that older beds have been made to rest upon newer ones.


Superposition5

These are all quite similar to what Steno first described and in keeping with his thoughts. The only modification I have really noted was the lack of a need for the body of sediment being covered by a subsequent unit of sediment to be as indurated as Steno seemed to feel was necessary. I hold Steno's law to be true, basically as he stated it, as I have been saying all along.

Palecurrents were responsible for many of the stratified rocks we find, this has been accepted for a long, long time. Stratified rocks that were deposited in quiet waters with little current action are also very common. There are various bedforms that show evidence of currents, and they are often completely lacking in some rocks. There are massive rocks showing little in the way of lamination. No, I am not aware of anything in the geologic literature of the last few years indicating a greater proportion of rocks deposited in flowing water than previously understood (except perhaps for the creationist sources citing Berthault). Some decades ago a greater number of tubidites were noted than recognized before, but this were thought to have been deposited by currents already. I don't agree that the experiment had much to say regarding the absence of uniform deposition over any period of time, short or long. It visited one specific type of flow regime and deposition already known to exist. There are many other depositional environments that have been simulated in similar tests with very different results in the way the sediments were deposited. There is the vast record of studies in the field with rocks that have totally different characteristics than those which would form from the condictions shown in the experiment.

Geologists do not rely upon intuitive assumptions when they have hard data. It has not been taught in geology that successive strata have been laid down vertically one at a time. Steno undertstood correctly that they are laid down close to the horizontal, as set forth in his thoughts about original horizontality. But geologists know that some beds are deposited at an inclination from the horizontal, such as in deltaic sedimentation.

I think the video is equivocating about the definition of the term "strata" and I already explained in an earlier post about this, that what the video wishes to term strata are better termed differently, such as facies. However, call the coarser body of sediment a set of strata if you wish, and measure it correctly in relationship to the finer sediments on top and beneath and the law holds.

The law was not put in doubt by the hydaulic engineer, because he does not really address the law in the way he measured his points, as I have pointed out already. Once aqain I ask you, did you bother to do as I suggest and measure the sediments as modern geologists do ? As Steno would have done ? I think I have answered all questions put to me yet mine tend to often be avoided.

#56 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 05 July 2010 - 06:44 PM

I fail to see any great significance in the experiment beyond showing some patterns of sedimentation using rather high velocities in the flow of the water. Similar findings had already been published before the experiment was devised and conducted.

I googled and have pasted the first few definitions of the Law of Superposition that came up.
Superposition
Superposition2
Superpoistion3
Superposition4
Superposition5

These are all quite similar to what Steno first described and in keeping with his thoughts. The only modification I have really noted was the lack of a need for the body of sediment being covered by a subsequent unit of sediment to be as indurated as Steno seemed to feel was necessary. I hold Steno's law to be true, basically as he stated it, as I have been saying all along.

View Post

Let me ask you geode. If geologists have known for sometime what was done in the flume, then why would it be necessary for billions of years of slow sedimentation?

Why is then a worldwide flood so hard to believe for geologists?

Why, when there is severely folded, but unbroken strata, there is always an alternate explanation given? PhD Baumgarder would give the explanation that multiple thick layers were wet, because they were laid in a close time period to each other, and they folded together when wet. Some of these folds are hundreds of feet thick.

Or when some of the southwestern US sand, which is known to be transported is coated in hematite, there is always an alternate explanation such as groundwater?

There is no proof of such explanations, only assumption, as no one was there to see it happen.

Surely you will say,"because there is no evidence of a deluge." But there are qualified geologists who differ with you. I even know one personally. I go to church with him.

Palecurrents were responsible for many of the stratified rocks we find, this has been accepted for a long, long time. Stratified rocks that were deposited in quiet waters with little current action are also very common.

Can you give a link, and have you done a provenance on them to know this for sure? And if they did form in quiet waters, why would there be fossils in them? A better explanation would be that many fossils were buried rapidly. Why do geologists ignore this common sense fact.


There are various bedforms that show evidence of currents, and they are often completely lacking in some rocks. There are massive rocks showing little in the way of lamination. No, I am not aware of anything in the geologic literature of the last few years indicating a greater proportion of rocks deposited in flowing water than previously understood (except perhaps for the creationist sources citing Berthault).


You are not giving any specific data, only general statements. One thing is sure. The reason there are so many different formations is that uniformity is not the rule of the day. If everything was so slow and uniform, then all the strata ought to be horizontal and organized. If there was subsequent slow earth uplift or descent, then the strata, especially strata that contain calcite ought to be broken, and cracked.

I believe modern geologists, in finding so many unbroken folded strata have again given an alternate explanation--because the deluge can not be included by rule. What a travesty. What if there was a deluge Geode? Are we going to say everything has another explanation because the Bible is a religious book--therefore it can not be true? It is not the only ancient source that tells of a deluge.

Do we say because we don't know the mechanism of the deluge that it is therefore impossible? Think for instance if you discovered an empty hull of an alien spacecraft. All the inner workings had been removed and you only had the hull. WOuld you be able to scientifically say how this spacecraft arrived on earth. By what propulsion and navigation system? But you know it arrived because it is on earth. In the same way, we have to look at the amount of evidence of catastrophe is in the rocks, not rule something out before we even consider it, because we BELIEVE it to be impossible.

Geologists do not rely upon intuitive assumptions when they have hard data. It has not been taught in geology that successive strata have been laid down vertically one at a time.


I didn't mean vertical like the stratum is vertical. I meant they were laid horizontally, but vertically as in a time sequence, one on top of another. And it seems you are escaping the fact that many people understand things like laminations and varves to be indications of slow sedimentation followed by a period of inactivity. Most people do not even know it is possible for multiple laminations to occur in a current of water.

The law was not put in doubt by the hydaulic engineer, because he does not really address the law in the way he measured his points, as I have pointed out already.

I have to disagree. It seems that what the average citizen who swallows old earth teaching has no idea that it's possible to form multiple strata and or laminations concurrently by moving water. Most people believe everything happened slow, slow, and that each strata formed one at a time. This is the idea that is conveyed by uniformintarianism. Are you going to disclaim that also.

In my opinion, if geologists know what you say--then they are doing a horrible job of communicating their knowledge.


Once aqain I ask you, did you bother to do as I suggest and measure the sediments as modern geologists do ? As Steno would have done ? I think I have answered all questions put to me yet mine tend to often be avoided.


What sediments are you talking about--in the experiment?

#57 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 05 July 2010 - 07:22 PM

Here are some effects of the experiment.


I. The law of superpositioning says that fossil A is younger than fossils B-E


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;) A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
======= ;) B :) C ;) D :D E
________________________________________________________________________

II. However, if a paleocurrent formed these two strata simultaneously, and the direction of the current was <--------, then fossils B-E were deposited before fossil A.

If direction of the current was ----->, then A was deposited before B-E.

III. If the two strata are deposited in a paleocurrent simultaneously then how can the law of superpositioning be valid in this case, which says that the lower strata should by older? However they would be the same age.

IV. A law must be universally observable. If many of the strata were laid in this manner then, though superpositioning is indeed existent in certain circumstances, but it is not universally observable, and therefore at least a conditional law.

#58 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2010 - 08:21 AM

Here are some effects of the experiment.
I.  The law of superpositioning says that fossil A is younger than fossils B-E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<_< A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======  :mellow: B    :P  C    :angry::lol: E                   
________________________________________________________________________

II. However, if  a paleocurrent formed these two strata simultaneously, and the direction of the current was <--------, then fossils B-E were deposited before fossil A.

If direction of the current was ----->, then A was deposited before B-E.

III. If the two strata are deposited in a paleocurrent simultaneously then how can the law of superpositioning be valid in this case, which says that the lower strata should by older?  However they would be the same age.

IV.  A law must be universally observable.  If many of the strata were laid in this manner then, though superpositioning is indeed existent in certain circumstances, but it is not universally observable, and therefore at least a conditional law.

View Post


The Law of Superposition is universally observable except for the exceptions noted about clastic dikes, over-turned beds, etc.

No, this is not what the experiment showed. With no further guidance than what you have given here we only have horizontal bedding and currents that align normal to it. Under those circumstances fossil A is always younger than the rest. The two "strata" cannot be deposited simultaneously if they actually have different characteristics that allow them to be distinguished from each other without gradational contacts.

#59 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2010 - 09:54 AM

"I fail to see any great significance in the experiment beyond showing some patterns of sedimentation using rather high velocities in the flow of the water. Similar findings had already been published before the experiment was devised and conducted.

I googled and have pasted the first few definitions of the Law of Superposition that came up.
Superposition
Superposition2
Superpoistion3
Superposition4
Superposition5

These are all quite similar to what Steno first described and in keeping with his thoughts. The only modification I have really noted was the lack of a need for the body of sediment being covered by a subsequent unit of sediment to be as indurated as Steno seemed to feel was necessary. I hold Steno's law to be true, basically as he stated it, as I have been saying all along."

Let me ask you geode. If geologists have known for sometime what was done in the flume, then why would it be necessary for billions of years of slow sedimentation?


Who said anything about billions of years of sedimentation? I have consistently been posting how geologists know that sedimentation is sometimes slow and sometimes rapid. I have also repeatedly posted that the experiment shows sedimentation under one set of conditions that deposits rapidly.

Why is then a worldwide flood so hard to believe for geologists?


It is not believable because there is vast evidence from many aspects of geology that show it did not occur.

Why, when there is severely folded, but unbroken strata, there is always an alternate explanation given? PhD Baumgarder would give the explanation that multiple thick layers were wet, because they were laid in a close time period to each other, and they folded together when wet. Some of these folds are hundreds of feet thick.


This is not the case. Soft sediment deformation is known to occur. But empirical experiments in the laboratory have demonstrated quite clearly that rocks will deform plastically when at high temperatures and under high overburden pressure. Geologists know that wet strata deformation occurs, but there are tell-tale bed forms and slump features. Many folds show none of this but do show the evidence of burial and the pressures and temperatures I noted.

Or when some of the southwestern US sand, which is known to be transported is coated in hematite, there is always an alternate explanation such as groundwater?


Because the groundwater explanation actually fits what is found, unlike a primary sedimentation model. I already explained this ? Why bring it up again. You seem to really like to throw red herrings out there to change the subject. This is not about Superposition.

There is no proof of such explanations, only assumption, as no one was there to see it happen.


Somehow I doubt that you have done the requisite study to allow such a dismissal of the diagenesis of sandstones that allows such a blanket statement to be valid. There is in fact solid evidence of such processes, and unlike the creationist version this evidence is shown in multiple ways, not just the assumption that since water must be involved that the sediments were totally submerged by a flood. That is the basic flaw in many creationist explanations, taking something observed, allowing for only one explanation and disregarding details that show a different explanation is more viable. Yes, iron rich waters could produce coatings of sand grains in the mode of primary sedimentation, but since the grains show other aspects of being deposited in a terrestrial environment in the rocks you note it is not a good model to use as it does not explain all that is observed in terms of cross-bedding. frosted grains and the like.

Surely you will say,"because there is no evidence of a deluge." But there are qualified geologists who differ with you. I even know one personally. I go to church with him.


These geologists may be qualified, but if they actually look at the data properly without blind-sighting themselves they will find that the belief in a world-wide flooding event is not the best explanation for anything you have brought up.

"Palecurrents were responsible for many of the stratified rocks we find, this has been accepted for a long, long time. Stratified rocks that were deposited in quiet waters with little current action are also very common."

Can you give a link, and have you done a provenance on them to know this for sure? And if they did form in quiet waters, why would there be fossils in them? A better explanation would be that many fossils were buried rapidly. Why do geologists ignore this common sense fact.


This information is readily available in any basic historical geology book, or in multiple places on the internet. Google on varves for instance, or pelagic deposits.

Link

Do you see quiet waters today? Do they have life in them? Let us take San Francisco Bay for example. A simple core of the sediment from the bottom of this quiet body of water would yield fossils. Life forms dying within the water column in oceans often have portions preserved in sediments on the bootom, along with bottom dwellers. Decay stops due to anoxic conditions.

I think you provided a picture of some limestone beds some days ago that were deposited in quiet waters. I have studied many such strata including massive limestones and also shales.

Many fossils were the result of rapid burial, but not all. This is another false claim you make about geologists.

"There are various bedforms that show evidence of currents, and they are often completely lacking in some rocks. There are massive rocks showing little in the way of lamination. No, I am not aware of anything in the geologic literature of the last few years indicating a greater proportion of rocks deposited in flowing water than previously understood (except perhaps for the creationist sources citing Berthault)."

You are not giving any specific data, only general statements. One thing is sure. The reason there are so many different formations is that uniformity is not the rule of the day. If everything was so slow and uniform, then all the strata ought to be horizontal and organized. If there was subsequent slow earth uplift or descent, then the strata, especially strata that contain calcite ought to be broken, and cracked.


Google on "ripples" or "paleocurrent indicators" and you will find a lot of specific data....so what specific data have you been giving other than to keep citing the content of the video?

I asked Jason to define how Uniformitarianism applied to any of our discussion, so I will extend the invitation to you as well for from what I see here it appears to just be a strawman you have constructed to knock down.

I don't understand you comment about calcite and how it relates to cracking, etc. so please elaborate.

#60 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 06 July 2010 - 09:59 AM

If this experiment had actually shown a case where The Law of Superposition was not valid there would be lively debate, yet there is none outside of creationist circles. With no evidence that the results of this experiment were subject to any supression, I would think this should concern you.


Are you going to pretend that no sources were given again?

From post#37:

In his preamble, Hoskin states that our

    ‘experimentation is now recognised as a valuable and necessary contribution to our understanding of the petrology of sedimentary rocks and their structures.’

I thank him for the acknowledgment. His praise adds to that expressed in dozens of letters emanating from geologists from many countries who have read the reports and, in particular, have seen the video Fundamental Experiments on Stratification.


And are you just going to keep on wasting everyones time with "No one said that"?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users