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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The Tonto group in the Grand Canyon is about 1000 feet thick and is comprised from top to bottom:

​

Muav limestone
Bright Angle Shale (clay)
Tapeats sandstone

​

This formation covers 800 kilometres horizontally and in the current flow direction (that laid down these strata) each layer disappears one at a time in a prograding sequence. So you get these sub-formaitons side-by-side.

​

It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach and what one gets in laboratory (warehouse actually) 'flume' experiments ....

---

So, they got limestone deposited in flume experiments? Really, TB, not only is your geological foundation rudimentary, but you are extremely careless in your writing.By the way, I would really like to see your answer to coragyp's questions above. Think you could try that?

quote:

---

Sedimentology had always been assumed to yield the principles of superposition but that is only true in near-zero flow.

---

Please explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I am reading it, and I did read it, but I'm trying to see if you guys really believe that for 1000 foot beds with only three facies. This is clearly not stated in a stratigraphical dating context.

---

I think you are confused about laminations, beds, formations and time. Perhaps if you took some geology courses, you wouldn't sound so silly.

quote:

---

So will anyone go on the record and agree specifically that some of the top of the Mauv limestone was laid at the same time as some of the bottom of the Tapeat sandstone? Do you realise that these strata would normally be dated about 70 million years apart? (I know you know that actually).

---

Here you don't seem to understand that a formation is not a time-stratigraphic unit. A formation is really just a convenient package of rocks that is useful in geological mapping. We have understood that formations can transgress time since Geology 101.

quote:

---

PS - I had always thought that when you guys talked of a prograding seqeunce it was for tens of feet of sediment not a 1000 foot formaiton.

---

Why wouldn't it be?

quote:

---

Please stop assuming I don't understand this stuff. I do.

---

Then show us evidence that you undstand 'this stuff'.

quote:

---

And I may or may not be finding some inconsisteny. We'll see.

---

This is just another case of 'a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What Julien's and Rubin's data givesis particle size/velocity sorting statistics. they didn't get limestone, correct. One still has to have the raw products (mixed together is fine) before sorting. So what was the source of the limestone? Obviously weathered shells etc but creationists also propose the precipitation of calicum from inorganic sources as well.

---

Wow, I don't know where to begin!

quote:

---

Nevertheless the point is that the empirical data, carefully collected for particle size, velocities etc suggests that hydrological sorting is a perfect and natural explanation of such facies, as big as they are. The lower layers at the end of the flow would have been layed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow even though the layers track over the distance.

---

This makes no sense at all. The experiments that I am aware of simply show that sands can be laminated during high flow regimes. It says nothing about the deposition of an entire environment on the scale of a sedimentary basin. By the way, you still have to prove to me that a sand grain could be deposited before the one underneath it, or that one lamination is younger than the lamination beneath it. You are confusing relative elevation with timing here. You need to get outside the box.

quote:

---

My comment on the principle of superpositon is that because of the prograding issue we can't assume that all of a lower layer was laid before all of the upper layer. If we apply this to the Tonto then assumptions of 70 million year differences could be completely incorrect.

---

Once again, your statements belie you lack of training and basic understanding. You are confusing vertical position with time equivalence. This is not what superposition is all about. But then, you would know this if you had some background in the science.By the way, TB, do you really think that geologists have not recognized this feature of progradation until creationists came along to tell us about it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:
As I re-read some of your posts, TB, I find some more clues indicating where you are confused about some essential concepts in sedimentology.

​

...

​

What you "don't see" is a reflection of how limited your knowledge of mainstream geology is. Time-progressive formations are not a new or surprising phenomena to geologists.

---

In our continuing effort to educate Tranquility Base, I submit the website below as a primer on some aspects of sedimentology. As you will see, this is not a trivial subject to be mastered by reading a few advanced papers, and some background is helpful. I would like TB to pay particular attention to Walther's Law.http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/facies.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I enjoy learning from you but what sort of teacher pretends that his student doesn't understand something he does?

---

Ummmmmmm, one that gets the impression that the student is willfully ignorant?

quote:

---

In the very first post of this thread I outlined what transgressive, prograding seqeunces are all about (I summarized it in plain English for the typical reader here):

​

"in the current flow direction (that laid down these strata) each layer disappears one at a time in a prograding sequence. So you get these sub-formaitons side-by-side."

---

I'm not sure what current directions have to do with it, but since you bring it up why is the transgression occurring in the opposite direction of the current flow?

quote:

---

"It turns out that this exactly matches the types of prograding patterns one gets at a beach and what one gets in laboratory"

---

We have been over this. Your lab experiments do not model the entire system. You do not have silts, muds and lime deposits in the flume experiments. Why is TC not backing you up on this, by the way? Oh, maybe because his references point out this fact.

quote:

---

"under current one gets sorting by particle type and size and the layers are generated both vertically and horizontally at the same time."

---

"Under current..." Wow! this is pretty deep 'stuff.' This does not express any kind of understanding. Check out your current directions.

quote:

---

The lower layers at the end of the flow direction are formed after much of the top layers at the start of the flow area but the layers are trackable from start to end.

---

Yes, the time-stratigraphic unit is the lamination, not the bed. You would understand this if you got some basic training in geology.

quote:

---

That was my first post!

---

So, have you made any progress?

quote:

---

Most of you are quite rude.

---

Most of us have a terminal case of exasperation that you completely ignore any data that contradicts your mythical scenario.

quote:

---

I am perfectly aware that regressive seqeunces have been understood for a long time, at least as long as J. Walther of Walther's law (about 100 years ago) if not longer.

---

Then why do you not understand that a lamination is not a bed is not a time marker.

quote:

---

But I have never, ever read that applied to an entire 1000 foot bed stratigraphically except by creationoists.

---

THat is because your investigation is limited. If you truly understood transgressive and regressive sequences, then you would understand this. There are plenty of examples.

quote:

---

And if that is the case then the only difference between us is that we would point out that 1000 vertical feet covering only 3 facies and the 800 kilometres traversing 3 prograding beds speaks of something much larger than a slow marine invasion.

---

Three beds? Three facies? Really, where do you get this stuff? [quote]Austin estimates 0.5 to 2 metres/sec for about 3 days would generate the entire Tonto deposit. The vertical and horizontal scope is very different to your beaches.[/B][/QUOTE]No it is not ... it is happening today. Do you not read our posts? Talk about rude!So where does Nevins get his velocities? Does he realize that this is not a flood, but a mudflow? In fact it is not possible to generate limestones under such conditions. A surge that could depoosit the Tonto group in a few days could not permit the deposition of limestone with all of that suspended clastic material. It is also impossible to get evaporites. Sorry, TB, but your lack of background in this area is exposed with every sentence you post. You are getting in deeper and deeper, so to speak. And by the way, we need to talk about your grades...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Austin's reconstruction has 800 horizontal kms from Nevada to New Mexico being laid from west to east via advancing flood waters with mostly 0.5 to 2 m/s flow velocity (W to E).

---

The length of Nevins' section is not material. However, his velocities are interesting. How are these calculated and in what direction are they? Remember that hydrodynamic sorting causes finer grained sediments to be deposited in a downstream direction.

quote:

---

It's fine with me if you think this stuff was laid via hydrodynamic sorting vertically at the same time as horizontally.

---

Actually, I don't. At least not in as simplistic a manner as you seem to be suggesting. Now you really need to question Nevins more carefully. Why does the sorting indicated an opposite direction of flow to Nevins' current?

quote:

---

e: Three beds? Three facies? Really, where do you get this stuff?

​

I thought we were talking about the 1000 foot Tonto series with three facies: M limestone, BA shale, T sandstone. It is these three which form a transgressive seqeunce from Nevada to NM or are we talking past each other?

---

If you knew anything about geology you would understand that a bed is not a facies. You would also understand that three facies for the Tonto Group is a gross simplification of the real system that, unfortunately, makes it possible for Nevins to make wild extrapolations of the data.

quote:

---

I apologize about referring to these also as beds.

---

Then you understand that you have much to learn.

quote:

---

I am unaware of the exact definition of a bed and tend to use it to mean a collection of strata.

---

Back to the classroom for you!

quote:

---

But I know what a facies and a stratum are technically.

---

Your posts have not shown this.

quote:

---

Feel free to educate me on the definition of a bed. Should I refer to the Tonto as a bed or a formaiton or either?

---

Neither. The Tonto is a group of formations. The Mauv is a formation. The Mauv is made up of hundreds(?) of beds. A bed is a distinct layer with discontinuities of some kind at both upper and lower bounds. A lamination would appear within a bed and probably is the closest thing here to an actual time-bound unit. This is off the top of my head, of course and someone may have a more rigorous definition for you. You have to remember that formations are simply convenient names and may include many rock types and/or depositional facies. When we say the Mauv is a limestone, this is a generalization and it probably includes several other rock types. This has to be done or else details would swamp anyones effortst to understand them and the rocks would become impossible to map.Another simplification that Nevins employs (and must employ) is that the transgression is a nice orderly march across the continent. This is not the case. In fact, there are many sub-regressions and sub-trangressions (for lack of a better word). This is why we have feathered contacts on vertical sections and terms such as 'tongue' (primitive but very descriptive) in describing some formations. This is a detail, but it makes all of his calculations virtually meaningless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The sorting happens at multiple resolutions. You get a global (ie large-scale) sorting over 800 km horizontally and 1000 vertical feet and a local stratum level effect as well. It's not a pefect sorting across the entire 1000 feet. There are imperfections and they get sorted locally.

---

Perhaps a bit off topic, but why do we find NO such imperfections in the fossil sequence, then? Surely, if we can find gravels mixed shales, then we should be able to find at least one trout with the trilobites...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Who is Nevins? It rings a bell from our previous chats. Did Austin publish creaitonist material as Nevin's at one point? I think we all know his real name is Austin and that is what he publishes under these days too.

---

I was just pointing out the uncertainty of knowing what Austin publishes.... It's so confusing. By the way, he DID lie about his use of Nevins, so you have to wonder.

quote:

---

The effect that Berthault, Julien et al find empirically is anti-intuitive.

---

To someone not trained in the field, perhaps. To someone who has actually worked in the field there is nothing counter-intuitive here.

quote:

---

You get course stuff downstream first becasue the bed builds up horizontally and vertically at the same time and under rapid flow the fine stuff isn't deposited at all until the flow rate has decreased. The key issue is flow rate changes as well as flow rate at all. I thought it would be as you said as well but this is not what is found in the flume studies done at Colorado State. The leading edge (furthest from the source area) is coarse.

---

Actually, as I remember, all of Berhtaults sediments were sand. Now, I challenge you to look at any sequence in the field and tell me that the coarser sediments are farther away from the source. You are going to have to explain, in that case why shales are offshore. I am begining to see your problem here. You are taking a bench scale experiment and extending the results to regional geology. Big mistake, TB.

quote:

---

Calling the Mauv a formaiton is fine by definition but may be a misnomer for creationists if we believe that it was formed at the same time as the Bright Angel and Tapeats.

---

Once again, I suggest you learn some geology before you begin to reinterpret the literature.

quote:

---

As a layman geologists I would think that creaitonists would view anything formed simultaneously to be a formation and the sorting by material as facies no matter how big.

---

Well, if there was a flood you could do that. The problem is that there is no correlatable unit that one can call a biblical flood deposit.

quote:

---

Because in the past, and perhpas still, you guys have had such a bias with the law of superposition it wouldn't occur to yuo to call the Tonto a formaiton. For us it is becasue it all formed in one dynamic.

---

Superposition has been abused and misapplied by many, but it still stands.

quote:

---

Having said all that, I can't speak for the professional creationist geologists. I'm only a humble biophysicist.

---

They have a lot to answer for, but they would rather that you just read their tracts and send money. You will almost never find them here helping you out, because they know that they will be made to look like fools. So, they send you out here into the fray.

quote:

---

I am fully aware that a 300 foot facies is a simplification but in our view of how they formed, a useful one. I'm fully aware that these formaitons come and go horizontally and are quite complex. Tonguing etc does not make any of Austin's clacs pointless.

---

Sure it does. If the shoreline got to Grants, for instance, and then went back to Las Vegas, Austin has to cover the distance 4 times and his calculations are meaningless.

quote:

---

As a physicists we can do all sort of calcualtions that get the correct ballpark result. A spherical horse travelling at 20 km/hr will take 4 hours to travel 80 km regardelss of the anatomical simplificaiton made.

---

Yes, these are all measurable quantities. Now, how many times did the shoreline backtrack? Any ideas?

quote:

---

Austin's results will be ballpark correct as long as, within the resolution he is working, he hasn't made any blunders.

---

But he has. He has also not accounted for the current directions as you have previously mentioned ad nauseum. As I recall he needs to move a lot of water in the opposite direction of your transgression.

quote:

---

There is no need to require higher resolution to work out the basic flow rates. Just use Rubin et als empirical charts.

---

Of course. Let's ignore the details that Austin/Nevins finds to be distasteful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

edge writes:

​

To someone not trained in the field, perhaps. To someone who has actually worked in the field there is nothing counter-intuitive here.

​

T: Since we both find it strange that coarse particles are found at the far edge in flume experiments then we both find it anti-intuative.

---

I don't find it anti-intuitive at all. I can think of a number of reasons for this. However, these experiments do not apply directly to a depositional basin. They represent only what might happen on a sandy beach.

quote:

---

edge writes:

​

You are going to have to explain, in that case why shales are offshore.

​

Yes, I noticed that inconsistency too. The beach of course is not quite the right model for a catastrophic marine transgression where the flow would be in one direction (until regression) rather than waves and rips.

---

As I have been suggesting all along.

quote:

---

Edge writes:

​

Superposition has been abused and misapplied by many, but it still stands.

​

As Berthault discovered there never was a proper mechanistic theory of strata and facies generation. It was all assumed from empirical 'postulates' that only apply in near zero flow.

---

And this has what to do with superposition. Even in Berthault's experiments superposition was not violated.

quote:

---

Edge writes:

​

Now, how many times did the shoreline backtrack?

​

These are important empirical questions that observation can answer but they do not impinge on the big question of how the strata got there. For you reversing was slow for us it was fast. It is not a point of distinguishment.

---

Then you point regarding Austin/Nevins calculations was not necessary.

quote:

---

Edge writes:

​

As I recall he needs to move a lot of water in the opposite direction of your transgression.

​

Just as mainstream you have a regression after a transgression so do we! What's the surprise there?

---

I'm not sure if you are avoiding my point or just didn't get it. Austin has to do this DURING your transgression, not after.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
There has been some excellent discussion in this thread, but I have a small request. There's no violation of the guidelines involved, not even close, kudos to everyone, but I wonder if it might be possible to lessen the superior "look down your nose" comments. Thanks.

---

I regret this. I was simply trying to (tactfully at first) suggest that one learn a bit about the subject before rejecting old work and expounding new theories based on incomplete knowledge. Apparently, my strategy has failed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

Edge writes:

​

They represent only what might happen on a sandy beach.

​

That's not waht the flume expereiments suggest. The flume experiments simply show what sort of deposition patterns one gets when one has current flow. Very general.

---

No, it shows what you have when you have currents that move sand. it also does not address low velocity currents. So then, are you saying htat Berthault had limestone at the top of his flume and then muds then silts. Whatever you say TB.

quote:

---

Edge writes:

​

And this has what to do with superposition. Even in Berthault's experiments superposition was not violated.

​

I disagree. Some of the downstream lowest layers can form after the upstream upeer layers and yet the layers are traceable across the entire length of deposition.

---

More nonsense. As I have indicated to you before, the lamination is a time-bound discontinuity, not the bed. Actual professional geologists know this and would not deceive you as to the importance of it. Anywhere you draw a vertical line across the laminations, the more recently deposited grains will be above a previously deposited grain. You have been deceived by a clever professional creationist.

quote:

---

Have you ssen the Berthaults video of mainstream Julien's expereiments at Colorado State?

---

TB, I have seen the results of such flow in the field. There is really nothing new here.

quote:

---

It has to be seen to be believed. I still get the feeling yuo don't quite follow what is hown in these expereimetns since it proves beyond doubt that superpositon is violated for the case of sediment despotited under flow.

---

Good, then you can give us a quote from Julien saying that superposition is overturned. Please provide this.

quote:

---

Of course at point X superpositon applies. Go to point Y = X + 100 metres and layer 10 could have formed before layer 3 at X. I have seen it with my eyes in 20 minutes of footage.

---

I understand all this but it is nothing new. We have understood how laminae form for decades and we have understood that the bedding set in which cross-beds occur overlie older beds and underly more recent beds. At any given instant in time the deposited grains define the time-stratigraphic horizon. Anything placed on that horizon is a younger deposit. It has only recently taken a convoluted creationist interpretation to distort the meaning of laminations. I suggest you look at Blatt and others and see what they say about this.

quote:

---

Edge writes:

​

Then you point regarding Austin/Nevins calculations was not necessary.

​

Not really, the precise mechanism was interesting enough for the flum expereiments to be performed at Colorado State by Julien. And it all depends. What do you, or mainstream GC stratigrpahy in general, believe? Was some of the Muav laid before some of the Tapeats?

---

In that case my caveat that his calculations are off is not irrelevant. The Mauv is contemporaneous with the Tapeats and it also overlies the Tapeats in some locations. If you were aware of Walther's Law, you would know that this is not a mystery.

quote:

---

Edge writes:

​

I'm not sure if you are avoiding my point or just didn't get it. Austin has to do this DURING your transgression, not after.

​

Explain please. Austin has the current going from W to E during deposition. Do you disagree with that?

---

Actually, your earlier rant regarding paleocurrents goes against it. Remember your NW trending currents in that area?

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Isn't this how the most significant discoveries come about in science?

---

Actually, significant discoveries usually come about by a lot of blood, sweat, tears and hard work.

quote:

---

Isn't it a scientist who decides the current analysis of the data is flawed that usually makes a real breakthrough?

---

I agree emphatically, but usually those people know SOMETHING about the subject that they make a discovery in.

quote:

---

I just watched a beautiful mind again the other night seems John Nash didn't seem to keen on following along with what everyone else thought. Innovation< imagination, this is where the discovery is made. Would we ever learn anything new if everyone just took what we had and stuck with that?

---

Somehow, I can't equate John Nash with a creation scientist....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mainstream Julien at Colorado State studied a continuous range of velocity measurements.

---

Please find us a quote from Julien saying something to the effect that, "... Aha, I have refuted the principle of superposition!"

quote:

---

Of course anywhere you daw a vertical line (say at X) the principle of superpositon applies.

---

But that is the point isn't it? You could also draw a line in the direction of deposition, which would be more accurate, and say the same thing.

quote:

---

But follow two strata seperated by 300 vertical feet a horizontal distance (say to Y = X + 10 km) ....

---

You are saying that Julien had a flume 300 feet high and 10 kilometers long? TB, you need to look at the actual vertical height of the forset beds in the experiment and then determine if this scale can be expanded to 300 vertical feet in nature. Now, there may be an exception somewhere in the world, but I would say that 300 ft high cross laminations and reverse graded beds are extremely rare. You have a scaling problem here.Are you really trying to tell us that the Tapeats actually represents the base of foreset bedding in the Muav? I am sorry, but your understanding of sedimentation is so convoluted that I cannot make sense of what you are saying.

quote:

---

...and the upper stratum at Y might have been layed before the lower stratum at X.

---

But then you are not talking about time-equivalent units. You are conflating vertical position with relative time position. This is invalid. At any given instant in time, the bottom of a stream bed is a time-stratagraphic horizon. That horizon may be flat or it may be irregular. It doesn't matter. Anything deposited on top of that horizon, in the next instant in time, is demonstrably a younger deposit. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. You have swallowed a clever and deceitful lie by creationists that this somehow defies superposition. It does not! You are the first person I have tried to explain this to but just cannot comprehend this concept.

quote:

---

If you really knew the expereiments of Julien et al you could not say what you have said.

---

Want to put money on that?

quote:

---

From watching the layers form with my eyes it can be seen that the bedding planes between strata are not time-bound discontinuities as you seem to be assuming. The bed proceedes horizontally at the same time it proceedes vertically and it has to be seen to be believed. I still can't work out if that is what you agree with or not.

---

I had this phenomenon explained to me by a professor a long (we'll just leave at that) time ago. If you had a similar explanation in an actual classroom setting rather than a creationist propaganda show, you would no be so mystified by this process.

quote:

---

It is the fundamental mode of starta generation in non-zero flow. Your eons mode is very, very different.

---

Not really. The difference is that we have this happening millions of times with non-zero time in between events. As I have tried to get this across to you, this is not a mystery.Now, if 'non-zero' flow is so dominant, as it would be in a flood of the type you propose, when are the silts and clays and limestones ever deposited? Tell us just what grain size Julien is dealing with. Where do the finer grained particles end up?

quote:

---

Both produce strata. The flow mode strata do not represent time units, except at fixed horizontal position, as much as they look like they do.

---

And what about the 'non-flow' mode strata? When are they deposited, and how long does it take for them to settle out of suspension? You have neatly avoided this substantial part of the geological record and looked only at sandstones. You also keep skirting the question on where the silts, muds and lime particles were deposited in Julien's experiments.

quote:

---

What you have ssen in the field cannot prepare you for these video results against glass planes alongside the flumes.

---

Sorry to rain on your parade, TB, but as I have mentioned repeatedly, this is not a mystery except to the layman.

quote:

---

Your time-bound discontinuities are apparent only. I found it hard to believe but you can see it with your eyes.

---

So, if I took a picture of the process in action, there would be no difference between the deposited grains and the grains in traction? Nonsense. Besides, you are talking about processes that occur instantaneously in specific environments to specific grain sizes and then applying them to the entire geological record. This is invalid.

quote:

---

It's really not clear if you are agreeing with me or not Edge. Do you realize that in the flume experiments a particular stratum proceededs horizontally (down stream) while other layers above have already formed on it up stream?

---

Yes, as I have mentioned above and in prior posts, I learned about this process a long time ago in learning about cross beds during my first geology course. This was obviously an opportunity that you have deprived yourself of. What you do not understand is that the stratum (in this case a lamination) is no longer horizontal during formation.

I don't really want to get too far off topic, but maybe one more post on this issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Wasn't what I was trying to do. You seem to have lost the whole point I was getting at in my original post.

---

Actually, I do understand and am a big proponent of divergent thinking. I just don't want you to get too carried away with the analogy.

quote:

---

Both imagination and the bore crew are needed in science. Neither is more important to the process. All imagination, then things get out of control. Too much of the bore crew and the continue along and never learn anything new.

---

The 'what crew?' I agree, if we never used our imaginations, we would still be prescientific. In fact, the adoption of evolutionary theory is an example. We have now moved ahead and use this theory as a premise for continuing research. If we listened to creationists, we would be wasting time trying to prove evolution to an absolute certainty, never making any more progress. We would still be trying to identify 'kinds' rather than unlocking the genome.

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.