Thank God for Evolution!

[Peter_Wilders]

Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony

Didn’t you watch the video?

Orogeny: Yes, I have watched the video.

Neil…the layers are deposited from the side, not from the top.

Orogeny: Actually, they are deposited both above and laterally. Technically, it is called prograding and has been known to geologists for a very, very long time.

Neil…What scientists call the ‘old’ bottom layers could be new or old.

Orogeny goes on to explain the reason why he says “they are deposited both above and laterally”.

….In his own experiment (Berthault’s), the deeper layer is the one laid down first. Only if you change the reference frame of above and below from vertical (top to bottom) to oblique do you possibly find sediment that is younger beneath sediment that is older.

His reason only refers to a single vertical line; it cannot be applied to the whole layer which is prograding in time.

The explanation is given by Pierre Julien on the glass-board in the video. He makes it clear that sedimentary particles transported by a current are deposited according to size. Additionally, as they prograde in the direction of the current, the later deposits must automatically be younger then those that preceded (t.1; t.2 and t.3 sequence as shown in the video)

The diagram below shows Orogeny is correct regarding the old deeper particle and the young higher one. This feature is quite normal viewing a single vertical line after deposit, but only in a vertical line. It cannot be extrapolated to the whole deposit as Julien’s diagram in the video and the one below demonstrate.

Sorry, unable to send the diagram. It is incompatible with the forum format. I can send it by mail, if anyone wants. Julien's video explanation is even better.

Peter

 

[Orogeny]

His reason only refers to a single vertical line; it cannot be applied to the whole layer which is prograding in time.

Yes it can, Peter.

The explanation is given by Pierre Julien on the glass-board in the video. He makes it clear that sedimentary particles transported by a current are deposited according to size. Additionally, as they prograde in the direction of the current, the later deposits must automatically be younger then those that preceded (t.1; t.2 and t.3 sequence as shown in the video)

Yes, that is correct. Sediments are sorted based on size (density and shape also play a part here). That is very old news to geologists. The concept of prograding beds has been understood for a very long time. Berthault added nothing to that knowledge.

Your last sentence says exactly what I said before - in order for the “deeper” sediments to be younger than the “shallower” sediments, one must draw a line almost parallel to the flow direction. Not vertically.

The diagram below shows Orogeny is correct regarding the old deeper particle and the young higher one. This feature is quite normal viewing a single vertical line after deposit, but only in a vertical line. It cannot be extrapolated to the whole deposit as Julien’s diagram in the video and the one below demonstrate.

Well, let me help you out.

http://geology.ref.ac/berthault/images/fig03.gif

*Fig. 3. Results of experiments. *
*(A) Schematic formation of graded beds. *
*(B) Time sequence of deposit formation for t 1 < t 2 < t 3. *

Here you go. Now show me where the deeper bed is younger than the older bed. Geologists understand deeper and shallower to be a vertical dimension.

That vertical line is what Berthault claims to be demonstrably false. Geology has known about lateral distribution of sediments for a very long time.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Y That vertical line is what Berthault claims to be demonstrably false. Geology has known about lateral distribution of sediments for a very long time.

Well then how come in the Grand Canyon they say the lower ones are older? It should be the ones further east that are older, since the great flood come in from the west.

 

[Orogeny]

Well then how come in the Grand Canyon they say the lower ones are older? It should be the ones further east that are older, since the great flood come in from the west.

Because the lower ones are the older ones.

What flood are you talking about?

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Because the lower ones are the older ones.

What flood are you talking about?

Peace

Tim

When noah’s flood deposited the grand canyon and the layers went down sideways which is why the precambrian fossils are actually only 3000 years old. maybe they’re extinct now because Noah didn’t take them in the ark, Noah was just a man like you and me, prone to error.

 

[drpmjhess]

maybe they’re extinct now because Noah didn’t take them in the ark, Noah was just a man like you and me, prone to error.

Not possible, Neil. God commanded Noah to take every kind on board to preserve their seed (Gen. 7:2-3). Even the unicorns and the manticora and the vegetable lamb were represented – these went extinct after the flood.

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

When noah’s flood deposited the grand canyon and the layers went down sideways which is why the precambrian fossils are actually only 3000 years old. maybe they’re extinct now because Noah didn’t take them in the ark, Noah was just a man like you and me, prone to error.

Oh that flood.

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

It is a fact that there are no new experimental results in the Russian papers.
Peter Wilders:

Error: an experimental program is currently in progress

That’s as may be, but it is nevertheless a fact that there are NO new experimental results in the Russian papers, so there is no error in my claim.

It is a fact that his Chinese and Russian papers are unpublishable in Western high-impact journals – they are indeed codswallop:

The suggestion that the Russian Academy of Sciences publishes “codswallop” is libellous

Nevertheless it is a fact that his Chinese and Russian papers are unpublishable in Western high-impact journals.

It is a fact that he was not the first to do flume studies to investigate deposition of sediments:

He has never said he was. In fact he used the CSU laboratory because it was fully equipped for such experiments done in the past.

Fine, we agree: he has confirmed some mechanisms for sedimentation that are already known. Hardly revolutionary.

It is a fact that when he published in the 1980s and 1990s it was already well known by geologists that certain kinds of sedimentation can happen rapidly.

He is fully aware of this. Flash floods for instance? He even uses these as examples. See the reports of his experiments.

Fine we agree. He has confirmed some mechanisms for sedimentation that are already known. Hardly revolutionary.

It is a fact that Berthault has attempted to extrapolate experiments in water a few inches deep to explain the deposition of hundreds of meters of sediment.

This is your opinion. It is not a fact.

It is a fact - have you not read the most recent Russian paper on his and Austin’s fantasy about the formation of the Tonto Group? I should have though that a devoted disciple like you would keep up to date with his writing.

It is a fact that there are features in the Tonto Group which preclude the possibility that it was deposited in a single violent flood.

This an interpretation of an observation, based ‘inter alia’ upon the principle of superposition invalidated by experment.

Not at all - the features that invalidate the rapid deposition of the Tonto group do not depend on the principle of superposition. It is also a false claim to say that the preinciple of superposition has been invalidated. It has not.

Let me remind of the other facts you have chosen not to respond to:
It is a fact that Berthault has not managed to get a paper published in a mainstream western geology journal for 14 years
It is a fact that his own collaborator on the 1993 paper who has published dozens of papers on sedimentology and who is a highly respected sedimentologist rejects Berthault’s conclusions
It is a fact that he uses Austin’s flood geology in his most recent Russian paper, an interpretation of Tonto that is completely rejected by professional geologists
It is a fact that in the absence of overthrusts and sills a sedimentary stratum lying above another has been deposited later
It is a fact that the geological column contains many types of sedimentation and features that do not occur rapidly underwater: varves, stromatolite beds, volcanic tuffs, pumice, lapilli and other tephra, igneous rock and breccias, aeolian beds, evaporites, palaeosols, severe angular unconformities; and these interleave underwater lake or sea deposits
It is a fact that creationists have utterly failed to suggest a credible mechanism for the sorting of fossils and Berthault’s suggestion of ecological sorting is absurd
It is a fact that there are no fossils later than the Permian in the Grand Canyon and they are ordered phylogenetically
It is a fact that radiometric dating of volcanic tuffs confirm the old age and proper chronological ordering of sedimentary layers.

Alec
berthault_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

None of these facts address the Berthault experiments because they are unsupported by experimental evidence.None demonstrate an error in his peer-reviewed results published by the French Academy of Science and Geological Society, and the Russian Academy of Sciences. The experiments challenge the principles of stratigraphy. The logical way of refuting the results of experiments that conflict with your ideas is by producing experiments proving you are right. A simple way of ending the discussion is to show experimentally how sedimentary deposits transported by a water current superpose successively.
Peter

You are conflating the validity of the experiments with the interpetation that one can validly draw from them. Unless you are incapable of making that distinction, then you must be doing so deliberately because you have a greater interest in spin than truth. To be absolutley clear - I have no problem with the experimental results in the French papers (the Chinese and Russian papers contain no new empirical results) nor has any other critic of Berthault’s claims. I repeat, I have no problem with the experimental results. They are not the issue.

Where everyone has a problem is with Berthault’s interptretation of those results. He claims that his little experiments in a flume have overturned the basic principles of stratigraphy, and that they invalidate the interpretation of geological time that has been known since the early 19th century. And I, Dr Kevin Henke, Tim and all the critics including the entire professional geological community say poppycock to that, for all the good reasons that I have laid out in the article.

Give me straight answers to these questions:

His collaborator and first author on the 1993 paper has supervised 31 PhD students working in sedimentation and erosion, written two text books on sedimentology, contributed to seven other books, published 61 papers and 45 articles in peer reviewed journals, delivered 30 invited conference papers, published 87 papers in conference proceedings, is superbly well placed to assess the implications of the work - and rejects Berthault’s grandiose claims for the work. Why?

How many other papers cite Berthault’s so-called revolutionary papers?

How many papers amongst the hundreds on sedimentation and stratigraphy published annually in geology journals since Berthault published his ‘revolutionary’ papers in the 1990s suggest that the entire post-Cambrian column was deposited rapidly in a single event? Exactly how many, Peter? You won’t find it difficult to count them, I assure you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Are you suggesting that the 4,000 feet from Tapeats to Kaibab over an area of thousands of square miles, were deposited by prograding sediments in such way that the underlying strata are younger than the overlying ones? I think you need to learn a little geology.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Polystrate Fossils
Two items on polystrate fossils (polystrate fossils are fossils that form across multiple layers of rock):

baraminology.blogspot.com/2007/05/polystrate-fossils.html

Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition
creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
:coffeeread:
The Joggins Fossil Cliffs
youtube.com/watch?v=A9eAz7xxvSk

Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man
youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs&feature=related

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If the earth was really millions of years old, after millions of years of rivers running into the ocean, a lot more salt would have been carried to the oceans and the oceans would be much saltier. That’s proof that the earth is only 6000 years old.

 

[edwest2]

Polystrate fossils is an excellent refutation of the millions of years deposition theory.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

If the earth was really millions of years old, after millions of years of rivers running into the ocean, a lot more salt would have been carried to the oceans and the oceans would be much saltier. That’s proof that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Could you give me a reference to a peer reviewed scientific article that correctly identifies all sources of salt (name removed by moderator)ut and removal from the oceans and that shows this to be the case?

Or are you posting this as a satirical comment on creationist arguments?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Polystrate Fossils
Two items on polystrate fossils (polystrate fossils are fossils that form across multiple layers of rock):

baraminology.blogspot.com/2007/05/polystrate-fossils.html

Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition
creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
:coffeeread:
The Joggins Fossil Cliffs
youtube.com/watch?v=A9eAz7xxvSk

Are you suggesting that the 4,000 feet from Tapeats to Kaibab over an area of thousands of square miles, were deposited by prograding sediments in such way that the underlying strata are younger than the overlying ones? I think you need to learn a little geology.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Orogeny]

Polystrate Fossils
Two items on polystrate fossils (polystrate fossils are fossils that form across multiple layers of rock):

baraminology.blogspot.com/2007/05/polystrate-fossils.html

Polystrate Fossils Require Rapid Deposition
creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm
:coffeeread:
The Joggins Fossil Cliffs
youtube.com/watch?v=A9eAz7xxvSk

Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man
youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs&feature=related

I’m curious. Have you tried to research what science says about polystrate fossils? Same question about dinosaurs living with man?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Polystrate fossils is an excellent refutation of the millions of years deposition theory.

Thanks,
Ed

Only if you are incapable of understanding any geology whatsoever. Just more fiction about science from Ed.

Peace

Tim

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Or are you posting this as a satirical comment on creationist arguments?

I’m not even sure anymore…

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Are you suggesting that the 4,000 feet from Tapeats to Kaibab over an area of thousands of square miles, were deposited by prograding sediments in such way that the underlying strata are younger than the overlying ones? I think you need to learn a little geology.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I thought I’d show you all a little something along these common lines.
OK?

 

[hecd2]

I’m not even sure anymore…

I thought so. Here - I’ve got a great website for you, if you want some more satirical grist for your mill:

drdino.com/

Enjoy

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Polystrate fossils is an excellent refutation of the millions of years deposition theory.

Ed

So are you now gonna refute the BB theory and go back to the YEC thingie Ed? I’m so disappointed. Where shall we start first?