Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
Back to the Flood.
I brought up Walther's Law back there somewhere -- Message 309 -- along with trilobites and coelacanths. Caffeine is to get back to me on trilobites, I hope.
So onward to Walther's Law.
I recently saw a video on Guy Berthault's flume experiments in sedimentology, inspired by Walther's observations, which show that moving water deposits layers simultaneously one on top of another, the number of layers depending on the velocity of the water. He concluded that this shows rapid deposition of the strata disproving the assumption theory of millions of years, and also shows that the rule of superposition is not always true since the upper layer was laid down at the same time as the lower (which would be the case in the Flood as the water rose).
There are four parts to the video. The first few minutes of Part 2 shows the principle in operation in a river.
Re: Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
quote:
I recently saw a video on Guy Berthault's flume experiments in sedimentology, inspired by Walther's observations, which show that moving water deposits layers simultaneously one on top of another, the number of layers depending on the velocity of the water.
Which doesn't actually challenge the Principle of Superposition. To really do that you would need to deposit a layer underneath a layer that had already been deposited. Good luck with that.
quote:
He concluded that this shows rapid deposition of the strata disproving the assumption of millions of years
How could it show it as more than a possibility - and then only if the experiment scaled up, and could do so without assuming unlikely conditions, and could explain actual sequences of strata.
And even if it showed the possibility it would still be refuted by the other evidence of age.
So, not a good argument - at least not yet.
Consider also this critique of Berthault's claims written by a geologist.
Re: Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
He concluded that this shows rapid deposition of the strata disproving the assumption of millions of years ...
It's not an assumption, don't be dishonest. It's a conclusion from the data. I know your religion requires you to think that it's a false conclusion, but to pretend that it's an assumption is false and you know it.
And how would this disprove radiometric dating? That's just bizarre. That's bizarre even for creationists.
Re: Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
By being right and radiometric dating wrong.
Neither you nor any other creationist has been able to show where radiometric dating is so wrong that a young earth is even close to being feasible.
Your claims to the effect that radiometric dating is wrong are based on a-wishin' and a-hopin'.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
Re: Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
The thing is, if Berthault's experiments show the way strata are laid down in rising water then that is no doubt how they were laid down during the rising Flood water, and if that is what happened then the claims of radiometric dating are simply wrong. I don't think all the strata had to be laid down at once, maybe in phases a block of strata at a time, but all of it during the Flood. There is no "obviously wasn't" to this.
Re: Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
The thing is, if Berthault's experiments show the way strata are laid down in rising water then that is no doubt how they were laid down during the rising Flood water, and if that is what happened then the claims of radiometric dating are simply wrong. I don't think all the strata had to be laid down at once, maybe in phases a block of strata at a time, but all of it during the Flood. There is no "obviously wasn't" to this.
It is quite obvious. Look at all the angular unconformities.
You show me a mechanism that lays down all those strata at the same time, then you can talk.
Re: Walther's Law shows simultaneous deposition & disproves principle of superposition
Berthsult's experiments are certainly not adequate to prove that any strata were laid down by his methods - let alone all of them. And there is a lot of geological evidence that needs to be considered before you get anywhere close (e.g. the geological record includes lava flows laid down on the surface, but not under water)
So, there is no rational way to even consider Bertault's experiments as evidence against radiometric dates.
Or, more generally if you try to justify a claim that something be considered proof with a "it would be if..." you are wasting your time. Until the "if..." can be shown it isn't.
Berthault's experiments are modeling stream flow deposits
The thing is, if Berthault's experiments show the way strata are laid down in rising water...
Maybe there is something else elsewhere, but the video you posted upthread is a flume study modeling of stream flow (delta?) crossbedded deposits. That is NOT a rising sea level model.
As I see it, Walther's Law may well (in a way) still be applicable to your flume deposits, but it would be modeling some variation of a receding sea. The top horizontal bedding would be the near shore deposit, the crossbeds would be the intermediate depth deposits, and the bottom horizontal bedding would be the deep water deposits.
What was deep water becomes shallow water - It's a regressing sea.
At the "Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law", topic, Percy had the MESSAGE 9 with the nice diagram showing a transgressing sea (the water is advancing landward).
Late in process addition - Here is that diagram:
Note there that the vertical column is that the shallowest water deposits are at the bottom while the deepest water deposits are at the top. For a regressing sea, that vertical column would be the opposite, having the shallowest water deposits at the top and the deepest water deposits at the bottom, just like they are in your Berthault experiment.
Regardless of it being transgressive or regressive, the bottom most layer of a VERTICAL column had to be there first and the top most layer had to be laid down last. That is the Law of Superposition.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added link to message containing video.
Re: Berthault's experiments are modeling stream flow deposits
I was about to post that same image myself. The ultimate point for me, of course, is that moving water lays down strata at whatever rate it is moving. So I'd see the flume experiments applying to rising sea water too since layers are being deposited with its movement. It could be that the sea water doesn't deposit the layers simultaneously as we see in the flume (but I'm not sure). But if the water is rising fast enough to cover the earth to some depth within five months then we are certainly talking about rapid deposition and not millions of years.
The point about superposition is about timing: if the layers are being deposited pretty much simultaneously then the upper is not younger than the lower which is the usual understanding of the principle of superposition. In any case, in either model, this is very rapid deposition and not slow formation of strata that mark long time periods.
(I'm not really getting your point about regressive movement)
Re: Berthault's experiments are modeling stream flow deposits
quote:
The point about superposition is about timing: if the layers are being deposited pretty much simultaneously then the upper is not younger than the lower which is the usual understanding of the principle of superposition.
Superposition is about the order of deposition. Timing is not really an issue.
law of superposition. Geology. a basic law of geochronology, stating that in any undisturbed sequence of rocks deposited in layers, the youngest layer is on top and the oldest on bottom, each layer being younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it.
The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating,
I wasn't sure if everyone understood that Berthault's experiments are laying down sediments at a steep angle to the horizontal, and that the layers are highly repetitive. I've positioned the video to begin at the portion that shows the angled layers being deposited, watch for about 40 seconds:
™ Version 4.2
(1)
