Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents

"When did those shells find time to grow? Where will you get the dissolved calcium, and what will you do with the emitted carbon dioxide, from either their growth or from chemical precipitation? "General Flood Topic", post 17 and following, please."
--I partially considered the limestones and such marine depositions would have a source which was pre-flood. I haven't seen data which would allow me to see it feasible to have various chalk & limestone strata to be deposited. Of course this is due to my lack of data on their geography.------------------

This thread is going very well and I am enjoying reading the portions which I have read, but just thought I would comment on this:"LOL! Of course it hasn’t this is not even a prediction of Stenon. Stenon indicates that where there are boundaries to sedimentation, there will be interruptions in continuity. This is exactly what happens in the real world. Now, if there had been a flood, we WOULD expect a continuous layer of sediment because that would be the only time that there was a continuous layer of water around the entire earth."
--This is technically incorrect because Flood geology does not predict that there are no boundaries to sedimentation, something Buddika cannot grasp. There will be various dynamics whether hydraulic or geomorphologic/erosive, where certain sedimentation operations will occur. Though of course, there are globally correlated stratum such as the K-T boundary (unless your going to be very detailed, it is a global stratum nonetheless) though this is due to the atmosphere being engulfed by the iridium(volcanic and/or resulting from impact) and other materials. Being that it had much to do with the atmosphere, it is easy to imagine the contents circulating in it, flood or no flood.------------------

"Nothing in Berthault's website show any evidence that such crosscutting relationships have been found to violate superposition, despite his many claims of having done so."
--What really would be Berhault's accomplishment by violating the principle of superposition? I am slightly confused as to what exactly the issue at hand is here.
--And I had the impression that superposition is a principle in sedimentology which is only applicable in vertical successions. Unless ofcourse there was the scneario in geomorphologic influence where an earlier deposited stratum be lapped over a younger one.--By the way, my desktop is working now so I'll be continuing some of the other threads I've been absent from recently.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-11-2002]

"Actually, I think I have. But I will try to find it again soon. It is on the same pages as one of TC's quotes from Blatt and others. For some reason, TC didn't seem to read this part or paid it little heed because he found something to support his just-so story and dropped everything. It states something to the effect that we know sands can be deposited more rapidly than silts and muds. This has been known for a long time as I have seen pictures of trenches in sand deposited by storm surges."
--Oh really? Please cite this reference and the post where I made the quote or even a quote like it, I have no text authored by a 'Blatt'. Until then this is completely false.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-17-2002]

"Sheesh! A little bit of a chip on the shoulder here? I was pretty sure it was you, but I guess it was TB. After all, you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur.
"
--Well you have made this exact mistake quite a few times now edge. I wasn't actually very vitriolic in my response, just stated that it was false. Also, it isn't very sufficient to display your thoughts [pertaining to the 'you both have the same stubborn streak with a liberal delusion of grandeur'] when it is only supported by what is (unbeknownst to the world) in your mind.
--Don't you think scientists get upset when their work is misquoted?-------------------

"There is nothing really new here. If it was so ground breaking, Berthault would be cited in every publication and textbook about sedimentation. Nothing biased about it. Just a fact."
--I would expect there is isotopic analysis of the formation and its inclusions. I don't think that even if Berthault is right on the ability to rapidly deposit such strata that it would be excepted by the mainstream.-------------------

"What? What formation? Why would there be an isotopic analysis of it?"
--The Tonto group. I have no specific reason, though it is a very large slab of the geologic column and I simply stated that it is likely that it has been subject to some dating work."Actually, we do except Berthault's experiment. It works for some sandstone, except it is not universally applicable.And no, we categorically do accept rapid sedimentation. Just not in EVERY case. You have been told this repeatedly by several of us. I think you are well into the 'willful ignorance' category at this point."
--Your still confusing me and TB(or at least your thoughts on TB).. I never argued against anything. I understand that Berthault's experiments are accepted on small isolated scales. That it wouldn't be 'universally applicable' is exactly what I was getting at. We disagree on nothing here and you've accused me of willful ignorance?-------------------

"wasn't very clear. Perhaps if you didn't abuse the word 'accepted', it might help."
--Not really, I think it was that 'such strata' segment which would need the clarification if anything because I made my statement in reference to the Tonto group.------------------

"Hey, TC, do you realize that you use 'excepted' when you mean 'accepted'? That's what Edge is talking about and I have to agree that you seem to be competing with Brad in lack of clarity on occasions."
--Yes I did use 'excepted' instead of 'accepted' as well as did edge, I appoligize for my lack in clarity at times. Sometimes I subconceously assume that the reader already knows what I am thinking when I make my assertions. I will try to be more careful.-------------------

"I can see that my considerable talents at subtlety are wasted on you, TC."
--What do you mean?------------------

"he means that if you see a misspelled word in one of his posts, and someone has misspelled the same word in the same way, his misspelling was simply a subtle way of poking fun at the first person's misspelling..."
--Oops, I guess I missed that (my apologies, edge)------------------