Jump to content


Photo

Limestone And Trilobite Fossils On Mt. Everest


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

#61 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2010 - 10:00 AM

...continued.

I believe modern geologists, in finding so many unbroken folded strata have again given an alternate explanation--because the deluge cannot 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. 


So just what is unbroken folded strata and how common is this occurrence compared to "broken" strata? The deluge is open for consideration, it is just that the evidence is not present. There is evidence of local flooding events and these are interpreted all the time by geologists. But please, you already covered this earlier in your post, it is redundant, and it is off the topic we were discussing. Having to break this reply into two parts is a result of your bringing up a multitude of off-subject remarks.

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.


Yes, we do have to look at all the evidence in the rocks. When done there is not evidence of a worldwide flood. It is creationists that rule out all but one possibility.

"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.


As described by you know the Law of Superposition will always hold true, as it did in the experiment.

But most people are not sedimentologists. Most, but not all laminations in rocks are evidence of slow sedimentation. But why should most people know this or care about this? It is specialized study.

"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.


The average person is not a geologist, let alone a sedimentologist. It was my specialization in graduate study in geology. Most people don't think about such things. But you ignored my real point in the quote and once again seem to want to deflect the discussion off-track.

Geologists do just fine in communicating to the community that is interested in such things, other geologists. The general public is not interested as a rule, and usually have trouble grasping its principles. I think this has been demonstrated in quite a few places in this thread. I have found that most people are bored by such discussions.

"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? 


As I have already posted twice in some detail, I was asking if you had done as I had suggested and measured a set of points along a vertical line from the bottom of the sediments to the top as shown in the video. Do this in the pictures they call a "cross-section" or 90 degrees to this in the views that show the current flowing. You can also do it with Julien's diagram. Then assign the order of those points in terms of when they were deposited (which is youngest and which is oldest, which are in-between).

#62 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:43 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:

QUOTE
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"?


First of all I don't believe I ever did say "No one said that" so I have yet to waste anybody's time in this way.

Your original comment to me was as follows:

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


I read this to mean that I had made claims that were from non-existent sources and denied that the experiment had been conducted, I didn't see how it could relate to my comment:

"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."


You give a quote from somewhere that includes a comment from "Hoskin", whomever that might be, with additional comments that seem to be about Berthault's experiment. But notice that it said nothing about The Law of Superposition? So what you are saying is that some people acknowledged the work? Is that what this quote, that you apparently think I should have known about, says, and you think this refutes my statement? It sounds like this is from some statement from Berthault himself. If any geologists praised his ideas about Superposition, the topic of my comment, my guess is that most if not all were creationists. But as it stands you didn't link the source of your quote and the context in which it was made. Did these letters of praise actually agree with the statements about Superposition or just some other aspect of the experiment? Does this prove that there "lively debate" on His claim of falsifying The Law of Superposition outside of creationist circles, in terms of its validity? I think your case holds water only if you can provide evidence of geologists taking this contention seriously as a possibility outside of creationist circles.

But perhaps you will answer the questions I posed to you earlier.

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?



#63 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 06 July 2010 - 06:18 PM

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.

View Post


I'm becoming convinced you do not remember the video. Or perhaps your bias is getting in the way of your judgment. When they cut the sediment after one experiment it looked like layers, not just laminations.

Forgive me Geode, but you are denying things that you don't want to acknowledge. Let's leave the strata for a second and go back to laminations. You claim geologists "already knew" about the origin of laminations by paleocurrents. Let's see what wikipedia has to say.

Posted Image
"Lamination in a piece of travertine. In this case the layering was
caused by seasonal differences in sediment supply."
WIKI

Lamination develops in fine grained sediment when fine grained particles settle, which can only happen in quiet water. Examples of sedimentary environments are deep marine (at the seafloor) or lacustrine (at the bottom of a lake), or mudflats, where the tide creates cyclic differences in sediment supply.[4]

Laminations formed in glaciolacustrine environments (in glacier lakes) are a special case. They are called varves. Quaternary varves are used in stratigraphy and palaeoclimatology to reconstruct climate changes during the last few hundred thousand years. Wiki Link


So wiki says laminations happen from seasonal sedimentation in calm waters. There is no mention of any laminations being formed quickly in current. Yet you say geologists know --where is the evidence that they know?? If they do, they certainly aren't sharing this knowledge with anyone. <_<

As I said before, if geologists knew about the effects of water current in making laminations, why would it be so predominately taught that they form in quiet water and over many seasons.

I will tell you why. Because despite the fact that Pieere Julien submitted his paper to the Congress of Science in France in 1993, it was shelved and ignored by academia.

And this is exactly why the experiments are significant. And not only that ,but they are a mechanism for flood geology. No matter what modern geology teaches, this will get out as the truth always does.

#64 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 14 July 2010 - 06:18 AM

I'm becoming convinced you do not remember the video.  Or perhaps your bias is getting in the way of your judgment.  When they cut the sediment after one experiment it looked like layers, not just laminations. 

Forgive me Geode, but you are denying things that you don't want to acknowledge. Let's leave the strata for a second and go back to laminations.  You claim geologists  "already knew" about the origin of laminations by paleocurrents.  Let's see what wikipedia has to say.

Posted Image
"Lamination in a piece of travertine. In this case the layering was
caused by seasonal differences in sediment supply."
WIKI
So wiki says laminations happen from seasonal sedimentation in calm waters.  There is no mention of any laminations being formed quickly in current.  Yet you say geologists know --where is the evidence that they know??  If they do, they certainly aren't sharing this knowledge with anyone. :)

As I said before, if geologists knew about the effects of water current in making laminations, why would it be so predominately taught that they form in quiet water and over many seasons.

I will tell you why.  Because despite the fact that Pieere Julien submitted his paper to the Congress of Science in France in 1993, it was shelved and ignored by academia. 

And this is exactly why the experiments are significant. And not only that ,but they are a mechanism for flood geology.  No matter what modern geology teaches, this will get out as the truth always does.

View Post


No, I remember what was shown in the video. I saw what was produced when they cut through the sediment. I asked you multiple times to measure points at the surfaces bounding the changes in sediment size and report the order in which they were deposited. I saw the results of the experiment and have posted all along that it showed laminations being created by high current flow. What I disagree with is the conclusions drawn from what was shown such as the baseless claim about Superposition. But what is the difference between layers and laminations? It is one of thickness. It doesn't matter in terms of what I asked whether they are "laminations" or "layers." Call them layers, strata, "bongo bongos" or whatever you wish. Equivocating about the definition of "layer" or "lamination" does not change the situation in terms of the Law of Superposition despite what the video attempts with a hat trick involving the definition of terms. What will be found if you measure those points at places where you see a difference, and order them, you yourself will prove that the Law of Superposition hold true.

I thought we were talking about the Law of Superposition and whether or not it had been falsified? here you seem to be wanting to change the subject back to laminations and flood geology. You also ignored my posting yet again about measuring the sediments in the experiment the way geologists measure sections.

You post something about travertine as evidence that I am denying something? Travertine is hardly typical of all rocks showing lamination. It is in fact fairly rare. It is basically a chemically precipitated rock that really has little or nothing to do with the experiment at hand, or deposition of clastic sediment grains in general. It is no wonder there is no discussion of laminations being formed in high currents in terms of this picture. Why would there be when currents were not involved in its formation? I often see creationists at this site attacking Wikipedia as a source because it is inaccurate and biased due to an editorial board of "evolutionists" yet you cite it here as evidence for your argument? In fact I have found most of what is at wikipedia to be accurate, but you seem to think that a short piece here stands for all the geological literature about laminations? The caption on that photo does not state what you are claiming.

Lamination in a piece of travertine. In this case the layering was caused by seasonal differences in sediment supply. This rock was part of the Roman aqueduct of Mons/Montauroux - Fréjus and was most probably derived from the karst area in the vicinity. Picture by Michel Royon.


This is not the best way to state the genesis of the rock at hand. Sediment is a term usually defining particles that are macroscopic in size, but here the components were smaller. Yes, seasonal variations probably did play a role in creating the laminations. The piece also does not claim that all laminations are formed in quiet water.

What it actually says:

Lamination develops in fine grained sediment when fine grained particles settle, which can only happen in quiet water. Examples of sedimentary environments are deep marine (at the seafloor) or lacustrine (at the bottom of a lake), or mudflats, where the tide creates cyclic differences in sediment supply.[4]

Laminations formed in glaciolacustrine environments (in glacier lakes) are a special case. They are called varves. Quaternary varves are used in stratigraphy and palaeoclimatology to reconstruct climate changes during the last few hundred thousand years.

Lamination in sandstone is often formed in a coastal environment, where wave energy causes a separation between grains of different sizes.


The results in the experiment were not the first to be published about laminations produced in high current flow. I learned of Bouma sequences when I was an undergraduate decades before Bethault's experiment. Bouma published in 1962 about laminations being produced in high flow regimes in turbidites.

Bouma

I will tell you why.  Because despite the fact that Pieere Julien submitted his paper to the Congress of Science in France in 1993, it was shelved and ignored by academia. 

And this is exactly why the experiments are significant. And not only that ,but they are a mechanism for flood geology.  No matter what modern geology teaches, this will get out as the truth always does.


The work by Julien was probably ignored because despite its claims, it really broke no new ground in terms of knowledge and simply showed something that collaborated what had already been noted and published. It used different grain sizes and water velocities, yet the results were similar to what had been observed an noted before.

The truth in field studies and lab experiments is already out. When put together in a complete and coherent fashion without forcing it into a model and ignoring evidence that does not fit that model it does not support a worldwide flooding event. In fact much of it directly shows deposition in sedimentary environments that are terrestrial and on the surface of dry land.

#65 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 17 July 2010 - 07:44 AM

No, I remember what was shown in the video. I saw what was produced when they cut through the sediment. I asked you multiple times to measure points at the surfaces bounding the changes in sediment size and report the order in which they were deposited. I saw the results of the experiment and have posted all along that it showed laminations being created by high current flow. What I disagree with is the conclusions drawn from what was shown such as the baseless claim about Superposition. But what is the difference between layers and laminations? It is one of thickness. It doesn't matter in terms of what I asked whether they are "laminations" or "layers." Call them layers, strata, "bongo bongos" or whatever you wish. Equivocating about the definition of "layer" or "lamination" does not change the situation in terms of the Law of Superposition  despite what the video attempts with a hat trick involving the definition of terms. What will be found if you measure those points at places where you see a difference, and order them, you yourself will prove that the Law of Superposition hold true.

View Post


Geode,
Two areas I would like to address before we go any further. Basic definitions.

su·per·pose (spr-pz)
tr.v. su·per·posed, su·per·pos·ing, su·per·pos·es
1. To set or place (one thing) over or above something else.
2. Mathematics To place (one geometric figure) over another so that all like parts coincide.


By superposition, it is assumed by most that, if given any two superposed strata, that the ENTIRE strata on top was deposited after the ENTIRE strata on the bottom. That they were laid with no sense of juxtaposition at all. They were deposited horizontally and the sediments accumulated vertically, so as to form thicker and thicker strata. Until a period of inactivity, lithification, and/or subsequent and different sediment deposit began, causing a bedding plane.

This is the most apparent way that it has been applied, inferred and taught in all of geology for hundreds of years--that one entire strata was laid, then another entire strata was laid. That bedding planes between the strata are periods of geologic inactivity, etc.

Now here's another definition.

jux·ta·pose
–verb (used with object), -posed, -pos·ing.
to place close together or side by side, esp. for comparison or contrast.


The research and the commentary of Berhault communicated this principle of simultaneous superposition and juxtaposition of "layers" (topset, foreset, bottomset line) through time, when involved with a directional paleocurrent mixed with sediments. He is communicating this in regards to realtime formation, and not the visual aftermath of deposition. Because the foreset part of the layer is not horizontal, like the topset and the bottomset, juxtapositioning is involved with superpositioning. This is not how the law of superpositioning and original horizontal orientation are applied and taught. The sense of juxtapositioning is not conveyed in the law.

In the paper below (this is Jullienne and Berhault's reffereed paper of what we are discussing) you will see the exact wording of the conclusive statement as submitted to the geologic society of France. It is:

"Therefore, superposed strata are not necessarily identified to successive sedimentary layers." Refereed paper 1993


This is not denying superposition of strata, but if true, it is a falsifying the way in which the law of superposition (there is a difference) is applied in the interpretation of geologic formation!
_________________________________________________________
Definitions of layers, strata, and laminations.

Julienne defines "layers" by time, and they are not as apparent visually--only by watching the formation happen in real time. By that a true layer could be defined as a geometric line following the contour of the topset, foreset, and bottomset bed.

A lamination is a ministrata, and is apparent in that is usually in association with a set of ministrata.

Strata laid in current is defined by a visual "aftermath layer" (not layer as defined above)of sediment which may contain sets of laminations, but contains a horizontal topset and bottomset layer of smaller particles which are responsible for the visual bedding plane on topset and bottomset.

I hope this has helped.

#66 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 18 July 2010 - 06:39 AM

Geode,
Two areas I would like to address before we go any further.  Basic definitions.

su•per•pose  (spr-pz)
tr.v. su•per•posed, su•per•pos•ing, su•per•pos•es
1. To set or place (one thing) over or above something else.
2. Mathematics To place (one geometric figure) over another so that all like parts coincide.


By superposition, it is assumed by most that, if given any two superposed strata, that the ENTIRE strata on top was deposited after the ENTIRE strata on the bottom.  That they were laid with no sense of juxtaposition at all.  They were deposited horizontally and the sediments accumulated vertically, so as to form thicker and thicker strata.  Until a period of inactivity, lithification, and/or subsequent and different sediment deposit began, causing a bedding plane.

This is the most apparent way that it has been applied, inferred and taught in all of geology for hundreds of years--that one entire  strata was laid, then another entire strata was laid.  That bedding planes between the strata are periods of geologic inactivity, etc.


Yes, a bed of sediment must lie on top of another to apply the Law of Superposition.

I would not agree that "most" geologists always make the assumptions you give here. Juxtaposition is taken into account using Walther's Law. But geologists are also aware of the situation shown in the video, or prograding sediments where the sediments were not deposited horizontally, but upon an inclined surface, with the sediments not accumulating in a precise vertical fashion but again on top of the inclined bedding surfaces. I seem to remember that the video makes a big deal about this, that sediments accumulate “sideways” as if this is a brand new idea. Thicker and thicker strata did not accumulate in the experiment in what you term “strata” as can be seen in the video. The video started out trying to redefine these as “bands” …not a term I have ever seen used this way. Bedding planes as they would be applied here by geologists are also inclined.

Bedding planes can be caused by geologic inactivity, but many of them are not. If they do represent inactivity with no obvious erosion they are paraconformities.

The video seems to come to conclusions by making a rigid definition of "strata" in terms of what is shown in the experiment and beyond, and then maintaining that the Law of Superposition is bound by this definition. Weeks ago I posted how it was a term that really is not the best to apply here. You follow their convention by applying it to units of similar grain size and color, which is allowable under a general use of the term, but what you are calling "strata" are really best called "facies." There is no "Entire strata" part in any definitions of The Law of Superposition I have seen. That is a problem in the video, not only is The Law of Superposition misused, so is Steno’s concept of lateral continuity, or the modern use of the concept. As I already posted, the Law does not account for stretching lateral continuity for miles or whatever is involved when it actually goes through facies changes. But you are wrong that what you term “strata” have no sense of juxtaposition. There are successive bedding surfaces in each facies, or what you term strata. They are “layered” or “stratified” sediment and these surfaces are what is most important in terms of their layering. They will show up in seismic sections as reflecting horizons They show the flooding surfaces that are the basis of sequence stratigraphy, they allow the defining of down lap in prograding sequences.

Now here's another definition.

jux•ta•pose
–verb (used with object), -posed, -pos•ing.
to place close together or side by side, esp. for comparison or contrast.


The research and the commentary of Berhault communicated this principle of simultaneous superposition and juxtaposition of "layers" (topset, foreset, bottomset line) through time, when involved with a directional paleocurrent mixed with sediments.  He is communicating this in regards to realtime formation, and not the visual aftermath of deposition.  Because the foreset part of the layer is not horizontal, like the topset and the bottomset, juxtapositioning is involved with superpositioning. This is not how the law of superpositioning and original horizontal orientation are applied and taught.  The sense of juxtapositioning is not conveyed in the law.


The use of juxtapostioning is not conveyed in the law because the law does not include an open-ended sense of lateral continuity. Steno talked about lateral boundaries, of Superposition being applied to units that were enclosed or limited. Geologists came to realize that sediments also grade into different facies laterally, which is what you are talking about here. But you cannot compare bottomset beds with topset beds of the same chronstratigraphic unit using the Law of Superposition.

In the paper below (this is Jullienne and Berhault's reffereed paper of what we are discussing) you will see the exact wording of the conclusive statement as submitted to the geologic society of France.  It is:
This is not denying superposition of strata, but if true, it is a falsifying the way in which the law of superposition (there is a difference) is applied in the interpretation of geologic formation!
_________________________________________________________
Definitions of layers, strata, and laminations.

Julienne defines "layers" by time, and they are not as apparent visually--only by watching the formation happen in real time.  By that a true layer could be defined as a geometric line following the contour of the topset, foreset, and bottomset bed.

A lamination is a ministrata, and is apparent in that is usually in association with a set of ministrata.

Strata laid in current is defined by a visual "aftermath layer" (not layer as defined above)of sediment which may contain sets of laminations, but contains a horizontal topset and bottomset layer of smaller particles which are responsible for the visual bedding plane on topset and bottomset.

I hope this has helped.

View Post


That statement from the paper seems imprecise or vague to me, perhaps it is the translation from French that resulted in this, but as worded it sounds as if it is suggesting implying the Law of Superposition differently than it is presently. Yes, if you apply in differently as intended and defined you can get a situation where it appears invalid of falsified. No point in doing that as it will lose meaning, as I posted weeks ago.

His “layer” would be a chronostratigraphic unit as termed by stratigraphers. The youngest of these will always be deposited on top of previously deposited units. As you have explained it here, the topset and bottomset beds are also chronostratigraphic units and the law also clearly applies to them, each successive topset or bottomset bed is deposited on top of the previous topset of bottomset and is younger. That leaves forests, which lie between. But the same relationship applies to them as well.

But in my last post I said that it doesn't matter whet terms are used, what matters is measuring them correctly.

So did you do the scientific observation I have mentioned repeatedly, and measure the sediments in the experiment in the manner I indicated? Doing this and investigating the results is really the only way the discussion can go forward appropriately in my opinion.

I also asked a question in a post a long time ago about a subject brought up at the very beginning of the video, about so-called polystrate trees. I think one appears in the very first outcrop shown, where "bands" and "layers" are explained. Nobody answered me. I would guess that you accept that such fossils exist? Of course the term was coined by creationists and not used outside of creationist discussions. Since the video brings them up it would appear that it was felt that they strengthened the case they were attempting to make. How do you think they fit in with the sedimentation model shown in the video, and which they appear to claim accounts for all sedimentary rocks?

#67 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 18 July 2010 - 07:03 AM

I thought we were talking about the Law of Superposition and whether or not it had been falsified? here you seem to be wanting to change the subject back to laminations and flood geology. You also ignored my posting yet again about measuring the sediments in the experiment the way geologists measure sections.

View Post

Geode, I am not ignoring you. I answered you that I am not understanding your request. How can I measure past experiments of which I was not part?

Now, in the paper, which I posted a link in the previous post, laminae are described as less than 10 mm. Is that what you are after--please specify what it is that I should do, and what is possible for me to do without accusing me of ignoring you.

You post something about travertine as evidence that I am denying something? Travertine is hardly typical of all rocks showing lamination.

View Post

I didn't say you were denying. I really don't know what you are saying. I realize there are chemical factors in lamination, but I also know there are mechanical factors.

It is in fact fairly rare. It is basically a chemically precipitated rock that really has little or nothing to do with the experiment at hand, or deposition of clastic sediment grains in general.

View Post

First, I posted this image, becasue it is used in Wikipedia as an example of laminations. It is under laminae of lamintion. It is not intended to be some sort of deviation of the conversation.

I believe diagenesis in some cases definitely has something to do with some lamination, but lamination is also caused mechanically at deposition. Are you saying this travertine was a product of total diagenesis and no mechanical lamination in even still water.

Berthault also performed experiments in still water, and I woud say that travertine could have been deposited in eddies, and later underwent diagenesis. What do you say to that? Please be specific.

It is no wonder there is no discussion of laminations being formed in high currents in terms of this picture. Why would there be when currents were not involved in its formation?

View Post

I was not limiting this to high current. I would not necessarily interpret this as such. The video contained still water and air experiments also.

My point is not what specific event caused this, but the TIME involved in the event. The experiments showed that laminations do not necessarily correspond with seasons, as is captioned under the image of travertine at Wikipedia.

I often see creationists at this site attacking Wikipedia as a source because it is inaccurate and biased due to an editorial board of "evolutionists"

View Post

I am not attacking Wikipedia, and I often use it. However I am challenging the statement made under the travertine. Namely that the travertine was formed over SEASONS. This is a time issue. Berthault's experiments in still water and air show that seaosnal deposition of laminae are not an exclusive explanation.

yet you cite it here as evidence for your argument? In fact I have found most of what is at wikipedia to be accurate, 

View Post

It is indeed evidence of the bias in the science community, and those they teach. Even in light that long periods of time ARE NOT required for mechanical deposition of laminae and strata.

but you seem to think that a short piece here stands for all the geological literature about laminations? The caption on that photo does not state what you are claiming.

View Post

No I do not think it stands for all geological literature. In fact, the fact that there is so much observation about sedimentary paleocurrents makes this statement the more dubious.

This statement matches similar statements being pushed off on the general public in most media and magazines--Like Omni, Science Daily, How the Earth was Made, etc. It all has a Lyellian bias.

So this is indeed my problem. There is science in the literature--true science. Then there is the propagandistic one sided Lyellian story in our grade school textbooks, and media. It has no public rebuttal, except in some courtrooms and on the internet.


This is not the best way to state the genesis of the rock at hand. Sediment is a term usually defining particles that are macroscopic in size, but here the components were smaller.

Not necessarily. What about limestone and/or chalk? This contains microscopic sediment. Yet the concentration and purity of much of it seems to lend itslef high concentration blooms followed by mass deposition.

The gradual sedimentation of these microscopic particles over a long period of time, like today, would produce a low concentration ooze with silt and mud--low purity.

Yes, seasonal variations probably did play a role in creating the laminations. The piece also does not claim that all laminations are formed in quiet water.

You choose the Lyellian view, with no proof that it was that way. These experiments show there is another choice--yet you choose to hold to the carried down teachings of mere men.

What it actually says:
The results in the experiment were not the first to be published about laminations produced in high current flow. I learned of Bouma sequences when I was an undergraduate decades before Bethault's experiment. Bouma published in 1962 about laminations being produced in high flow regimes in turbidites.

Bouma
The work by Julien was probably ignored because despite its claims, it really broke no new ground in terms of knowledge and simply showed something that collaborated what had already been noted and published. It used different grain sizes and water velocities, yet the results were similar to what had been observed an noted before.


Yes, and he used quite a number of those papers in his paper to confirm his work.

The first of which was the work of McKee in 1965 with his observations of a creek after a flood, which produced a 12 foot thick formation of strata, laminaiton and bedding planes.

It was ignored because of it's underlying suggestion that Lyellian time is not necessary. There are no statements as such, but the infererence can easily b taken.

So it is heaped into a category of intermittent and local flooding, just like you are doing now.

#68 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 18 July 2010 - 08:15 AM

Geode, I am not ignoring you.  I answered you that I am not understanding your request.  How can I measure past experiments of which I was not part? 


What was not clear in what I posted? I said to measure points along a vertical line at places you can see difference in color in the sediments in the video, either in the direction of flow or in the "cross-section" they described. I also said you could do this in the diagram showing the sediments where T1 and T2 are described. I then said to order them in terms of when they were deposited. This is the simple and basic way geologists would describe the rocks shown in terms of Superposition. The cross-section in particular is similar to what we commonly see in outcrops.

Now, in the paper, which I posted a link in the previous post.  Laminae are described as less than 10 cm.  Is that what you are after--please specify what it is that I should do, and what is possible for me to do without accusing me of ignoring you.

I didn't say you were denying.  I really don't know what you are saying.  I realize there are chemical factors in lamination, but I also know there are mechanical factors.


No, this has nothing to do with what I asked. I have specified several times what I asked, and have yet again in this post. By the way, no geologist I know would describe something as thick as 10 cm when talking about laminations.

First, I posted this image, becasue it is used in Wikipedia as an example of laminations.  It is under laminae of lamintion.  It is not intended to be some sort of deviation of the conversation. 


The laminations shown in the travertine would be on the scale of millimeters.

I believe diagenesis in some cases definitely has something to do with some lamination, but lamination is also caused mechanically at deposition.  Are you saying this travertine was a product of total diagenesis and no mechanical lamination in even still water.


Lamination in sedimentary rocks is rarely the reult of diagenesis. Travertine is deposited from dissolved calcium carbonate. It is the result of primary processes and not diagenesis. It is generally deposited in quite still water or even by slowly dripping water in caves.

Berthault also performed experiments in still water, and I woud say that travertine could have been deposited in eddies, and later underwent diagenesis.  What do you say to that?  Please be specific.


Travertine is generally deposited near mineral spings or in caves and is not altered much by deposition.

I was not limiting this to high current.  I would not necessarily interpret this as such.  The video contained still water and air experiments also.

My point is not what specific event caused this, but the TIME involved in the event.  The experiments showed that laminations do not necessarily correspond with seasons, as is captioned under the image of travertine at Wikipedia.
I am not attacking Wikipedia, and I often use it.  However I am challenging the statement made under the travertine.  Namely that the travertine was formed over SEASONS.  This is a time issue.  Berthault's experiments in still water and air show that seaosnal deposition of laminae are not an exclusive explanation.

No I do not think it stands for all geological literature.  In fact, the fact that there is so much observation about sedimentary paleocurrents makes this statement the more dubious.


The travertine shown was from a very specific formation. The seasonal comment was to apply to the case shown, and not all travertine. I would agree that much travertine would show little or no seasonal effect. The Wikipedia most certainly did not rule this out either, you are reading it into the discussion where it did not exist.

This statement matches similar statements being pushed off on the general public in most media and magazines--Like Omni, Science Daily,  How the Earth was Made, etc.  It all has a Lyellian bias.

So this is indeed my problem.  There is science in the literature--true science.  Then there is the propagandistic one sided Lyellian story in our grade school textbooks, and media.  It has no public rebuttal, except in some courtrooms and on the internet.

Not necessarily.  What about limestone and/or chalk?  This contains microscopic sediment.  Yet the concentration and purity of much of it seems to lend itslef high concentration blooms followed by mass deposition.


That statement applied to one specific rock. There was not a case made involving time or uniformitarianism as defined by Lyell of as applied today.

What is in textbooks I have seen in basically sound science. I would guess that your problem is that over 6,000 to 10,000 of earth history is noted. That really is not what you have spelled-out here.

The internet has a range of ideas, from sound to the very most bizarre.

I asked you a few posts back to tell me in your own words what uniforitarianism is all about, as I also asked Jason777....without a reply from either of you. I was intererested in hearing what you think, and how it is applied so wrongly. You both commonly complain that it is being applied as propaganda. The media and educational system are called-out repeatedly, as you do in this post. Show me an example of this from one of those publications.

What about chalk and limestone? Yes, a bloom could cause a rain of the component parts to form them, as could slow deposition. But there are many very impure limestones that grade into shale, etc. I have studied rocks that are really mid-way. Are they shaly limestones or calcareous shales?

The gradual sedimentation of these microscopic particles over a long period of time, like today, would produce a low concentration ooze with silt and mud--low purity. 

You choose the Lyellian view, with no proof that it was that way.  These experiments show there is another choice--yet you choose to hold to the carried down teachings of mere men.


These experiments showed nothing in terms of time as you are discussing it here that I can see. The case I posted that matched the same results, in a paper from 1962, was about turbidites. These often form in a matter of hours. So just what does the experiment show that was not already known? ...basically zip....

You brought up limestones and chalk. The experiment pointedly only used sand, which would form rocks tha twould have been intepreted even by Sir Charles as probably being relatively rapid in terms of deposition.

No, I choose to look at all the evidence and not just simple lithology. Fossil evidence is another aspect. As I said there are many, many gradational limestones. Go and look for yourself, do the field work as I have done, look at really well done papers and you will commonly see a triangular diagram shown with the variations in sediment type plotted on it. There is a great amoung of variation in many rocks. Is finding such impure limestone rocks evidence for slower deposition as you state? Actually it is usually evidence of more rapid deposition. You sure seem to like the term "Lyellian." That is a term only used in an historic sense by geologists if at all. I only hear it from creationists, and there is a very good reason for that.

Yes, and he used quite a number of those papers in his paper to confirm his work.

The first of which was the work of McKee in 1965 with his observations of a creek after a flood, which produced a 12 foot thick formation of strata, laminaiton and bedding planes.

It was ignored because of it's underlying suggestion that Lyellian time is not necessary.  There are no statements as such, but the infererence can easily b taken. 

So it is heaped into a category of intermittent and local flooding, just like you are doing now.

View Post


How many posts have you and others made where it was stated that this work broke new ground in being the first to show the formation of laminations in high current flow? It has been quite a few.In fact you challenged me to produce one, so I did. Now you are willing to admit that previous results were published showing this came thing?

I doubt the paper was ignored simply due to some problem involving "Lyellian time" but if this was the case why have a great many papers that are held as landmark efforts not also ignored as they also do not conform in the slighest to what I think you are using as a definition for "Lyellian time"...?

Actually you will find that there are not a great many papers about flue experiments as they are considered to be very limited in how they can be applied. The situation set up in them could occur in various sedimentary environments and so applying such studies to real rock formations is problematical. They lack a lateral component as well. I aleady posted this.

The experiment shown in the video only used two grains sizes, and is not what would be found in almost any situation in modern deposition or what is found in the rocks in outcrop or cores. No why do you suppose a real sediment mix was not used? That is another reason that the paper probably was not considered very significant.

#69 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 18 July 2010 - 08:30 AM

Before anything, lamination is defined as under 10mm in the paper, not 10 cm. That was a typo.

What was not clear in what I posted? I said to measure points along a vertical line at places you can see difference in color in the sedimenst in the video, either in the direction of flow or in the "cross-section" they described. I also said you could do this in the diagram showing the sediments where T1 and T2 are described. I then said to order them in terms of when they were deposited. This is the simple and basic way geologists would describe the rocks shown.

What is to be gained by such a task? Would you like the measurements in pixels, since it would be on my video screen? Should I find out Julienne's height so that I can scale the measurement I take on my video screen? I believe you would measure the actual experiment, not a utube video. What kind of request is this? Or are you trying to make some kind of statement by this?

So let's put that one behind us, it's not happening. There is plenty of any information in the link to the paper.

We have deviated from the original post. I don't think we are going to ever agree. The bottom line is that the video was addressed to the general public, not to geologists. Because the media or middle schools are not teaching anything about the posssibilities of quick deposition of sediments, which is the actual issue. Whether the law of superposition has been falsified is an issue of perspective. The real issue is that sediment can form stata, bedding planes, and lamination in a quick deposition in water. The issue also is that Steno himself believed the strata to be in place because of the flood. It was not until others came after, who were students in the enlightenment period, who propogated uniformintarianism--present sedimentation and erosional rates are the measure of past rates--that people at large denied the flood.

Just remember that Christ said that the end would be like the days of Noah. They didn't believe in a flood then, and they don't believe now. They were "eating and drinking" until the flood then, and they'll be doing the same thing when Christ returns to judge the world.

#70 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 18 July 2010 - 10:16 AM

Before anything, lamination is defined as under 10mm in the paper, not 10 cm. That was a typo.

What is to be gained by such a task?  Would you like the measurements in pixels, since it would be on my video screen?  Should I find out Julienne's height so that I can scale the measurement I take on my video screen? I believe you would measure the actual experiment, not a utube video.  What kind of request is this?  Or are you trying to make some kind of statement by this?

So let's put that one behind us, it's not happening.  There is plenty of any information in the link to the paper.


What is to be gained by the task is proof that the Law of Superposition will be shown as valid by the experiment, and not what is claimed in the video. That video makes a claim about the deposition of basically all sedimentary rocks by extrapolating the results of the experiment up in scale. What the people running the experiment found in terms of height held little limitation for them in extrapolation, and really is not relevant. It matters not if you measure pixels, inches, or feet. It doesn't matter if you measure the actual experiment in person or from the video. It is not about the measurements in height, it is about the timing of deposition. Actually the provided chart is easiest to use to do this task. But you have beaten around the bush about this in multiple posts already and said just a post or two back that you not avoiding me about it. I'm sorry, but from my perspective it seems that is exactly what you have been doing. Your bringing up the measurement of height when I never did in several posts is just the latest example of this.

It is the most basic request I can think of to show how the Law of Superposition is valid and that video deceptively claims otherwise. This has been the whole basis of this discussion in my opinion. Your avoiding doing this seems pivotal to me. The fact that you now refuse to do this appears to me to either show that you already know the result and know it is in direct contradiction to the claims of the video, or you are afraid to do it for fear that it will show that the whole foundation of the video's claims is wrong.

We have deviated from the original post.  I don't think we are going to ever agree.  The bottom line is that the video was addressed to the general public, not to geologists.  Because the media or middle schools are not teaching anything about the posssibilities of quick deposition of sediments, which is the actual issue.  Whether the law of superposition has been falsified is an issue of perspective.  The real issue is that sediment can form stata, bedding planes, and lamination in a quick deposition in water.  The issue also is that Steno himself believed the strata to be in place because of the flood.  It was not until others came after, who were students in the enlightenment period, who propogated uniformintarianism--present sedimentation and erosional rates are the measure of past rates--that people at large denied the flood.

Just remember that Christ said that the end would be like the days of Noah.  They didn't believe in a flood then, and they don't believe now.  They were "eating and drinking" until the flood then, and they'll be doing the same thing when Christ returns to judge the world.

View Post


The video does not just make a claim for quick deposition, which is part and parcel to modern geology, it attacks very basic and sound geologic principles. I hope this never made its way into schools for instructional purposes. I am a bit tired of arguing against the creationist strawman that geology is all about slow sedimentation.
I have seen rapid sedimentation shown in popular media. Perhaps you can convince some people that this false claim about geology is true, but not those who actually have studied geology with some thoroughness and with sources other than the creationist standard material which usually is sadly lacking in objectivity as well as substance. As somebody that actually has extensively studied the subject (six years of university education in geology and over thirty years of actual professional work in the field) I can rapidly see the holes and distortions in material like this video. My specialization is in stratigraphy and sedimentation, and if the work in the video is a representative example, I am better at it than Berthault or his partner. My background allows me a vantage point to quickly see that most of the video is a deceptive propaganda piece posing as true science. What real science is present is diluted with a lot of distortion.

It is not a position of perspective about the Law of Superposition, it was not falsified in any way. They broke the rules regarding it and made a false claim. You could check this out for yourself with "the task" yet you refuse.

The matter of sediment forming laminations quickly was not in dispute long before Berthault did his experiment. Lyell was aware of quick deposition. Steno believed he saw multiple flooding events in the rocks he studied in the Italian Alps. He did not hold to the YEC concept you credit to him. But when creationists claim scientists from hundreds of years ago as being the same as themselves I find it a hollow claim. It is as if all the study and knowledge gained since their time counts for nothing. I doubt Steno would be a YEC if he could travel in a time machine and witness the evidence available today..

You still have not given your explanation of uniformitarianism or polystrate fossils, but when you bring Uniformitarianism up it appears that you don't really understand it very well.

Sorry, I don't see how the comment about Christ is relevant unless it is an attempt to claim that those that can see how all the earth's sedimentary rocks were not formed in the flood of Noah are to suffer the same judgment as those killed in the flood of old. I seem to remember a promise from God that this would never happen again? Something to do with a rainbow?

#71 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 18 July 2010 - 03:48 PM

Enough straw manning. No one said all sedimentary rock was formed in currents. Even in a worldwide deluge, there would be a multiplicity of events and sediments which formed the sedimentary layers.

But on the other hand, to say that experimentation showing a lateral formation of that which matches many formations in sedimentary rock is very significant, whether others before had given credit (in papers) to water or not. To minimize this experimentation because you find Julienne's "falsification" to be "pivotal" does not by any means anull the significance of this towards flood geology.

Video quotes:

Video 2 - 6:26 Berthault;
"Due to the presence of a current, strata were formed vertically and laterally at the same time in the direction of the current..."


Law of superpositioning suggests sediments accumulated vertically, with no suggestion of lateral formation. While this alone does not completely falsify the concept, it does show it's limited application. While there are apparent horizontal graded beds in the strata, there is also much cross-bedding and other paleocurrent indicators. The experiments show an apparatus by which this can happen.

Video 2 - 7:13 Berthault;

"Dessication or drying out of deposits caused bedding partings..."

Modern geology teaches that periods of inactivity or extended erosional events caused bedding planes.

Video 2 - 8:10 Berthault;

"Of course, one strata will superpose upon another when sedimentary particles, while suspended in still water, eventually deposit. As soon as the water is disturbed, superposition ceases, because the particles are transported in the direction of the current."


So Berthault is not saying there is no superpositioning of strata ever, he is saying the law is not always applicable. Especially as it is taught universally.

And lets get one thing clear here. The law of superpositioning does not simply suggest one stratum on top of another, in case that is what you are trying to suggest. A little reading will show that it's application is in the actual rising accumulation of sediment in each stratum, not just one stratum on top of another. ANd that this would happen in scenarios of sea level rise and decline over long periods of time.

Video 2 - 8:55 Berthault;

"The principle of superposition, believed to account for all stages of the geological column, supported the concept of very slow deposition over long periods of time. Experiments on sediments transported by water with varying currents challenged this concept, and showed a limited application of the superposition principle."


Geode you need to watch video 3. Berthault shows that the experiments, which according to Julienne on his webpage, were conducted over several years, showed simultaneous prograding downstream of two strata. No one horizontal portion of either strata were the same age as required by the laws of superpositioning and continuity.

But after all this, you are ignoring the issue of the time of deposition, which is the most important issue in this debate. Wrestling to fight over words and definitions in order to ignore and distract from the actual content of empirical evidence!

#72 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 18 July 2010 - 05:08 PM

What is to be gained by the task is proof that the Law of Superposition will be shown as valid by the experiment, and not what is claimed in the video. That video makes a claim about the deposition of basically all sedimentary rocks by extrapolating the results of the experiment up in scale. What the people running the experiment found in terms of height held little limitation for them in extrapolation, and really is not relevant. It matters not if you measure pixels, inches, or feet. It doesn't matter if you measure the actual experiment in person or from the video. It is not about the measurements in height, it is about the timing of deposition. Actually the provided chart is easiest to use to do this task. But you have beaten around the bush about this in multiple posts already and said just a post or two back that you not avoiding me about it. I'm sorry, but from my perspective it seems that is exactly what you have been doing. Your bringing up the measurement of height when I never did in several posts is just the latest example of this.

It is the most basic request I can think of  to show how the Law of Superposition is valid and that video deceptively claims otherwise. This has been the whole basis of this discussion in my opinion. Your avoiding doing this seems pivotal to me. The fact that you now refuse to do this appears to me to either show that you already know the result and know it is in direct contradiction to the claims of the video, or you are afraid to do it for fear that it will show that the whole foundation of the video's claims is wrong.
The video does not just make a claim for quick deposition, which is part and parcel to modern geology, it attacks very basic and sound geologic principles. I hope this never made its way into schools for instructional purposes. I am a bit tired of arguing against the creationist strawman that geology is all about slow sedimentation.
I have seen rapid sedimentation shown in popular media. Perhaps you can convince some people that this false claim about geology is true, but not those who actually have studied geology with some thoroughness and with sources other than the creationist standard material which usually is sadly lacking in objectivity as well as substance. As somebody that actually has extensively studied the subject (six years of university education in geology and over thirty years of actual professional work in the field) I can rapidly see the holes and distortions in material like this video. My specialization is in stratigraphy and sedimentation, and if the work in the video is a representative example, I am better at it than Berthault or his partner. My background allows me a vantage point to quickly see that most of the video is a deceptive propaganda piece posing as true science. What real science is present is diluted with a lot of distortion.

It is not a position of perspective about the Law of Superposition, it was not falsified in any way. They broke the rules regarding it and made a false claim. You could check this out for yourself with "the task" yet you refuse.

The matter of sediment forming laminations quickly was not in dispute long before Berthault did his experiment. Lyell was aware of quick deposition. Steno believed he saw multiple flooding events in the rocks he studied in the Italian Alps. He did not hold to the YEC concept you credit to him. But when creationists claim scientists from hundreds of years ago as being the same as themselves I find it a hollow claim. It is as if all the study and knowledge gained since their time counts for nothing. I doubt Steno would be a YEC if he could travel in a time machine and witness the evidence available  today..

You still have not given your explanation of uniformitarianism or polystrate fossils, but when you bring Uniformitarianism up it appears that you don't really understand it very well.

Sorry, I don't see how the comment about Christ is relevant unless it is an attempt to claim that those that can see how all the earth's sedimentary rocks were not formed in the flood of Noah are to suffer the same judgment as those killed in the flood of old. I seem to remember a promise from God that this would never happen again? Something to do with a rainbow?

View Post


Geode, thanks for the very informative and enlightening posts. The amount of information you provide, the details, and the research, I enjoy reading our posts every time there's a new one. I hope you continue to post here, I definitely look forward to it!

#73 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 18 July 2010 - 06:12 PM

Geode,

This is my ending statement, so you might want to read the entirety. Quotes from Berthault are plainly displayed in my preceding post. I have also posted a link to the paper for this research, submitted to the geological society of France. I will not endlessly debate a point with someone with which I do not agree. We shall agree to disagree.

As Berthault contends that none of the many experiments done in the flume would confirm the principle of superpositioning to be an all inclusive, or generally observed and universal principle, in that multiple strata were forming in variable currents at the same time, up to three, along with the finer particles on the topsets and bottomsets of each one.

In that the law of superpositioning does not speak solely of aftermath positioning of strata, but also the mechanism of slow accumulation of sediments in continuity, namely vertical accumulation, none of the experiments in variable currents have confirmed it to be a universally observed law.

The principle of superpositioning has no juxtapositioning principle included, making it incomplete in the interpretation of all strata. A law is supposed to be a generally observed principle, which means that this "law" is not a law, but a limited principle.

Verticle accumulation of horizontal sediments can happen in air and in still water, but in current a more complete principle is vertical and lateral prograding--making superpositoning an incomplete explanation.

The fact that two or more strata were able to form at the same time, and in a lateral fashion shows even a novice that some sediments in the superior strata were deposited BEFORE the sediments in the lower stratum, thereby defying the "law" of superpositioning in paleocurrent transport of sediments.

In my opinion there is a difference between "superpositioning" and the "law of superpositioning." "Superpositioning" defines the position of stata, one on top of another. The "law of superpositioning" requires that all material, including fossils and sediments in the lower stratum be defined as OLDER than all material in the superior stratum. Anyone who honestly watches the video will see that material in the upstream portion of the superior stratum is deposited BEFORE the material in the downstream portion of the lower stratum, making the material in the lower stratum technically the SAME AGE or YOUNGER. This defies the law of superpositioning as it is APPLIED in modern geology.



However you want to define anything, the essence of what I say is true, and you will be hard pressed to deny anything I said in the preceding.

#74 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 18 July 2010 - 08:10 PM

How many posts have you and others made where it was stated that this work broke new ground in being the first to show the formation of laminations in high current flow? It has been quite a few.In fact you challenged me to produce one, so I did. Now you are willing to admit that previous results were published showing this came thing?


The experiment brings into question the validity of the law of superposition, not laminations. The research you referenced about beach sand is no different from what others have done with sand in a bottle of water. Shake it up and watch it sort itself.

Large numbers of laminations have been known to form in a single event for many decades now. The creek flood in post#57 by AFJ is just one of many.

#75 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 22 July 2010 - 03:16 AM

Enough straw manning.  No one said all sedimentary rock was formed in currents.  Even in a worldwide deluge, there would be a multiplicity of events and sediments which formed the sedimentary layers. 


Watch the video again. I remember it all but insisting that all sedimentary rocks were formed "sideways" as in the experiment. It heavily insinuates this and seems to expect that all outcrope should be taken as a result of this method of formation, as if all sedimentary rocks were of a prograding variety.

But on the other hand, to say that experimentation showing a lateral formation of that which matches many formations in sedimentary rock is very significant, whether others before had given credit (in papers) to water or not.  To minimize this experimentation because you find Julienne's "falsification" to be "pivotal" does not by any means anull the significance of this towards flood geology.


I minimize it because it was a study that broke little or no new ground, that simply confirmed what was already known. If the results from the experiment had been new and significant they would be cited apart from the "falsification" claim that is dead wrong right out of the chute because it attempted to re-write a definition of Superposition.

Video 2 - 6:26  Berthault;
"Due to the presence of a current, strata were formed vertically and laterally at the same time in the direction of the current..."


He is apparently using a garbled sense of terminology. If he defines strata as eing formed laterally, he should stick with that, if vertically, he should stick with that. Claiming both seems like vague and fuzzy thinking to me and different sedimentary unist are being lumped using the same term. It is not good scientific practice, but his religious agenda is obviously more important to him than getting the science correct.

Law of superpositioning suggests sediments accumulated vertically, with no suggestion of lateral formation.  While this alone does not completely falsify the concept, it does show it's limited application.  While there are apparent horizontal graded beds in the strata, there is also much cross-bedding and other paleocurrent indicators.  The experiments show an apparatus by which this can happen.


Steno's original ideas might not have taken lateral progradation into account, but the modern use by geologists does. It does not show its limited application beyond the accepted derfintions, which he distorts to the breaking point making the concept meaningless as he applies it.

Video 2 - 7:13 Berthault;

"Dessication or drying out of deposits caused bedding partings..."

Modern geology teaches that periods of inactivity or extended erosional events caused bedding planes. 


Strawman....modern geology does not restrict bedding plane changes to inactivity or extended erosional events. But to get dessication generally requires subaqueous to above water conditions.

Video 2 - 8:10 Berthault;

"Of course, one strata will superpose upon another when sedimentary particles, while suspended in still water, eventually deposit.  As soon as the water is disturbed, superposition ceases, because the particles are transported in the direction of the current."


So Berthault is not saying there is no superpositioning of strata ever, he is saying the law is not always applicable.  Especially as it is taught universally. 

His comment makes no sense unless he makes up his own definitions....which he does.

And lets get one thing clear here.  The law of superpositioning does not simply suggest one stratum on top of another, in case that is what you are trying to suggest.  A little reading will show that it's application is in the actual rising accumulation of sediment in each stratum, not just one stratum on top of another.  ANd that this would happen in scenarios of sea level rise and decline over long periods of time.


Yes it does. It is implicit in the definition of the law. I don't know what "rising accumulation of sediment" means, but it appears you are holding to some exacting definition of "stratum" in an attempt to make a point that does not come through. I also don't see how you are connecting sea level rise to this or declining through time.....whatever that means.

Video 2 - 8:55 Berthault;

"The principle of superposition, believed to account for all stages of the geological column, supported the concept of very slow deposition over  long periods of time.  Experiments on sediments transported by water with varying currents challenged this concept, and showed a limited application of the superposition principle."


He is still wrong, no matter how he keeps wording it differently.

Geode you need to watch video 3.  Berthault shows that the experiments, which according to Julienne on his webpage, were conducted over several years, showed simultaneous prograding downstream of two strata.  No one horizontal portion of either strata were the same age as required by the laws of superpositioning and continuity.


I watched it and it was full of false science. Do the task you have kept avoiding and you will find that the Law of Superposition holds just fine in the results of the experiment. I have explained multiple times why this is so. You appear to simply not allow for the possibility that this is not a good foundation to hang creationist ideas upon. It should be discarded from this use as it is an obvious attempt to misuse scientific principles to forward an agenda.

But after all this, you are ignoring the issue of the time of deposition, which is the most important issue in this debate.  Wrestling to fight over words and definitions in order to ignore and distract from the actual content of empirical evidence!

View Post


I am not ignoring it at all. It is the core for my disagreement. Do the task and you will see how the time of deposition fist the Law of Superposition.....or keep running away and believing that the video actually show good geology instead of a deception masquerading as such.

#76 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 22 July 2010 - 03:52 AM

Geode,

This is my ending statement, so you might want to read the entirety. Quotes from Berthault are plainly displayed in my preceding post.  I have also posted a link to the paper for this research, submitted to the geological society of France. I will not endlessly debate a point with someone with which I do not agree.  We shall agree to disagree.


I agree, it is pointless. We shoudl agree to disagree. However it is hard not to point out that I have decades of education and experience in geology and apparently all you have in terms of geology that you can bring to the table is reciting the claims made by the video and Berthault and his partner.

As Berthault contends that none of the many experiments done in the flume would confirm the principle of superpositioning to be an all inclusive, or generally observed and universal principle, in that multiple strata were forming in variable currents at the same time, up to three, along with the finer particles on the topsets and bottomsets of each one.

In that the law of superpositioning does not speak solely of aftermath positioning of strata, but also the mechanism of slow accumulation of sediments in continuity, namely vertical accumulation, none of the experiments in variable currents have confirmed it to be a universally observed law.

The principle of superpositioning has no juxtapositioning principle included, making it incomplete in the interpretation of all strata.  A law is supposed to be a generally observed principle, which means that this "law" is not a law, but a limited principle.


I will say it once again. The results of the experiment completely comply with the Law of Superposition if applied correctly. You are following the conclusions of people who do not follow it in making conclusions, but distort it. You appear to be adding to the definition here with talk of juxtposition and slow accumulation, neither are a necessary part of the law.

It is a very valid law that has been observed to be correct in all instance except for a few very obvious exclusions such as over-turned beds and sandstone dikes.

Verticle accumulation of horizontal sediments can happen in air and in still water, but in current a more complete principle is vertical and lateral prograding--making superpositoning  an incomplete explanation.


Not at all, as I have posted before. Progradation fits as I patiently pointed out, even telling you of haow you could prove it to yourself. You ingored tat over and over and then just refused to do "the task".....are you that afraid of being wrong? Will having Berthaults claims be shown false destroy any confidence you have in other claims made by creationists about geology?

The fact that two or more strata were able to form at the same time, and in a lateral fashion shows even a novice that some sediments in the superior strata were deposited BEFORE the sediments in the lower stratum, thereby defying the "law" of superpositioning in paleocurrent transport of sediments.


Geologists are very aware that different facies form at the same time. It is very basic geology. Once again you are changing The Law of Superposition here with the use of terminology. It does not use "superior" or "above" the way you use them for a good reason. But I explained that already in a post long ago.

In my opinion there is a difference between "superpositioning" and the "law of superpositioning."  "Superpositioning" defines the position of stata, one on top of another.  The "law of superpositioning" requires that all material, including fossils and sediments in the lower stratum be defined as OLDER than all material in the superior stratum.  Anyone who honestly watches the video will see that material in the  upstream portion of the superior stratum is  deposited BEFORE the material in the downstream portion of the lower stratum, making the material in the lower stratum technically the SAME AGE or YOUNGER.  This defies the law of superpositioning as it is APPLIED in modern geology.
However you want to define anything, the essence of what I say is true, and you will be hard pressed to deny anything I said in the preceding.

View Post


Yes, you are equivacating with terms, but you have taken this from the video which does just that. In this instance I have explained why it is only appropriate to compare topsets to topsets and the like or you are measuring than man for the record books diagonally with a false result.

You seem to hold to what is presented as "gospel truth" whereas I have found papers about geology with which I have points of disagreement. These usually are peer-reviewed. One must be skeptical of what we encounter, for it is easy to be compelled nto holding dogmatically to wrong ideas. This happens in science, and should be guarded against.

#77 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 22 July 2010 - 03:54 AM

How many posts have you and others made where it was stated that this work broke new ground in being the first to show the formation of laminations in high current flow? It has been quite a few.In fact you challenged me to produce one, so I did. Now you are willing to admit that previous results were published showing this came thing?


The experiment brings into question the validity of the law of superposition, not laminations. The research you referenced about beach sand is no different from what others have done with sand in a bottle of water. Shake it up and watch it sort itself.

Large numbers of laminations have been known to form in a single event for many decades now. The creek flood in post#57 by AFJ is just one of many.

View Post


No, what I referenced is not about beach sand. It also is not like letting sediment sort out in a bottle of water but involves laterally flowing currents like the experiment did.

#78 Geode

Geode

    Member

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

Posted 25 July 2010 - 04:26 AM

Geode, thanks for the very informative and enlightening posts. The amount of information you provide, the details, and the research, I enjoy reading our posts every time there's a new one. I hope you continue to post here, I definitely look forward to it!

View Post


Thank you for this comment. It is gratifying to hear that somebody appreciates what the actual science of geology involves.

Geology is a fascinating subject, and it is unfortunately obvious from some who post here that they know next to nothing about it. This appears to be because the only information they have studied is from sources that have a pre-conceived "worldwide flood" model into which everything must be forced-fit, which requires most of the actual geologic evidence involved to be thrown out the window in the process of supporting the flood to support the religious belief behind it.

I have found some posts from a person named scanman to show an impressive grasp of geology. He apparently was somebody just interested in the subject, but he formulated generally "spot on" answers that would usually require considerable knowledge of the subject to know where to research and how to make a good response.

#79 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 31 July 2010 - 07:59 PM

Thank you for this comment. It is gratifying to hear that somebody appreciates what the actual science of geology involves.

Geology is a fascinating subject, and it is unfortunately obvious from some who post here that they know next to nothing about it. This appears to be because the only information they have studied is from sources that have a pre-conceived "worldwide flood" model into which everything must be forced-fit, which requires most of the actual geologic evidence involved to be thrown out the window in the process of supporting the flood to support the religious belief behind it.

I have found some posts from a person named scanman to show an impressive grasp of geology. He apparently was somebody just interested in the subject, but he formulated generally "spot on" answers that would usually require considerable knowledge of the subject to know where to research and how to make a good response.

View Post


First of all, I personally read abstracts and other information from standard geology and have studied the geologic timescale on Berkley. As well, I study other disciplines, such as molecular biology and chemistry. I do not claim to have geological knowledge like yourself, but PhD's like Baumgarder, Austin (studied at Harvard), Berthault, and others do. They have all the specialized knowledge that you yourself have, and yet do not agree with your conclusions.

Yes scanman, who told us about desert varnish, but had no explanation for shale dunes in the Colorado Plateau. Do you?

Since you say we know "next to nothing" I think I should also note the following. I have noticed you have made errors with statements like the Colorado Plateau not being a basin or containing a large basin. This is obvious by looking at a relief map. As well as the massive drainage evidence in the plateau (s).

Also you said that limestone is not found worldwide--this is wrong--it is found all over the earth. I find it hard to believe a geologist would make such a statement.

I never did address the "hydrated minerals" error you made. You said that hydrated minerals are rare.
Besides hydroxides, there are some minerals which have water molecules between their crystalline sheets. Have you never heard of the "water of crystallization?"

Water of crystallization

Coordinated water is directly bonded to a central atom on a lattice point. Other types of water that may be present in a crystal are anion water (with hydrogen bonds to anions), [3] lattice water (no direct bonding with an ion) and constitution water (water present as hydroxyl groups). Zeolite water is water that occupies vacancies (empty sites in the crystal lattice) and may be removed without changing the crystal structure. [4] [5][6] Classically, "water of crystallization" refers to water that is found in a crystalline framework of a metal complex but that is not directly bonded to the metal ion.

Upon crystallization from water or moist solvents, many compounds incorporate water molecules in their crystalline frameworks. Often, the species of interest cannot be crystallized in the absence of water, even though no strong bonds to the "guest" water molecules may be apparent. Obviously the "water of crystallization" is bound or interacting with some other atoms and ions or it would not be included in the crystalline framework.


Based on this, this list of hydroxide minerals (List) is defined to have water in their structure, as an hydroxide is an ion of water. Also quartz (SiO2), the most abundant mineral, can crystallize in water in marketed lab kits. The scientific fact that one of the principles of crystallization requires supersaturation of a substrate or substrates in a solution does not require all minerals to contain water, but points to the strong possibility that many minerals were formed in water.

In light of the fact that you do allow God into your list of possibilities, you should check Genesis, which states that the Earth was covered by water AT CREATION, not just in the deluge. Therefore minerals forming in water at creation would not by any means contradict scripture.

This is not meant as a challenge of knowledge in geology, but the things I have stated, I have studied. I don't just make undocumented statements. I read, and don't just recite from videos. I have valid reasons why I object to modern geological and biological teaching. It's not because I know "next to nothing" about it.

And like you have years of experience in geology, I have years of experience in Bible study. Are you like Scanman, who said he believed on Christ? But yet Christ said that the end times would be "like the days of Noah" in that people would continue on with their lives and never know that judgment was coming soon. If you believe in Christ, you believe what he says over what men say. Yet scanman ignored this contradiction in his faith. You can study 1000 years, but if you study an erroneous interpretation of the earth, which denies scriptural teaching, and is based on the wisdom of men, you are wrong.

#80 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 01 August 2010 - 09:40 AM

I agree, it is pointless. We shoudl agree to disagree. However it is hard not to point out that I have decades of education and experience in geology and apparently all you have in terms of geology that you can bring to the table is reciting the claims made by the video and Berthault and his partner.
I will say it once again. The results of the experiment completely comply with the Law of Superposition if applied correctly. You are following the conclusions of people who do not follow it in making conclusions, but distort it.  You appear to be adding to the definition here with talk of juxtposition and slow accumulation, neither are a necessary part of the law.

It is a very valid law that has been observed to be correct in all instance except for a few very obvious exclusions such as over-turned beds and sandstone dikes.
Not at all, as I have posted before. Progradation fits as I patiently pointed out, even telling you of haow you could prove it to yourself. You ingored tat over and over and then just refused to do "the task".....are you that afraid of being wrong? Will having Berthaults claims be shown false destroy any confidence you have in other claims made by creationists about geology?
Geologists are very aware that different facies form at the same time. It is very basic geology. Once again you are changing The Law of Superposition here with the use of terminology. It does not use "superior" or "above" the way you use them for a good reason.  But I explained that already in a post long ago.
Yes, you are equivacating with terms, but you have taken this from the video which does just that. In this instance I have explained why it is only appropriate to compare topsets to topsets and the like or you are measuring than man for the record books diagonally with a false result.

You seem to hold to what is presented as "gospel truth" whereas I have found papers about geology with which I have points of disagreement. These usually are peer-reviewed. One must be skeptical of what we encounter, for it is easy to be compelled nto holding dogmatically to wrong ideas. This happens in science, and should be guarded against.

View Post


I think I may be able to simplify this by asking questions. If you would be so kind as to answer them, I would appreciate it.

1. Is the law of superpositioning used to justify a "one at a time" formation of strata? Or is it believed that most strata were formed one at a time over long periods?

2. Is it believed by most geologists that most strata were formed by present slow processes, or rather quickly by flooding and/or catastrophic events?

3. What is the predominate view among geologists? Were most strata formed is in still water, in dry conditions, or in current?

Let's start with that. Instead of arguing, perhaps I can learn from you, and you could reach an understanding as to my personal objections with modern geology and it's uniformintarian assumptions.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users