Evolution a hoax?

[randman]

Experiments on sedimentation:

Berthault, G., Lalomov, A. V. and Tugarova, M. A. : Reconstruction of paleolithodynamic formation conditions of Cambrian-Ordovician sandstones in the Northwestern Russian platform – “Lithology and Mineral Resources, 2011, Volume 46, Number 1, 60-70″ (Springer Publishing site )

Berthault, G., Veksler A.B., Donenberg V.M. , Lalomov A. : RESEARCH on EROSION OF CONSOLIDATED and semi-consolidated SOILS BY HIGH SPEED WATER FLOW Izvestia.VNIIG., 2010, Vol. 257, p.10-22. – (Russian original.)

Lalamov, A. : Reconstruction of Paleohydrodynamic Conditions during the Formation of Upper Jurassic Conglomerates of the Crimean Peninsula, Lithology and Mineral Resources, 2007, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 268–280

Berthault, G : Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River) (pdf document), Lithology and Mineral Resources 2004, Vol. 39, No 5. October 2004.

Berthault G., Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data, Litol.Polezn.Iskop.2002, vol 37, no.5,pp 509-515 (Lithology and Mineral resources 2002 (fac-similé) (Engl.Transl.), vol.37, no.5, pp442-446), Journal of the Academy of Sciences of Russia.

Julien, P.Y., Lan, Y., and Berthault, G., Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures, Bulletin Société Géologique de France, 1993, vol. 164, no. 5, pp. 649–660.

Berthault, G., Sedimentation of a Heterogranular Mixture. Experimental Lamination in Still and Running Water, Compte rendu de l’Académie des Sciences 1988, vol. 306, Serie II, pp. 717–724.

Berthault, G., Sedimentologie: Expériences sur la lamination des sédiments par granoclassement périodique postérieur au dépôt. Contribution a l’explication de la lamination dans nombre de sédiments et de roches sédimentaires., Compte rendu de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 1986 , vol. 303, Ser., 2, no. 17, pp. 1569-1574.

_______________________________

Lalamov, A. and Tugarova, M. A. : REPORT for 2008 joint research of Geological Laboratory ARCTUR (Moscow) and Lithological department of Geological Faculty of St.-Petersburg State University “RECONSTRUCTION OF PALEOHYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF DEPOSITION OF PERMIAN STRATA OF KAMA REGION STUDIED BY GOLOVKINSKY”

Lalamov, A. : FINAL REPORT for 2006 – 2007 joint research of Geological Laboratory ARCTUR (Moscow) in co-operation with Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits Russian Academy of Science (IGEM RAS) and Research – Exploration Centre “Monitoring” (Khanty–Mansiisk, West Siberia) – “PALEOCHANNELS OF URAL FOLDED BELT AND PIEDMONT AREA: RECONSTRUCTION OF PALEOHYDRAULIC CONDITIONS”
http://www.sedimentology.fr/

Pages showing experiments:

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

English creationist sites that republished some of his stuff and may be preferable as an intro.

http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-328.pdfhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/lamination.asp

Evos finally replicated the experiments but gave no credit when they should have to Guy Berthault.

Back in 1988 we published in this journal the English translation of a significant paper1 that was originally presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on November 3, 1986 and then published in the Academy’s Proceedings.2 This was followed with our publication of a subsequent paper3 in 1990 that had also been initially presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on February 8, 1988 and published in the Academy’s Proceedings.4
The author on both occasions was Guy Berthault, and his important experiments have demonstrated how multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures of sediments in air, in still water, and in running water (see Figure 1). In subsequent research Berthault has teamed up with Professor Piérre Julien in the Engineering Research Center of the Civil Engineering Department at Colorado State University, Fort Collins (USA). We published their results in 1994,5 after their research had been published by the Geological Society of France.6 Their sedimentation experiments are continuing.

.....
Now Nature has finally caught up! That is, the weekly international science journal Nature, arguably the world’s leading scientific publication, has just published and commented upon the results of experiments similar to those performed by Berthault,11,12 thus finally acknowledging what a creationist researcher has been demonstrating for more than ten years. However, not surprisingly, Berthault’s work is neither mentioned nor referenced in the Nature articles.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp#r1

 

[DC]

Experiments on sedimentation:



Pages showing experiments:

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

http://www.sedimentology.fr/

English creationist sites that republished some of his stuff and may be preferable as an intro.

http://www.icr.org/article/experiments-stratification/

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-328.pdfhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/lamination.asp

Evos finally replicated the experiments but gave no credit when they should have to Guy Berthault.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp#r1

you cerationists just don't have any scientists, isn't it?

the guy is not a creationist.

 

[randman]

you cerationists just don't have any scientists, isn't it?

the guy is not a creationist.

Depends on what you mean by the term. Most evolutionists would definitely call him a creationist. In one of his responses, he says he is not a creationist because he is just doing science, but he also says elsewhere his work is evidence for the Flood.

So what do you think?

Keep in kind he is a Frenchman and maybe the term is a little different in his eyes in his language and that it is improper to label scientists anything but a scientist.

 

[DC]

Depends on what you mean by the term. Most evolutionists would definitely call him a creationist. In one of his responses, he says he is not a creationist because he is just doing science, but he also says elsewhere his work is evidence for the Flood.

So what do you think?

Keep in kind he is a Frenchman and maybe the term is a little different in his eyes in his language and that it is improper to label scientists anything but a scientist.

there is alot evidence for many many floods.
what i think? i think this guy's brainfarts are getting ripped appart by others of the field. he seems to be a lone nutter.
maybe he one day is able to prove his claims, so far he wasn't able to.

 

[randman]

The principle has survived for a long time as it is still defined by Jean Aubouin in his Précis de Géologie as: “Any layer has the same age at any point”

Our flume experiments have, of course, invalidated this principle, by showing that superposed stratified deposits prograde simultaneously in the direction of the current. They cannot, therefore, be the same age at each point.

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/berthaul/berthaul.html

What he has shown is quite remarkable and there is further work validating the hypothesis, namely that stratified layers are not indicative of the layer on top being older than a lower layer, and in fact we know examples mainstream geologists admit to of this occurring on lake banks where the age of the layers is horizontal, but the idea the layers in the ocean are like this was rejected.

But more evidence supports the view conventional geology may have had it wrong, specifically the boundary between the layers was said to have formed by the layer essentially drying out but drilling research shows water continues down considerably into sediment so that explanation does not work. But it does work for superposed stratified deposits propagating simultaneously.

 

[pakeha]

(a slew of links!)

Thanks, randman!
Off to read.

 

[randman]

there is alot evidence for many many floods.
what i think? i think this guy's brainfarts are getting ripped appart by others of the field. he seems to be a lone nutter.
maybe he one day is able to prove his claims, so far he wasn't able to.

He has absolutely proved his claims. There no fact-based rebuttals to his work.

 

[DC]

He has absolutely proved his claims. There no fact-based rebuttals to his work.

no he didn't

 

[randman]

A creationist scientist originally came up with the concept of continental drift and that the earth was all one continent. When mainstream non-creationists came up with the same idea, they, of course, did not credit him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Snider-Pellegrini

Creationist scientists and IDers come up with breakthrough ideas and research contrary to evo claims, and then when evos come up with the same ideas usually presenting them in an evolutionist context, they typically refuse to acknowledge the work of the non-evolutionist scientist.

When Nature published experiments very similar to Guy's, why did the authors not credit the earlier, published and widely publicized results.

Same thing happened with Haeckel. Richardson acted like no one had shown Haeckel was a fraud before. Same with the fossil record. Before PE, evos refused generally to even acknowledge stasis and sudden appearance.

Yet somehow creationists and IDers are the ones not adhering to true scientific principles?

 

[DC]

A creationist scientist originally came up with the concept of continental drift and that the earth was all one continent. When mainstream non-creationists came up with the same idea, they, of course, did not credit him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Snider-Pellegrini

Creationist scientists and IDers come up with breakthrough ideas and research contrary to evo claims, and then when evos come up with the same ideas usually presenting them in an evolutionist context, they typically refuse to acknowledge the work of the non-evolutionist scientist.

When Nature published experiments very similar to Guy's, why did the authors not credit the earlier, published and widely publicized results.

Same thing happened with Haeckel. Richardson acted like no one had shown Haeckel was a fraud before. Same with the fossil record. Before PE, evos refused generally to even acknowledge stasis and sudden appearance.

Yet somehow creationists and IDers are the ones not adhering to true scientific principles?

why did Guy not acknowledge those that before him did very similar experiments to his?

 

[pakeha]

Hmm.
Something intersting on Guy Berthault
http://libresansdieu.org/pmwiki.php?n=Wiki.ASCQBerthault

Berthault, woh presents himself as a renowned scientist, is in fact a creationist, a contractor by profession. Scientific Circle is history, which he is vice president, is actually an organization that promotes the work of geocentrist Fernand Crombette and creationism in general.

For many years, Berthault establishes credibility based on two minor items published in 1988 and 1990 in the Reports of the Academy of Sciences. So, he tries to convince the public that his "discoveries" have been recognized by a scientific institution, which is completely untrue.

The imposture of Berthault was treated in detail by Lecointre and Dubessy in spiritual intrusions and intellectual frauds in science. The chapter in question is available free on charlatans.info.

Has this been followed up?

And the whole Haekel non-controversy has been dealt with here on a thread dedicated to it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203961&highlight=Haekel
Why bring up a subject which has been cleared up?

 

[Mojo]

Why bring up a subject which has been cleared up?

Because some people may have not seen the other thread, or forgotten about it.

 

[randman]

If you are not familiar with what he's talking about, it might take a little to get a handle on it. Consider the following:

The first part of the definition of the principle of superposition is: At the time when one of the highest stratum formed, the stratum underneath it had already acquired a solid consistence. A stratum between 50 cm and 1 m is considered thick. Consequently, submarine drillings should encounter solid strata in the stratified oceanic sediments after a few meters.

The results of sea bottom drilling showed that the first semi-consolidated sediments appeared about 400-800 metres (in depth). The isolated instances of certain beds of chert (siliceous beds) have been found under 135 metres of sediment near the zones of the oceanic transform faults (Logvinenko, 1980). Stenon’s definition, therefore, relative to successive hardening, which extends greatly the total length of time of deposition, is not supported by the sedimentological observations mentioned above.

http://efficalis.com/sedimentology/home/problems/

Why is this hardening between layers significant?

Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.
There are exceptions to this case, because sediments may be deposited on slopes or gradients. These may be steep, locally, and can be up to several degrees. Nevertheless, the principle is essentially true.
Steno stated another, more general principle in this way:
“ If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface. ”
In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape.
Steno was able to show by this reasoning that fossils and crystals must have solidified before the host rock that contains them was formed. If a "tongue stone" had grown within a rock, it would have been distorted by the surrounding rock, in much the same way that a tree root is distorted by growing into a crack in the earth. Instead, the "tongue stone" must have been buried in soft sediments which hardened later. Veins (mineral-filled cracks) and many crystals, on the other hand, must have formed after the surrounding rock was a solid, because they often did show irregularities of form caused by having to conform to the surrounding solid rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Superposition

There are some videos which break this down, but Steno is where we got the idea of the geologic column but he was wrong.

First, there is no hardening for 400 meters as shown by modern drilling research and so that principle which is a key part of the theory falls apart.

Secondly, the theory does not account for the fact of ocean and sediment currents. Note the exception comment in wiki for graded banks. Why is that? It's because the steepness of the bank creates a flow.

 

[randman]

why did Guy not acknowledge those that before him did very similar experiments to his?

Have you read his stuff? He does acknowledge earlier experiments and research but takes it further.

 

[DC]

Have you read his stuff? He does acknowledge earlier experiments and research but takes it further.

not further, ad absurdum.

 

[randman]

How long did it take these layers to form?

 

[DC]

[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEb3FMQbqLscU-uiWa3YNyWT2ZpKgatHL82nEKpEmG7VHXwNUB[/qimg]

How long did it take these layers to form?

how would anyone know just from this picture?

how long do you believe it took for the grand cannions to form?

 

[pakeha]

Very funny, randman.
A quick search at Google images shows this photo is mud from the Mt. St Helen blow.

 

[randman]

Here is another example of a creationist advancing science in this area, just a small advance but a significant one relative to the particular area of research.

Dr. John Whitmore, associate professor of geology at Cedarville University, recently presented a paper on his Grand Canyon research during the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) in Portland, Oregon, October 18-21.

This annual meeting attracts thousands of geologists who converge to share their scientific work with one another. Whitmore has been studying the Coconino Sandstone for about 10 years and is making some controversial discoveries.

The Coconino Sandstone is a rock layer near the top of the Grand Canyon. Most geologists believe that it was formed in a wind-blown desert environment. They believe that the formation’s large sloping cross beds are the remains of ancient desert sand dunes.

For his research, Whitmore collected samples of this sandstone for microscopic examination of the sand grains. His findings show that the sandstone contains dolomite ooliths, small ball-like structures that are only formed in marine settings. Other features such as grains of very soft mica are also evident under the microscope.

“We would not expect to see these minerals if this sandstone was formed in a desert,” shares Whitmore. “The blowing action of sand would quickly destroy these minerals; however they might survive if carried and deposited by water.”

http://www.cedarville.edu/Offices/P...tmore-Presents-Controversial-Discoveries.aspx

 

[DC]

A creationist scientist originally came up with the concept of continental drift and that the earth was all one continent. When mainstream non-creationists came up with the same idea, they, of course, did not credit him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Snider-Pellegrini

Creationist scientists and IDers come up with breakthrough ideas and research contrary to evo claims, and then when evos come up with the same ideas usually presenting them in an evolutionist context, they typically refuse to acknowledge the work of the non-evolutionist scientist.

When Nature published experiments very similar to Guy's, why did the authors not credit the earlier, published and widely publicized results.

Same thing happened with Haeckel. Richardson acted like no one had shown Haeckel was a fraud before. Same with the fossil record. Before PE, evos refused generally to even acknowledge stasis and sudden appearance.

Yet somehow creationists and IDers are the ones not adhering to true scientific principles?

Abraham Ortelius ideas? maybe your guy just was not able to prove his hypothesis like wegener was? would your guys do more science and less bible reading you maybe would get some breaketroughs?