Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 130 (25984)
12-08-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
12-08-2002 9:03 PM


^ The possibilities of fraud aside, the quotes nevertheless indicate the confidence prominent geologists and paleontologists ascribe to the work. Berthault has two recent (2002) mainstream publications on this work as well as a pair of 1980s publication. I wouldn't be surprised if the flood geology conotations have put off many mainstream geologists.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 12-08-2002 9:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-08-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 130 (25988)
12-08-2002 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 6:20 PM


TB writes:
I am talking about transgressions that are happening today! Not your interpretatons of the past of what could actaully be flood deposits.
So the Eocene is now a possible Flood deposit? The Middle Eocene Gobernador Formation, up to 220 meters thick, is a continental sandstone, like the Tapeats.
It "is overlain, over most of the area, by marine shelf mudstone known as the Paguey Formation", similar to the Bright Angel Shale. The Paguey is up to 2200 meters thick (PAGEY, Formacin)
If you want a nearly modern passive margin transgressive sequence, look no farther than Southern Australia:
Can't find what you are looking for? | Department of Industry, Science and Resources
Read the lithologic descriptions of the major groups here:
Can't find what you are looking for? | Department of Industry, Science and Resources
This sequence is thousands of meters thick. Sands overlain by mudstone overlain by carbonates. The carbonate deposition continued right up to the late Miocene (about 8Mya) in the cross-section shown. I do not know what is occurring farther inshore, but the overal pattern is identical to the overall pattern of the Tonto.
Insisting that it continue to the present day is unreasonable gradualism again...
TB writes:
Show me a beach today that is part of a continuous transgression/regression producing lithofacies like that of the Tonto.
Why should today's eustatic conditions be identical to the Cambrian? If we find evidence of very large impacts in the past, but no comets hitting this week, do we conclude the evidence for past impacts is invalid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 6:20 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 63 of 130 (25989)
12-08-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 9:26 PM


TB writes:
The possibilities of fraud aside, the quotes nevertheless indicate the confidence prominent geologists and paleontologists ascribe to the work. Berthault has two recent (2002) mainstream publications on this work as well as a pair of 1980s publication. I wouldn't be surprised if the flood geology conotations have put off many mainstream geologists.
I wasn't implying fraud. Berthault is welcome to blow his own horn as much as he likes, but Piveteau has been dead over a decade, and Millot, if still alive, hasn't helped Berthault get the geological world to embrace his ideas, not only not "unhesitatingly" but not at all. That's why I asked why nothing has happened. I wasn't trying to discredit the supposed quotes from the personal correspondence. I say "supposed" not because I believe the letters don't exist, but because there is no way we can know which ideas they were actually responding to.
But what is actually going on here is a very old Creationist tactic, namely quoting mainstream scientists apparently saying things that clearly aren't mainstream, or quoting a Creation scientist while letting people think he's a mainstream scientist. I think this is certainly the case with Millot, since his students have published a book dedicated to him which includes both the words "Genesis" and "Geochemistry". The goal of this tactic is to make people believe that mainstream scientists are gradually coming to accept Creationist ideas.
This approach is a sub-tactic of the appeal to authority fallacy, and I would have preferred seeing you actually address the issues raised by edge and wehappy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 9:26 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 7:23 PM Percy has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 64 of 130 (26056)
12-09-2002 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tranquility Base
12-08-2002 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I have done as much as I can to summarize Berthualt and Austin's viewpoint. You guys can read it from their own mouths on
http://www.geology.ref.ac/berthault/
and we can instead discuss what they are saying specifically. I'm reading it carefully over the next few days.
Well, let's see what Berthault says:
quote:
Let’s look at the first part of the definition of the principle of superposition - At the time when one of the highest stratum formed, the stratum underneath it had already acquired a solid consistence. A stratum between 50cm and one meter is considered as thick. Consequently, sub-marine drillings should encounter solid strata in the stratified oceanic sediments after a few meters. According to the report of Guy Pautot and Xavier Le Pichon entitled "Scientific results of the JOIDES programme" : the first semi-consolidated sediments appeared about 300 metres (in depth)...(but) certain beds of chert (siliceous beds) have been found under only 100 metres of sediment. Stenon’s definition, therefore, relative to successive hardening, which extends greatly the total length of time of the deposit, is unsupported by the sedimentological observations mentioned above.
Okay, this was written in the 1600’s? Does Berthault have anything just a little more recent on superposition? Why does he not reference a modern text? I seriously doubt that Stenon had much deep sea drilling information.
quote:
This indicates a simultaneous deposition of the two facies, which is in contradiction to Steno’s principle of superposition, when the lowest stratum formed, none of the superior strata existed, here applied to superposed facies.
Nonsense. As we have seen, and as you have agreed, in transgressional sequences this is the expected geometry of facies development. Again, Berthault picks on the 17th century guy who did not have facies models to interpret stratigraphic sections.
quote:
Has it ever been confirmed, either from deposits or sedimentary rocks, that the same stratum goes all round the Earth ? The answer is in the negative
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.
quote:
Stenon said nothing about the action of a fluid on the sediments, in consequence the relative stratigraphic chronology resulting from his principles did not take it into account any more than the principles of paleontological identity attributed to William Smith and uniformitarianism to Charles Lyell. In fact, Lyell added a fifth principle, giving as an example layers deposited in fresh water in Auvergne. Observing that the layers were less than a millimetre thick, he considered that each one was laid down annually.
LOL again! Why does Berthault tell you nothing more about these laminae? There is a bit more to this than meets the eye, TB. I get the distinct impression that Berthault is hiding something from you.
quote:
At this rate, the 230 meters thick deposit would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form. My response is found under the section Lamination of this text, which reproduces abstracts of the reports of my experiments published by the French Academy of Sciences in 1986. It is stated that a lamination deposit gives the illusion of successive beds or laminae, and that these laminae are the result of a spontaneous periodic grading process. Lyell was, therefore, neither entitled to affirm that these layers, which are laminae, corresponded to annual deposits, nor that as a consequence, the 230 meter deposit required hundreds of thousands of years to form. These experiments put into question the principle of uniformitarianism.
Wow, TB, this is almost getting to be comedic. To Berthault, all laminae are the same! Whether made up of sand or silt or clay, with or without any compositional differences, or contamination! This is especially funny considering that he didn't even deal with the kind of sediments that he refers to in this passage.
I am not sure where to begin here. Basically, I have read Berthault’s website and watched the videos. I still see nothing to overturn superposition despite his assertions. I suspect that he is banking on your lack of training in this area to convince you that there actually was a global flood.
I also continue to notice that Berthault uses only sand sized grains, even though he touts the heterogranularity of the materials. This is a joke. At the velocities he is talking about silt, clay and limestone particles will never be deposited. And yet... he wants to extend this model to the entire Tonto Group? I am sorry, TB, but this is absolute nonsense designed to hoodwink the faithful. I am not sure where Berthault learned his basic geology, but this stuff was pesented to me before I could spell 'stratigraphy.' There is nothing new or unexpainable by modern sedimentology in this material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-08-2002 6:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by TrueCreation, posted 12-09-2002 4:19 PM edge has not replied
 Message 66 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 6:03 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 130 (26070)
12-09-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by edge
12-09-2002 3:02 PM


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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 3:02 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 130 (26082)
12-09-2002 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by edge
12-09-2002 3:02 PM


Edge
The AIG videotape from Berthault has much better video of the formaiton of layers. The stuff on the web is quite poor. Without getting that videotape you'll just have to trust my descriptions in previous posts. Superposition (other than at a fixed verticle coordinate) is clearly violated (as it is during progradation anyway).
The really new things that Bertahult/Julien show is:
(i) That the progradation effect can occur under rapid flow rather than slow inundation
(ii) It occurs for individual strata as well as facies. On the videotape you can watch mulitple strata extend horizontally at the same time. So a single stratum (not just a facies) has an age difference along it's length.
You may have a good point about the limestone deposition rates. You'd have to take that up with Austin.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 3:02 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 9:30 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 130 (26095)
12-09-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
12-08-2002 9:44 PM


I don't really agree Percy.
Like I said Berthault has two 2002 publicaitons.
And to get mainstream publications creationists have to cast their ideas into a mainstream framework. At some point we may get openly creaitonist stuff in the mainstream literature. I'll try it as a dare once I've got tenure!
Regardless of the current mortal state or religious background of Berthault's supporters it is meaningful that two of his supporters are/were Presidents of the French NAS and French geologucal society. If that carries no releance to you at all that is fine with me. It is meaningful to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-08-2002 9:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 12-09-2002 7:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22606
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 68 of 130 (26100)
12-09-2002 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 7:23 PM


Regardless of the current mortal state or religious background of Berthault's supporters it is meaningful that two of his supporters are/were Presidents of the French NAS and French geologucal society. If that carries no releance to you at all that is fine with me. It is meaningful to me.
Allow me to put it another way. Which makes more sense to you? That two top influencial French scientists accepted Berthault's findings and pledged to help his cause, but only in private letters and never in any papers or public expressions, and in the end nothing outside of Berthault's website ever came of it? Or that the expressions of support quoted at Berthault's website are in some way false and/or misleading in the manner of so many other Creationist quotes of mainstream scientists?
I know you accept the former scenario, but if you're right it would be the first example of such a thing, and it's most likely just yet another example of the common Creationist tactic of quoting mainstream scientists out of context to make it seem that they either reject some aspect of evolution or accept some aspect of Creationism, when we know that when these scientists speak for themselves this is never the actual case.
So, no, I don't find it irrelevant that two of Berthault's supporters were at the top of French science. But given that French science has made no move whatsoever toward Creationism I just see no truth to it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 7:23 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 8:42 PM Percy has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 130 (26110)
12-09-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
12-09-2002 7:50 PM


^ I don't call his two 2002 papers on the subject 'nothing coming of it' the way you do. It hasn't set the world on fire, agreed, but it is published mainstream in 2002.
There need be no mainstream move to creationism for Berthault to have made an important contribution to both mainstream and flood geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 12-09-2002 7:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 12-10-2002 1:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 70 of 130 (26119)
12-09-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 6:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The AIG videotape from Berthault has much better video of the formaiton of layers. The stuff on the web is quite poor. Without getting that videotape you'll just have to trust my descriptions in previous posts. Superposition (other than at a fixed verticle coordinate) is clearly violated (as it is during progradation anyway).
Only in the minds of creationists. The diagrams, animations and lecture pieces clearly showed superposition in action. Nowhere was a grain deposited on another that was not there first. Besides how else does on sample a depositional system other than at one point in space at a time? This is s silly exercise in sophistry.
quote:
The really new things that Bertahult/Julien show is:
(i) That the progradation effect can occur under rapid flow rather than slow inundation
Funny then that we discussed this in my first classes nearly 30 years ago!
quote:
(ii) It occurs for individual strata as well as facies. On the videotape you can watch mulitple strata extend horizontally at the same time. So a single stratum (not just a facies) has an age difference along it's length.
How then do you extend this to an entire depositional facies? Where was this shown in the experiments? I saw only the equivalent of a beach facies during a storm event.
quote:
You may have a good point about the limestone deposition rates. You'd have to take that up with Austin.
Actually, you should take it up with him. You are the one he has left out here trying to defend his story. He knows where we are if he has a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 6:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 9:50 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 130 (26124)
12-09-2002 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by edge
12-09-2002 9:30 PM


^ You continue to purposefully ignore the sense in which superposition is violted. I have explined it with Xs, Ys and layer numbers and will not do it again. You pretend as if the subtlety has no bearing on stratigraphy or how the starta arose when it at least potentially does.
EDIT back in: Do you really think that paleontologists regularly consider that a trilobite found in strata 1000 feet below sponge-bearing strata could have actually been buried after a sponge found in the upper strata some kilometres away? It rewrites paleontological method and results.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 9:30 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 10:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 73 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 10:33 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 72 of 130 (26126)
12-09-2002 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 9:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You continue to purposefully ignore the sense in which superposition is violted. I have explined it with Xs, Ys and layer numbers and will not do it again. You pretend as if the subtlety has no bearing on stratigraphy or how the starta arose when it at least potentially does.
You have completely ignored both my explanations of why this is not a violation of superposition and that we have know about this phenomenon for years. I did not say that it has no bearing on stratigraphy at all. It is however, readily explained by mainstream stratigraphy.
quote:
Do you really think that paleontologists regularly consider that a trilobite found in strata 1000 feet below sponge-bearing strata could have actually been buried after a sponge found in the upper strata some kilometres away? It rewrites paleontological method and results.
I don't know what you are saying here. If a fossil really is younger, then it will be found in a higher time-stratigraphic unit. No exceptions to this are found in the fossil record. We may have some that LOOK like older fossils such as the modern coelacanth, but they are clearly not the same creatures.
Try thinking of the bottom of a channel or body of water at one instant in time. Then think of the fossils that would be deposited at that time. Then move to a later time and see where the younger fossils would be deposited. They are ALWAYS in a younger unit. Perhaps not necessarily higher in the stratigraphy, but definitely above. The boundaries may be irregular, but they can be recognized by a trained stratigrapher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 9:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 11:29 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 73 of 130 (26127)
12-09-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 9:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You continue to purposefully ignore the sense in which superposition is violted. I have explined it with Xs, Ys and layer numbers and will not do it again. You pretend as if the subtlety has no bearing on stratigraphy or how the starta arose when it at least potentially does.
YOu have edited your message to which I have already responded elsewhere. However, I just thought of something. In one of the videos we see an imaginary core of a stratigraphic succession extracted and compared to the advancing foreset beds. Just one question here. Isn't that piec of core just like a single point on the map? Do you really think that the lower rocks in that core were deposited after the higher rocks in the core?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 9:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 11:26 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 130 (26131)
12-09-2002 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by edge
12-09-2002 10:33 PM


Look Edge, I think we are agreeing with each other but you keep trying to make it out that I think layer 4 at X could have formed before layer 1 at X. I do not.
What I think is new is that under catastrophic flow one gets something that bears similarity to a gradual inundation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 10:33 PM edge has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 130 (26132)
12-09-2002 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by edge
12-09-2002 10:28 PM


Edge
Fom this post it is then clear that a 'time-stratigraphic' unit for you can cut across bedding planes. Is that true? It is what is seen in Berthault's experiments. How do you identify time-stratigraphic units since progradation of any sort makes it difficult?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by edge, posted 12-09-2002 10:28 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by wehappyfew, posted 12-10-2002 12:11 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 82 by edge, posted 12-10-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024