bOllingfrog writes:
Keeping this short. You wanna flesh it out do your own research
Oh my, look what I found in Google, second hit using the search term "Guy Berthault." Perhaps you should do your own research using the term "critical thinking" or even "right wing authoritarianism."
Berthault looking into work done by a guy named Walter inspired by results from research on the Glomar Explorer (or was it Challenger?) never mind. He wanted to see what kind of experiments had been done on sedimntology and stratigraphy before doing his own. Guess what? No prior art. It would seem these principles were so intuitively correct that no one ever challenged or confirmed them with any kind of repeatable experiment. We have a name for that . .it’ll come to me later.
I, like every one else, pretty much agreed with all these principles of stratigraphy. I never saw them in order or even on a single page. Again being so simple and reasonable who would question them?
Once the experiments were done the first three of these along with one associated with fossils were proven to not be principles as defined (a general law exemplified in numerous cases). In fact they applied only in rare instances if at all.
This is what was used to establish the geologic column and it is all wrong. Sediments many many layers higher can be much older. The foundation of the fossil record is mud. This "proof" of evolution was based on three major assumptions which led to a fourth. Like fossils found on opposite sides of oceans identify layers they are found in as the same age.
Oh I remember now, we call repeatable experiments science. I dropped out too.
Now for the conclusion from that second hit on Google, namely
Critique of Guy Berthault's "Stratigraphy"
quote:
Most of Berthault's "discoveries" are not new. Although Berthault's hard work is very interesting, he and his YEC colleagues are often unaware that geologists knew about these "discoveries" in sedimentology and field geology decades or even more than a century ago. In other cases, Berthault's ideas (such as his comprehension of Steno's Principles and uniformitarianism) are grossly outdated. Because YECs Berthault and Austin's views of the geological properties of the Tonto Group lack sufficient detail, their "Flood model" utterly fails to explain the origin of the Group.
References to clowns like Berthault and the endless recycling of PRATTs are nothing new here. You are not the first person to recite medieval, or indeed even bronze age, 'science' as absolute and unquestionable simply because you discover Steno somewhere between how to spot a witch and determine guilt by water in your 'dark ages' bag of 'irrefutable' 15th century 'truth.'
Some use their brain for thinking as well as only regulating body temperature as Aristotle would have it. Please consider using current science instead of medieval 'science' before claiming to know more about all mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology than all the thousands of people who have devoted their lives to acquiring the actual truth about the natural world in the most recent 500 years.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
™ Version 4.2
