Wait wait wait wait wait... So they're doing experiments, in labs, to find out what could have happened in the past? So...using the present as the key to the past?
But don't creos refute uniformitarianism? So how can they use ANY experiment done in the lab to deduce what could have happened in the past? Let alone use thise one experiment to explain almost every stratigraphic layer we see today.
But aside from that, Guy Berthault's work has been criticised here and here.
Interestingly enough, I typed Guy Berthaults name into Google and got this site. A biblical science site, where even they refute his works.
Here is a nice picture illustrating the difference between slow sedimentation and catastrophic sedimentation:
See those layered strata in the middle of the picture? Those are annual varves. We know this because of the grain size and the alternation between sediments from spring runoffs. See the much coarser sediments above and below the middle section? Much larger grain sizes which settle out quickly as we would expect in a catastrophic event. Varves created by slow sedimentation and flood layers do look like night and day.
You would also be interested in the geologic context in which these varves are found. They are part of the Channeled Scablands, a geology created by catastrophic flooding and erosion. The following website will give you a better idea of what real geologists look for in catstrophic events:
We should also note that uniformitarianism is a term that has long, long fallen out of favor in geological circles, like for at least a half century. The term is still valid and still sees some use in the technical literature but has become uncommon, perhaps because the term is so easily misconstrued. Creationists often think it refers to slow gradual change when it really refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Whenever the term comes up in the creation/evolution debate you can be sure that creationists are misunderstanding the term.
I prefer "actualism" myself as being less misleading.
Another misconception is that the most prominent nineteenth century uniformitarians were what one might call "strict" uniformitarians in the first place. I've read Lyell, and he's often using "strict" uniformitarianism as a conservative hypothesis. That is, he's saying: "Look, I can explain such and such a geological feature even if you assume that such-and-such a thing is a constant." He didn't necessarily believe that those things were constant, he was showing that he could provide reasonably good explanations without giving himself the luxury of supposing them to vary in an ad hoc manner.
I see you are on now and you seem to have ignored Message 37. Do you have evidence for this fossil being published in Nat Geo? Or are my suspicions correct that you just copied this info from a creo site? I would really like to see the original Nat Geo article if it exists. Context is everything.
But I am afraid that you might actually have no clue whether Nat Geo published such a thing or not. Did you sacrifice your credibility for a lying creo website?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
I see you are on now and you seem to have ignored Message 37.
I guess he's been too busy rating messages to get round to actually replying to them. It's so time-consuming, y'see, to finely weigh the merits and demerits of a post on a subject of which he knows nothing and then give it a rating of 1 based on his dislike of the author. If he had to engage in reasoned debate as well, when would the poor guy get to eat or sleep?
Ok i watched it, a simple way to test this the majority of rocks in rivers is turned the way the river flowed. The same should be seen in the strata.
Im not even going to touch the argument that water had to go faster then slower and then faster, and slower again cause god was probably causing this whit his remote clicking fast forward and normal play.
And even if all this would be true it still does not point to a global flood 4000 years ago. It points to a time when the continents as we know them where under water, for the continents to be flooded and them being on the same hight as they are now wather would haveto be at least 3000 meters higher then it is now so that at least the fossils on Triglav our sloveinan higehst moutin could have been deposited, the question would be where did all this water go to, How did all the fish and plants survive (no light for plants, and the salinity of the water would change killing off most of the salt water and fresh water fish species, like the trout for example it is very sensitive to "Ingredients" in the water changing)
And to throw back some creo arguments back at you.
- How do you know the sediments behved the same way as they do now - How do you know that water behaved the same way it does now.
quote:The formation is divided into 14 cycles, most of which commence with major transgressions represented by the open-water facies assemblage, some faunal elements of which show a restricted-marine affinity. Higher in the cycles, the re-advance of coastal and alluvial systems yielded poorly and well drained facies assemblages, respectively. The main levels of standing trees, dominated by lycopsids, were entombed where distributary channels brought sand into coastal wetlands.
The above quoted is part of the article abstract. It appears that the entire article is available there, but it is broken into a lot of small pages with a lot of other clutter.
My interpretation of the above quoted is that essentially the trees were buried in a river delta environment. From the geologic time scale perspective, probably a pretty high sedimentation rate event. But hardly a catastrophic event.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose