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

I believe an argument with Mr. Piveteau would prove a bit one sided as he has been dead these past ten or eleven years. The above is just Berthault claiming Piveteau said this in personal correspondence. These two supposed letters must be at least ten years old. How come nothing has happened?--Percy

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

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

Are the 2002 papers relevant to this discussion? In other words, are they on the topic of Paleohydraulic analysis? Do they provide supporting evidence for Berthault's claims about the Tonto group? Are they on the same topic that Piveteau's and Millot's letters supposedly addressed (that should be a tough one to answer, since you only have Berthault's word on that and at least half the letter's authors are dead)? Or are they a red herring?Steve Austin is now publishing in the mainstream literature, but these papers express only mainstream views. Until you provide the actual subjects of Berthault's 2002 papers showing that he has succeeded in getting Creationist views published in mainstream literature, I suspect the same here, that these papers reflect mainstream views. I suspect that your implication that the mainstream is moving toward Berthault specifically or Creationism generally is without foundation.--Percy

This is the same invalid position adapted by wmscott (flood caused by glacial melt) and w_fortenberry (geocentrism), that the measure of your ideas is somehow a function of how strongly you hold them. This couldn't be more wrong.The measure of your ideas and evidence lies in their power to persuade others to your point of view. We know you hold your ideas as firmly as ever, but stating and restating this fact does not somehow turn immovability in to a point in their favor. You need converts in order to demonstrate that your ideas have the power to persuade. That's why you and Berthault and Creationists in general feel the need to quote mainstream scientists making supposed expressions of support for your views.--Percy

The Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics is Chinese, and Berthault has evidently published in it the same article he ran in Fusion magazine in 2000.As for the publication in Lithology and Mineral Resources, the page numbers were actually 442-446 according to the on-line contents. According to the abstract it appears to be the same material under a different title.Either one by itself would have been a major coup, but publications in two journals? You geologists out there, how do you explain this?--Percy

Do you know if these are peer-reviewed journals or not?--Percy