View allAll Photos Tagged Reasoning
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident, and subsequently eroded by water flow revealing the strata/layers.
Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Formed 11/10/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
"A team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia. One example is the publication of a report in 2007 by the Lithology and Mineral Resources journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It concerns the Crimean Peninsular. It shows that the time of sedimentation of the sequence studied corresponds to a virtually instantaneous episode whilst according to stratigraphy it took several millions of years. Moreover, a recent report concerning the North-West Russian plateau in the St. Petersburg region shows that the time of sedimentation was much shorter than that attributed to it by the stratigraphic time-scale: 0.05% of the time."
www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
YOKOSUKA, Japan - (June 7, 2016) CommanderSeventh Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin and Commander Naval Forces Japan, Rear Adm. Matthew Carter hold an all hands call for all khaki leaders (E-7 and above) on board Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan, June 7. The two admirals explained to the assembled leaders the reasoning behind a temporary liberty curtailment and alcohol restriction in Japan and challenged the khakis to take ownership in the recent spike in alcohol related incidents. Both leaders plan on conducting similar discussions throughout Japan. (U.S. Navy photo by ABH2 Vincent Arnuco/RELEASED)
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 06/06/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Lancaster Thumper Mk III
The RAF BBMF Lancaster, PA474, is currently painted to represent an aircraft which served with No 617 Squadron after the Dams Raid. This is the story of the original aircraft and its wartime pilot and crew.
Some of the specially-modified Type 464 Lancasters, which survived the Dams Raid, remained in service with No 617 Squadron afterwards. However, these aircraft were not suitable for all operations and the Squadron needed replacement, standard Lancasters, as well as replacement crews to make up losses. One of the brand-new aircraft delivered to the unit to meet this need was Lancaster B1 DV385.
Lancaster DV385
Lancaster DV385 was built by Metropolitan-Vickers Ltd at Trafford Park, Manchester, at a stage of the war when the average build time for a Lancaster was 8 weeks. DV385 rolled off the production line in October 1943. It was delivered to No 617 Squadron at RAF Coningsby (by a quirk of fate now the home to the RAF BBMF Lancaster PA474) in November 1943 and given the squadron codes ‘KC-A’. The aircraft was retro-fitted with bulged bomb-bay doors enabling it to carry one of the huge 12,000-lb HC ‘thin-case’ ‘blockbuster’ blast bombs or a 12,000-lb ‘Tallboy’ bomb internally. DV385’s first bombing mission was flown on 16th December 1943; this was the first of four ‘ops’ it flew from Coningsby, three of them captained by Flight Lieutenant Tom O’Shaughnessy to drop 12,000-lb HC bombs against V-weapon sites in France. On 9th January 1944, 617 Squadron moved the few miles north to Woodhall Spa, taking DV385 with them.
Bob Knights and his Crew
Another Lancaster squadron, No 619, was already based at Woodhall Spa and moved to Coningsby to make way for 617 Squadron. One of the 619 Squadron crews, led by pilot Bob Knights, was coming towards the end of their tour at the close of 1943. Some of the crew were going to reach the ‘magic’ end-of-tour figure of 30 ‘ops’ slightly before the others and they did not want to be split up, reasoning that they were safer together. So they had decided to volunteer for a second operational tour with No 617 Squadron. Knights and his crew were about to become very familiar with Lancaster DV385.
Robert (‘Bob’) Edgar Knights was born in January 1921, in London. He volunteered for service as a pilot with the RAF and was eventually called up in March 1941, aged 20. He completed his flying training in America under the ‘Arnold Scheme’, flying Stearman PT17s, Vultee BT13s and AT6A ‘Texans’. In May 1942, after returning to England to complete his training, he crashed an Airspeed Oxford twin-engine aircraft. Bob badly injured his hand in the accident and this kept him off flying for 6 months. In June 1943, with 474 hours flying under his belt, Pilot Officer Bob Knights and his crew – Sergeants Rhude (navigator), Bell (bomb aimer), Twells (flight engineer), Rowan (wireless operator), Hobbs (mid-upper gunner) and Derham (rear gunner) – joined No 619 Squadron to fly Lancasters on bombing operations.
Before he could fly operationally with his own crew, Bob Knights had to complete the traditional ‘second dickey’ ‘op’ with an experienced crew to ‘learn the ropes’. He flew with Flt Lt ‘Ted’ Dampier-Crossley DFC, a New Zealander in the Royal Australian Air Force, who was flying with the RAF on 619 Squadron. Dampier-Crossley’s aircraft was Lancaster EE112, it wore the code letters ‘PG-T’ (normally ‘T’ for ‘Tommy’) and the crew had named it ’T’ for “Thumper” and painted the Walt Disney rabbit character, from the 1942 Walt Disney film Bambi, on the nose. Dampier-Crossley was an experienced operational bomber pilot and he taught Bob Knights some useful tricks and tactics, such as never flying straight and level but weaving constantly, which Bob’s crew subsequently credited with helping to keep them alive. Sadly, a couple of months later, on the night of 10/11th August 1943, Dampier-Crossley and his entire crew were killed during a raid on Nuremburg. A replacement Lancaster coded ‘PG-T’ arrived on the squadron and was allocated to Knights and his crew, who decided to name it “Thumper Mk II” in honour of Ted Dampier-Crossley and his crew. The so-called ‘Battle of Berlin’ began shortly afterwards and the Bob Knights crew made eight attacks against the "Big City", raids in which Bomber Command's losses were particularly high. On another occasion the crew was en route to bomb Hamburg when one of the engines failed shortly after reaching the Dutch coast. They would have been justified in turning back, but pressed on and bombed the target successfully from only 10,000 feet.
As a Lancaster had only a single pilot, Bob Knights decided that he would train his bomb-aimer, John Bell, to fly the aircraft in case he was killed or incapacitated. He felt that the bomb-aimer could most easily be spared from his other duties in such an eventuality. John Bell, who is the only surviving member of the crew, told the editor, during a visit to the BBMF at Coningsby in September 2012, that he spent several hours in all at the controls of a Lancaster with Bob standing beside him advising him. It is unlikely that such a novice Lancaster pilot, with no other piloting experience, would ever have been able to land the aircraft if his pilot was rendered ‘hors de combat’, but at least he might have been able to fly it back over friendly territory before the crew took to their ‘chutes’. John also said that he always seemed to over-control the aircraft, finding it difficult to keep it steady. When he was flying it, he said, “The rest of the crew were not best pleased!”
617 Squadron
By the end of 1943 the crew was approaching the required 30 ‘ops’ of a full operational tour with 619 squadron; they were due for a well-earned rest tour, but, instead, they volunteered for a second operational tour with No 617 Squadron. After they had been interviewed by 617’s Commanding Officer, Wing Commander Leonard Cheshire, the crew was posted to the elite unit in January 1944.
On the night of 20th January 1944, Flight Lieutenant Tom O’Shaughnessy, who had so far been the regular pilot of DV385, was killed in a training accident at Snettisham, Norfolk, along with his navigator Flying Officer Holding. He was flying one of the original Type 464 ‘Dams Raid’ Lancasters (ED918) and crashed into the sand dunes at the Wash bombing ranges, whilst practising for a proposed raid on an Italian dam that did not, in fact, go ahead. After Tom O’Shaughnessy’s tragic death, DV385 needed a new crew and it was allocated to Bob Knights. He and his crew immediately decided that their new aircraft should be named “Thumper Mk III” and the artwork – the cartoon rabbit holding a foaming pint of beer – was duly painted on the nose.
They also started the ‘bomb log’ under the cockpit with a bomb symbol for each ‘op’ successfully completed by “Thumper Mk III”. The aircraft eventually flew 36 successful operations before it was retired from service in March 1945 (35 bomb symbols are painted on PA474 replicating a wartime photograph). It also flew an additional 13 sorties on which it reached the target, but circumstances prevented the bombs being dropped and they were brought back, as the Squadron’s precision role sometimes demanded.
Bob Knights and his crew first flew “Thumper Mk III” operationally on the night of 8th February 1944, as part of a force of 12 Lancasters which carried out an outstandingly accurate and successful night bombing raid against the Gnome-Rhone aero engine factory at Limoges. Four nights later the crew took part in a long-range attack on the Antheor viaduct, on the railway line between Toulon & Cannes, in an attempt to destroy the strategically important coastal rail link between France and Italy. The target was heavily defended and opposing ground fire was intense as the crew dropped their first 12,000-lb HC bomb. During February, March and April 1944, mostly flown by Bob Knights, “Thumper” was used to attack factories and industrial sites producing vital war materials and equipment for the Germans. In April 1944, having completed more than 30 operations Bob Knights was awarded the DFC.
D-Day – Operation ‘Taxable’
On the eve of D-Day, 5-6th June 1944, Knights and his crew flew “Thumper Mk III” on the highly-secret, deception raid, Operation ‘Taxable’ (the ‘op’ being recorded with a letter ‘D’ on the bomb symbol on the aircraft’s mission tally). The object of this operation was to convince the Germans that the main invasion fleet was heading for the Pas de Calais. Creating this illusion required the precise flying of elongated circuits, whilst bundles of radar-reflective, aluminium-foil strips of pre-determined and varying lengths – ‘window’ – were dropped through the flare chute every 5 seconds. Another, similar, spoof operation, codenamed ‘Glimmer’, was conducted by Short Stirlings of No 218 Squadron in the Boulogne area. Both were successful and, by daybreak on 6th June, the German High Command was trying to react across an unnecessarily broad front. Many of the best German troops were kept on the wrong side of the Seine and the confusion caused by these operations undoubtedly helped the Allies to gain a vital foothold in Normandy on D-Day.
‘Tallboy’
On 15 occasions, 10 of them with Bob Knights at the controls, “Thumper Mk III” was used to drop the 12,000-lb ‘Tallboy’ deep-penetration, ‘earthquake’ bombs against high value targets. Designed by Barnes Wallis, the ‘Tallboy’ was a remarkable weapon, combining the explosive force of a large, high-capacity bomb and the penetrating power of armour-piercing munitions. When it was introduced it was the only weapon in the Royal Air Force’s inventory capable of breaking through the thick concrete structures of the German U-boat shelters, E-boat pens and V-weapon sites. ‘Tallboy’ measured 21 feet (6 metres) long and contained 5,200 lbs of Torpex explosive. With a streamlined (ogival) shape, it was fitted with a long, light-alloy, conical tail with 4 small square fins. These fins were offset by 5 degrees, causing the bomb to spin during its fall, aiding stability and improving its accuracy. To increase its penetrative power, the nose of the bomb contained a specially-hardened and precisely-machined, steel plug. ‘Tallboy’ was ballistically perfect and in consequence had a very high terminal velocity. Released from an altitude of 18,000 feet, a ‘Tallboy’ took only 37 seconds to fall to ground; when it hit, it was supersonic and still accelerating. It could penetrate 16 feet (5 m) of concrete and made a crater 80 feet (24 m) deep and 100 feet (30 m) across, which would have taken 5,000 tons of earth to fill. The bomb was designed to detonate below ground, transferring all of its energy into the target structure. This 'earthquake' effect caused more damage than a direct hit, as it shook the whole target structure, causing major damage to all parts of it and making repair impossible or uneconomic. The fuses in the rear of the bomb could be set to give it sufficient time to penetrate before exploding. The time delay could be set to between 11 seconds and 30 minutes after impact.
Saumur Rail Tunnel
The first time that the Bob Knights crew dropped a ‘Tallboy’ from “Thumper Mk III” was the operational debut for the new bomb on the night of 8/9th June 1944 (D-Day+2). The target for the new weapon was the Saumur railway tunnel in France, some 125 miles to the south of the Normandy battle area. This raid was prepared in great haste, as intelligence indicated that a German Panzer unit was expected to move by train through the tunnel. The aim was to prevent these and any other German reinforcements reaching Normandy from the south. The target area was illuminated with flares by four Lancasters of 83 Squadron and then marked at low level by two Mosquitos of 617 Squadron. Twenty-five Lancasters of 617 Squadron, 19 carrying ‘Tallboys’, dropped their bombs with great accuracy. One ‘Tallboy’ actually pierced the roof of the tunnel and brought down a huge quantity of rock and soil. The tunnel was blocked for a considerable period and the Panzer unit was badly delayed. No aircraft were lost on this raid.
Special Bomb Sight (SABS)
To achieve accuracy with these large single bombs, 617 Squadron used a special bombsight – the Stabilising Automatic Bomb Sight (SABS) Mk IIA – which, for the first time in the RAF’s history, permitted true precision bombing from medium altitude. These special bomb sights were hand-made, precision instruments, produced in small numbers and used only in specialist roles. With a well-trained and practiced bomb-aimer, able to keep the SABS aiming graticule exactly over the aiming point during the approach to the target, the sight automatically calculated the aircraft’s ground speed and wind drift. These were the principal factors which led to inaccuracies with earlier bomb sights, like the Mk XIV in use with the rest of Bomber Command. The SABS fed information to a Bombing Direction Indicator mounted in front of the pilot, which showed him whether any course correction, left or right, was required. It also calculated the bomb release point and released the bomb automatically at the correct moment. Given optimum conditions, a well-trained crew could reliably place a bomb within 80 yards of the target from 18,000 feet. Achieving this level of precision required extremely accurate flying. Unfortunately, it also required a long straight run-up to the target of between 5 and 10 minutes, during which no evasive action was possible, making the Lancaster a sitting target for the defences, especially radar-directed ‘predicted’ flak. The combination of SABS and ‘Tallboy’ was effective only if the aiming point could be clearly identified and tracked visually by the bomb aimer. Some missions were aborted or unsuccessful because this was not possible and, due to the cost and complexity of their manufacture, ‘Tallboy’ bombs which were not dropped were brought back to base.
“Thumper Mk III” bomb aimer, John Bell, said that the first time that they dropped practice bombs using the SABS, he scored direct hits on the aiming triangle on the bombing range in the Wash with the first two bombs. On the third run, John felt that things were not quite going right and he took over manually, missing the target by 75 yards. “I learned from that,” he said, “the automatics were better than me”. He went on to say, “When everything was going right, there was no need for communication between the bomb aimer and the pilot, as the Bomb Direction Indicator mounted in front of the pilot gave him all the steering information needed. It was only if it drifted off that the bomb aimer needed to give the pilot heading corrections to make the pilot’s indication live again.”
“Thumper” Fights On
During a daylight raid against E-boat pens at Le Havre on 14th June 1944 “Thumper Mk III” was hit by flak but only lightly damaged. It was flying again the next day, dropping a ‘Tallboy’ against the E-boat pens at Boulogne.
Most of the aircraft’s ‘ops’ over the next few weeks were ‘Tallboy’ raids against various V-weapon sites, including a V1 bomb store, various V2 rocket sites and the V3 long-range-gun construction site at Mimoyecques. John Bell remembers the direct hit with ‘his’ Tallboy on the north-west edge of the concrete dome at the V2 rocket site at Wizerne on 17th Jul 44. He watched the bomb all the way down to impact. This attack caused severe damage to the site, which was still under construction. Three Tallboys, including the one dropped from “Thumper”, exploded next to the tunnels, one burst just under the dome, and another burst in the mouth of one tunnel. The whole hillside collapsed, undermining the dome support, and burying the entrances to the V2 launch tunnels. Although the concrete dome was unscathed, the buttresses supporting it were dislodged and the dome tilted, jeopardising the bunker from underneath. The site was abandoned a few weeks later. (The site is now the ‘La Coupole’ museum.)
The last ‘op’ that Bob Knights flew in “Thumper” was on 5th August 1944, dropping a ‘Tallboy’ on the U-boat submarine pens at Brest. On 7th August he delivered the aircraft to Coningsby for servicing and modifications to be carried out; subsequently Lancaster LM482 ‘KC-Q’ became his aircraft. This was the point at which bomb aimer John Bell DFC left the crew and the squadron for a ground job. By this time he had flown 50 ‘ops’ and decided enough was enough; his luck had held, but now was the time to stop. He became an Admin (Accounts) Officer for 6 years and then he subsequently served as a Photographic Interpreter for the rest of his career, leaving the RAF on retirement in 1977 as a Wing Commander MBE DFC and with two Korean War medals.
Tirpitz and After
“Thumper Mk III” (now coded ‘KC-V’) returned to operations on 3rd October, piloted by Flying Officer James Castagnola (later Flight Lieutenant Castagnola DSO DFC). On 28th October and 12th November 1944 he captained “Thumper” on the final raids against the powerful German battleship Tirpitz, mooredat Tromso. In common with all the Lancasters used on these missions “Thumper” was modified for long-range flying. The mid-upper turret was removed along with many other internal fittings, and ex-Vickers Wellington overload fuel tanks were fitted, along with a Mosquito long-range tank, increasing the fuel capacity from 2,154 to 2,406 gallons, giving a range of 2,250 miles. On the last of these missions, the Castagnola crew reported a direct hit with their ‘Tallboy’ against the battleship’s superstructure and the mighty ship capsized. For “Thumper Mk III” the war was almost but not quite over, and a swastika on the 32nd bomb symbol on the mission log indicated a German fighter shot down by its gunners – its luck was still holding. The heavy-hitting bomber flew its last successful ‘op’ dropping a ‘Tallboy’ against the Bielefeld viaduct on 22nd February 1945 and then, in March 1945, as the war approached its end, “Thumper” was retired. DV385 ended its life at No 46 Maintenance Unit, where it was eventually struck off charge and scrapped after the war had ended.
Bob Knights DSO DFC
Bob Knights flew 41 ‘ops’ with 617 Squadron, 29 of them in “Thumper Mk III”, and many of them amongst the unit’s most challenging precision bombing operations. He also took part in all three Lancaster raids against the Tirpitz. In December 1944, after flying an official total of 67 bombing operations,Bob was rested. In January 1945, he was awarded the DSO. During his 10 months with 617 Squadron, 8 of the unit’s Lancasters had failed to return from ‘ops’ and another had been lost in an accident. Thirty-two of his fellow squadron aircrew had been killed and more had been injured or become prisoners of war. In April 1945 Bob was seconded to BOAC; he stayed with the airline for 32 years, retiring in 1976 as a Boeing 747 training captain. Bob Knights DSO DFC died in December 2004, aged 83.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident, and subsequently eroded by water flow revealing the strata/layers.
Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed 28/01/2019 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
I daren’t say anything about your filters really, in case anything slips out. You know my tendency to make everything I write universal property, and I don’t want to transgress. I won’t mention your characters or their conundrums. I like your reasoning, the synopsis you have given. I recognize some of those megalomaniacal male tendencies you are describing, and why wouldn’t I? I know that ‘lost boy’ behaviour. It’s even attractive until one reaches a certain age, then it slopes off through unfortunate, and heads downhill rather swiftly towards downright tragedy. Applying the brakes at that stage is no party, let me tell you. Sometimes I feel as if I had been worn down up to the knees, a would-be demi-legged Falstaff, but then this isn’t about me. All these men searching for mammys, what can I say other than sorry about my gender, and thank Yahweh that I am a cis-gender homo (can I call myself that anymore?)? I think you can tell that I have arrived at the point that I am, now, not at all sure what I am, or am not, permitted to call myself. I fear that I, at last, know what and who I am, but I am not at all sure if being that is acceptable to the evolving world. Luckily, we will all be dead soon enough. Now that’s something to really look forward to for the terminally bewildered. I like the idea of ‘A Death’ as the inflexion point of this ‘Comedy’ you are constructing. I have that funny death story to tell yet properly. That one where Jeffrey suddenly shot upright, screaming at his parents who were quibbling over what to watch on the TV. He screamed fiercely at them “I’m dying, I get to choose the video!”. It was gloriously well said. I do love the tyranny of the dying. I do love the abject tyranny of the victim (my speciality). Feck it, I will go the whole hog. I do love tyranny. I also love saying ‘Feck’, when everyone understands that you are insinuating another vowel in the place of that ‘e’. I love that feck is proper and Irish, a softening of that blow, liked a dropped ‘h’, that sort of softening and lilting.
He chose 'Singing in the Rain' and collapsed back into bed raving madly about having three different types of pies to make. I pressed the button and released more morphine, awash in the 'poor meeees'.
Photographed in Cyberjaya, Malaysia
Colour : Creamy White
Assembly : Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia
I drive an Inokom Elantra ! ... said no Malaysian ever. Well, believe it or not, the Hyundai Elantra MD goes by the official name of Inokom Elantra in Malaysia. The reasoning behind the name change is very straightforward; Inokom is the Malaysian company which assembles the Hyundai Elantra (alongside its siblings) in the small city of Kulim in the state of Kedah, which is 200 miles to the north of Kuala Lumpur, and right beside Penang. Aside from the badge and name, the Inokom Elantra is for the most part identical to any other Elantra MD. The car originally came with Inokom badges as standard, but most buyers swapped out said badges with Hyundai ones. The practice became so common, that Inokom now offers buyers the optional choice between the two badges.
Another 'unwanted' feature that plagues the Inokom Elantra is its below average build quality, which lags considerably behind the American and Korean-made Elantras. Nonetheless, Inokom has upped their game significantly from their experience assembling the previous generation Elantra, which had even worse build quality. Inokom has improved so much, that the management in Seoul has recently contracted the company with exporting the facelifted 2014 Hyundai Elantra to neighbouring Thailand, where previously Inokom had mostly catered to the domestic consumption.
The Hyundai Elantra MD itself is a brilliant car, considering how much of an improvement it is over its predecessor. Hyundai has really outdone themselves here, with the Fluidic Sculpture design language being one the Elantra MD's most prominent features. Despite the many improvements, the Elantra MD has not sold particularly well in Malaysia.
I LIKE : Looks awesome. Powered driver's seat. Huge improvement over the previous gen. Elantra. Reasonably priced for what you get.
I DISLIKE : Interior looks and feels a bit cheap. Not nearly as refined as its main competitors. Not nearly as competent as its European-made i30 sibling.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 14/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Benjamin Johnston presents: Comirit: Commonsense Reasoning by Integrating Simulation and Logic by Benjamin Johnston and Mary-Anne Williams is Research Professor and Director of the Innovation and Technology Research Laboratory. at The University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
The motivation for this work is to produce a middleware with real-world commonsense reasoning. The motivation is the failure of current logical commonsense reasoning systems.
in Technical Session # 4 : Reasoning chaired by Steve Omohundro of Self-Aware Systems at the The First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-08)
Mary-Anne Williams is Research Professor and Director of the Innovation and Technology Research Laboratory.
This room is The Zone, at the FedEx Institute of Technology, University of Memphis. It was a very good venue for this conference.
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) research focuses on the original and ultimate goal of AI -- to create intelligence as a whole, by exploring all available paths, including theoretical and experimental computer science, cognitive science, neuroscience, and innovative interdisciplinary methodologies. AGI is also called Strong AI in the AI community.
Another good reference is Artificial General Intelligence : A Gentle Introduction by Pei Wang
I030208 136
As we found our places in the workshop and I set to gathering supplies Jesse's curiosity (the most valuable character trait in any man of science) continued to get the better of him.
"How have I done anything that could be value in this Professor?"
"It was your experiments in the continuous production of heat from compressed matter that gave us the refined Pitchblende power source that runs the Hoever-Carriage was it not?"
"Perhaps my initial research was of some value" He replied modestly "but it was The Lady Porkshanks and yourself who made the application practical."
"Well my friend we are about to make it more so."
"You intrigue me Professor, can you explain your reasoning?"
For a brief instant I felt as if we were back at University in a lecture room with Jesse was my only student. Making myself comfortable with the notion, I set to work while I spoke:
"As you well know every last form of matter in creation interacts in some way with other forms of matter. Some react passively and slowly while others react with speed and violence. Consider the vital element, Oxygen; the beneficial gas... Without it we would die. Without it your beloved gunpowder would not fire. It is invisible and odorless and nearly weightless; but given time it will eat away at iron leaving almost nothing behind. In excess will cause the air to ignite spontaneously. It is highly interactive."
Jesse grinned as I picked up a caliper and examined another component all the while continuing my lecture. I must confess the stresses of the previous days had already begun to melt away. Being back in my element, the laboratory, the workshop, the "inventorium" was deeply refreshing to my soul. I continued.
"Other elements are much less reactive and need to be coaxed and cajoled to mix and match with their fellow elemental materials. And some" (I paused dramatically to capture the attention of my student) "react not only with others but within themselves... Pitchblende for example."
He nodded knowingly.
"Your work found that refined pitchblende when compressed at significant pressures created a reaction within itself that generated heat so significant that it could be used as a fuel source. All Lady Porkshanks and I did was improve the process and apply it to the boiler."
"Of course professor, but I know all this - how is this to help dispose of the evil book? We cannot boil it away?"
I wondered if he was being purposefully obtuse or was he simply playing his role as student for my benefit. Playing along I leaned in slightly to look him more closely in the eye.
"Why, Jesse, does the boiler operate at fixed temperature?"
"Because the unique properties of the compressed pitchblende generates heat a predictable rate."
My internal fire was beginning to glow as I assembled the first of several components.
"Why is it not hotter?"
"Because we have compressed it to its limits."
Raising an eyebrow I peered over my spectacles and asked, "Have we?"
His eyes widened. I had his undivided attention.
I cleared my throat for emphasis.
"What if, my friend, we had only reached the limits of our ability to compress the matter and with the application greater pressures we could release greater energy? What do you suppose the released energy could reach?"
Jesse stood, almost at attention, he stammered with excitement
"The.. the potential is... staggering! From what I recall from the tables I created when I charted the output potentials... With sufficient pressure the matter might reach a point at which the output of energy would exceed the matter's own ability to contain it! The results could be... dare I say it? Incalculable!" His look suddenly turned quizzical. "But how in heaven's name will we achieve such pressures out here with limited facilities? We'd need a press ten times the size we used previously to even approach such levels."
"Who", I inquired, "said anything about a press?"
"But.." was his only reply. I changed my tact.
"Jesse, what happens to the powder in a shell when the rifle cartridge is struck by a firing pin?"
"The primer ignites the powder and it explodes."
"And why does the rifle not explode?"
"Because the barrel is made of steel and the force of the explosion is used to push the projectile out the barrel. Professor you know all this."
"True... but indulge me. What would happen to that projectile if a heavy steel plate we placed inches from the muzzle?"
"Well naturally it would.. be.. COMPRESSED!" His excitement was palpable, and contagious."and if we were to do that with the Pitchblende..."
"Precisely!" I shouted "You have the keenest knowledge of explosives out of all of us. I propose we construct a vessel that directs not one but multiple charges inward, simultaneously, to compress the Pitchblende so completely that it releases all it's potential energy at once!"
Without another word Jesse leapt into action. Down the corridor to raid the arms cupboard, back to his quarters to gather supplies from his private collection; he returned to the workshop loaded to overflowing.
For hours we labored, stopping neither for food nor drink but only necessary consultation and conversation. For my part I extracted the extra supplies of Pitchblende from storage and continued to construct the containment vessel.
By mid afternoon our efforts reached their conclusion.
Based on Jesse's knowledge of explosive forces and our experience with compressed Pitchblende we calculated the potential heat and resultant explosive force that would be released from the device would be so significant that we'd need to be several miles distant at detonation.
That required not only a trigger but also a timer... something like a pocket watch. Since all our pocket watches had failed since our arrival in this dreaded place I would need construct a new non-mechanical 'pocket watch'. For that I would need a tin can, barbed wire and a few bits of string and chewing gum.
* * * *
Power Mad I used under Creative Commons license: Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
Power Mad III - used under Creative Commons license: Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
Bric 1 - By John Edgar Park - used under Creative Commons License Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
www.flickr.com/photos/elsie/2197737299/ - used under Creative Commons license Attribution 2.0 Generic
Fire Engine Gauges - used under creative commons license Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
Chemist's Lab Tools - by curious expeditions - under creative commons license Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic
Additional material by MofoJT II
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 14/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
conspiracy.....and now, I'm matching mommies w/ babies in the 'family-platoon-unit' 3mommies +1mommies=4mommies and 1 w/o? 2 pics r of me & mommy & me &(relative)
1st row: a baby pic of me in color...and my relative: huang yun zhen in black & white: I am obviously not of vietnamese origin. after further investigation with symbolic inferences, deductive/inductive reasoning:conclusion: I was 'taken' stolen' from my illuminated mom & dad by the political, religious, dynastic factions: all had a hand in this royal rumble dynasty conspiracy, I was an experimental baby:my mom born me when she was a bit older. on the same row: next picture 2 color photo of Clare:aka:'Phuong' and 2 pics of her biological mom : the other mole: Phong Le: aka:'Lucy' in black & white photo: Phong le is of philippine origin not vietnamese that makes Clare 'vo' schneider not vietnamese either. but phong le and chi v. vo the other mole who's not vietnamese either but chi is mostly likely indonesian, both had a hand or played a part (most likely pawns) in this royal dynastic political, religious, criminal conspiracy : they know dorothy 'hickey' boese & john boese who also hand a part in this conspiracy and also they know a couple of 'nguyens' most likely some of the nguyen dynasty' linked to madame nhu: a power hungry damn 'bitch' in my eyes after reading about her & her bio.
2nd row: two color photo of joan or her vietnamese name: chung( chung vo-williamson) and her vietnamese biological mom's photo in black & white: after further investigation and symbolic inferences, inductive, deductive reasoning, what happen to joan/chung's real mom is that her mom was a victim or a casuality of war: mainly the vietnam war...the bombing of and mind fields and 'search and destroy' mission of that nature. on the same row: is a black and white photo of Chris aka: 'Dinh' (chris v vo married to christina mervyn/mervin). His real mother is also missing and is of mix chinese and japanese origin, so that makes Chris/'dinh' not vietnamese either. sea the conspiracy unfolding people! After further investigation, symbolic inferences, inductive and deductive reasoning: I believe there was a switcharoo somewhere when we were all babies, where "Nadia Lee' aka: 'Mai' or pronounced: 'My': a vietnamese not chinese or japanese, or korean etc... who knew dorothy hickey and john boese and was an adopted daughter of an american 'politician'...they might have switch places with what chris/'dinh's ethnicity should have been and should have grown up to be: Nadia Lee grew up as a 'chinese' bilingual management consultant and enjoyed many adventure and excellent food around the world then became romance writer, & shares an apartment overlooking a river/ palm trees with japan husband & winter white'hamster'...so now we know what true ethnicity offspring chris/dinh is of: mix japan/chinese
3rd row: is of my real biological mother in black & white and a picture of me in color: I am the daughter of the illuminated li-family royal bloodline & van duyn royal bloodline: the daughter of huang man li:aka: Mary Je, Mary Wong, Wong man Lei, Wong man Li, huang man Li's illuminated daughter of the ancestrial lineage of the 'Perfect Empress' & Tang/ Tartar-Tang/ Silla-Tang royal dynasty' and of eurasian: dutch van duyn royal bloodline...etc...and I am obviously not of vietnamese origin but an offspring of eurasia: with dutch, chinese, japanese, korean blood and descendent! on the same row: is a photo of Pete: aka 'Hiep'(pete/hiep v vo) with no photo of his biological mother but I've found a photo of one of his relatives: an older brother or father or cousin which I've post in this flickr already. after further investigation and symbolic inferences, inductive and deductive reasoning and information leaking out from 'perfect' war veterans and 'perfect' strangers: the culture and ethicity of his relative: a photo of his dad, or elder brother or could be a cousin: is of Thailand origin, similar facial features/ skin tone as of Thailand people. Pete's/hiep's real mom's where about in my educated guess, I believe pete's real mom was a victim of international people/sex trafficking, some part of asia, bangkok, Thailand are known for that.There's a movie that came out in 2010-2011 called the 'whistleblower' which is symbolic to I believe what might have happened to 'pete's/hiep's real mother. A lot of the recent movies have been symbolic of us 5 'surrogate' siblings and other people in my personal/love and business/professional life...and they are symbolically true...I know and I can decipher the truth in every recent movies and tv series that came out from 2004 and 'beyond' and that word 'beyond' is a key trigger word for the 'perfect' perfecture euasian illuminated royal babies as a secret society hidden meaning or a 'mark' like 'enjoy' or the 'joy' of life, aye maties! ;) the motive was to stigmatize, exploit, and discard as 'garbage' of the royal 'stolen' iluminated hybrid babies or any stolen 'kidnapped purebred illuminated babies for that matter. And in reality the stolen illuminated babies, we're not at all commoners or 'garbage' but real monarch descendents of royal imperial court of ancient and modern empires, kings, queens, prince, princess, dukes, duchess, and earls of the high royal court! This is the real motive of the lower criminal conduits to get into the royal bloodline, exploit and discard/do away with the royal target that has leaked out for me to know: to that I say: the only 'garbage' and vile shitheads are the filty kidnapping crooks themselves. I'm pretty sure they will get what they derserve in the end! aye maties...it's still call treason to still any family members of the royal monarch court whether they are hybrids or purebrid illuminated babies, aye maties!;)
So, now we all know that us 5 unrelated siblings who were unwittingly forced to be 'surrogate' siblings was carefullly, mythodically orchestrated for this conspiracy across the board to happen. information leaked out that pete, joan, chris, clare are not of the enlightened bloodline but are now wrapped up in other secret society bloodline ...they were all told and knew about the conspiracy before I was aware of the conspiracy, obviously 'cuz I was the royal hybrid 'target'. To what extent that the other 4 'surrogate' siblings knew about it and when they were told ( in childhood, or adolescent or adulthood) I don't know but I don't blame them for what conspired 'cuz they've lost their biological parents too, but I do believe they should have informed me in some symbolic way if they knew about the conspiracy when they were kids, so that I could have prepared myself, and have an equal footingin and bettter fighting chance..an equalibrium in this orchestrated conspiracy chess match and game of life!
The stage was set for pete, joan, chris & clare in their academic life, professional life and personal life, so I'm sure it was in their best interest to keep it hidden from me, after all it's not them that the conspirators were really 'targeting' but it's me that the conspirators are targeting. So, a lot is at stake for everyone involved, that means the whole fucking world, aye maties! It's a political, religious, royal dynastic chess game, I would have to say! I think we all know that by now! Aye maties! and to that I'll have to say: it's a wrap!and...Once again, I am to return again!
Encore une fois Ashley T. van Lee: Ashley (Jane) T. van lee, Ashley T. Lee, Jane, Anna, Hana, Hansi, hee young, hwa young, Gia, Jean, Jan, jianne, shena, sheena, Jian: all varaiant of my given name: 'gracious gift of god' est de retour! jaz7 jaz7-livejournal, aj7aj13, 'AJ'
Reasoning that a building with a clock tower was going to look like a church no matter what he did, Withers decided to add church-like touches with non-religious content, such as the tympanum which shows a scene from The Merchant of Venice instead of the usual scene of Christ sitting in judgment.
i know i kind of vanished from the flickr-world a while back and i'm so very sorry for that. my reasoning isn't anything spectacular. i simply did not have the time to devote any extra energy or effort to my 365-day photo project, or photography for that matter.
i was putting so much pressure on myself to finish this damn project and i think it was showing in my work. so i took a little break from photography.
i took this over thanksgiving break. and i have a few other things that i edited today. i'll ease my way back into the photography world. maybe not as quick as i want myself to, but i will.
thank you for all of your support.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 08/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied.
Some of the wealth of field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimantary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed 17/01/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 12/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
Description:
Near the end of the 19th century, commercial interests in Philadelphia felt that they were at a great disadvantage compared to other major port cities due to the shallowness of the Delaware River. The drafts of large ocean carriers exceeded the depth of the Delaware River, forcing these vessels to call at New York, Boston, or Baltimore. To remedy this situation, a “Joint Committee on the Improvement of the Harbor of Philadelphia and the Delaware and Schuykill Rivers” was formed. This committee urged the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge a new 30-foot-deep and 600-foot-wide channel in the Delaware River, based on the following reasoning:
The importance of this improvement to the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, and the great West, can hardly be overstated. The Delaware River is the natural maritime outlet of an area of over 54,000 square miles, with a population of nearly 7,000,000 people. This area covers the manufacturing, coal, iron, steel, oil, and shipbuilding centers of the United States; and without a proper channel to the sea, the movement of these products to the markets of the world is embarrassed, and the cost of transportation is greatly increased.
Swayed by this argument, Congress passed a river and harbor act on March 3, 1899 that authorized this improvement. As the new channel did not always align with the existing channel, the Lighthouse Service was forced to relocate some of its existing range lights and erect additional ones. In 1901, two parcels of land were purchased for a new range to be called the Reedy Island Range. $1,050 was spent to acquire 35 acres of marshland on the Delaware River between the mouths of the Appoquinimink River and Blackbird Creek for the front range, and a 5.62 acre parcel, located 2.8 miles to the southwest in the village of Taylors Bridge, was purchased at a cost of $525 for the rear range.
Reedy Island Rear Range Lighthouse
Photograph courtesy U.S. Coast Guard
A Notice to Mariners, dated January 27, 1904, announced that on February 16, 1904, the Reedy Island Range Lights would be established. In this same notice, the name of the New Reedy Island Range was changed to Baker Range, and the former Reedy Island Range, which consisted of a front range on the southern end of Reedy Island and a rear range in Port Penn, was renamed Old Reedy Island Range. Though the name changes were likely to cause confusion for some time, the new lights hopefully simplified navigation on the Delaware River.
Temporary lights had to be used initially on the Reedy Island Range, as work on permanent structures for the range would not begin for almost two more years. The temporary front light consisted of a fixed white reflector-light mounted on a pole. The pole also had a white, triangular, slatted daymark to aid navigation. The initial rear light was also a fixed, white light but was displayed at an elevation of 120 feet from a pole with a black, triangular, slatted daymark.
A 46-page booklet, featuring specifications and fourteen drawings for the front range lighthouse, was distributed to potential bidders in 1904. By October of the following year, a contractor had been selected and work on the station had commenced. The lighthouse was described in the 1907 List of Lights and Fog Signals on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States as a “white, square, two-story wooden house, on columns, and having lead-colored trimmings, green blinds, a brown roof, and a veranda entirely around it; lantern on front slope of roof.” Besides the lighthouse, an oil house and boathouse were also constructed, and on October 25, 1906, the reflector light was removed from the pole and placed in the lantern room of the newly completed lighthouse.
The permanent Reedy Island Rear Range Lighthouse would be a little longer in coming. The Lighthouse Board originally intended to discontinue the Finn’s Point Range in New Jersey and relocate its tall skeletal tower, which had stood since 1876, to serve as the Reedy Island Rear Range Light. However, pressure from mariners convinced the Lighthouse Board to retain the Finn’s Point Range, even though it served a similar section of the shipping channel. The Board had to thus request $19,500 in 1906 to cover the expense of a new tower, and Congress didn’t authorize the additional sum until May 27, 1908.
In the meantime, work did begin on the station’s eight-room keeper’s dwelling, oil house and barn on May 7, 1906. The dwelling was a two-story structure with a hipped-roof and a large porch ringed by Tuscan columns. The 1910 U.S. Lighthouse Service Annual Report provides the following description of the lighthouse that was completed at the rear station that year.
The tower is a cast-iron cylindrical structure surmounted by a watch room and octagonal lantern, accessible from below by a spiral stairway enclosed in a cast-iron cylinder. It rests on nine concrete foundation piers and has concrete steps at the entrance door. The total height of the tower is about 125 feet. It is to have a fifth-order range lens lighted by a fourth-order incandescent oil-vapor lamp.
Keeper Aaron Kimmey and his wife Annie
The lighthouse’s watch room and lantern room are each encircled by a gallery, and the range lens was supplied by the Macbeth-Evans Glass Co. of Pittsburgh. On July 27, 1910, the lamp inside the skeletal tower was lit for the first time, and the temporary light on the pole was discontinued.
Keeper Aaron Kimmey had the opportunity to serve at both the front and rear Reedy Island lights. After having been stationed at Egg Island and Brandywine Shoal, Kimmney served from February to April of 1911 at the Reedy Island Front Range Lighthouse, before receiving his final assignment to the rear range light. Living away from the waters of the Delaware River and Bay was a change for Kimmey, but he and his family made good use of the arable land at the rear range station. The family (Aaron, Annie and their four daughters) planted a large garden and several fruit trees and soon reaped a bounteous harvest of corn, lima beans, apples and pears. This produce helped the family survive on the notoriously low keepers’ pay - $516 per year for Kimmey’s assignment.
After more than fifteen years at the Reedy Island Rear Range Lighthouse, Keeper Kimmey’s wife Annie awoke around 5:30 a.m. on January 12, 1927 to prepare breakfast. Kimmey told his wife to let him rest a while before going downstairs, and he then passed away in her arms. Ten months before Kimmey died, the family doctor had diagnosed him with “hyperstrophe” of the heart, and it was the doctor’s opinion that “going up and down long flights of steps as the lighthouse” had contributed to his death.
In 1951, the function of the front range lighthouse was replaced by an automated light on a steel tower, and by the end of that decade all the buildings at the station were gone. When the rear range light was automated, the associated buildings were sold into private hands. Although the dwelling was inhabited, it and the other buildings did not receive proper upkeep, and over time their condition slowly deteriorated. On the evening of April 6, 2002, a fire destroyed the dwelling and caused significant damage to the oil house. Today, only the station’s old wooden barn remains standing next to the still-active lighthouse.
References
1. Historic American Engineering Record for Reedy Island Range Rear Light.
2. Guiding Lights of the Delaware River & Bay, Jim Gowdy and Kim Ruth, 1999.
3. “The Vanishing Legacy of Keeper Aaron Kimmey,” Bob Trapani, Jr., Lighthouse Digest, September
For more stories like this, visit www.jaysjourneys.com.
The Back-Story
I had tried unsuccessfully 3 times to hike the High Divide loop this year. The first time I just got lazy and decided that a weekend at home sounded nice. The second time, my job at the last minute required me to be at home for some on-line training over the weekend. The third time I was due for an overnight hike and thought I would drive out to the campground at Sol Duc on a Saturday, camp and get a really early start the next morning and do the whole loop in a day. As I was packing to leave on Saturday the 19th, I got a phone call and learned that my brother had passed away. Needless to say my plans for the weekend had changed. I won’t get into all the details but I will say that his passing was unexpected and the cause at this point is unknown. Needing time to reflect on his life, needing some time to myself to reflect on the things that are important to me and my family and really needing to finally get this trail on my ‘been there done that’ list, I decided to head out on Saturday the 26th of Sept 2009 to hike it.
The Hike
I got up at 4:45 AM and was out the door by 5:00. Driving from Silverdale, I got to the trailhead at 7:15 AM, beating Google Maps drive time prediction by 15 minutes. I was on the trail at 7:20 and it was already light out but the sun had not yet arrived in the Sol Duc River Valley. Taking my time hiking, not wanting to maintain a breakneck speed, yet not taking much in the way of rest breaks, I figured if I maintained a 2 mph pace throughout the hike I would be done with the hike in about 9 hours or so. I figured I should be done around 4:30 PM giving me plenty of daylight left as this time of the year it gets dark around 7:15 PM. So after hiking for a couple miles, I had Yogi on the brain and I was intermittently calling out “hey bear, Yogi bear” to give warning to any bears that might be in the area, even though I knew they were probably all up in the higher alpine zone eating berries. After calling out to the bears on my third or fourth time, I heard a crashing in the woods to my left. I looked up to see what was moving and it was a big Roosevelt bull elk. He ran up the trail in front of me and paused long enough for me to take his picture but my flash went off and the picture came out black. The elk ran again and I figured he was gone so I put my camera away. No more than 500 yards up the trail, I look up and there he is again, standing in the middle of the trail. I dug my camera out to shoot him but he was on to me and he bolted again. OK, this time I’m not going to put the camera away. I hiked on and he was on the trail again just like last time except now I had my camera out, I just needed to turn it on. Snap, damn flash again! This time he runs up hill. I tried desperately to take his picture but it just wasn’t meant to be I guess. I did get one but it was so blurry you can barely tell there is an Elk in it. Oh well. I hiked on. Before coming here I had asked a few people which was the best direction to go on the loop. Clockwise or CCW? I received advice from both people claiming one way was better than the other. In the end, I listened to my friend Mike’s reasoning that the lighting was better for photos during the time of day I would be hiking if I went CW, but I can see why a lot of people would go the other direction, the views are different. If you go clockwise, you will have a long gradual approach before you gain much elevation. It is mostly a river valley hike in the woods for a good 5 or 6 miles before you get many views. Eventually you do start to climb a little and you will get to Sol Duc Park where there is a campground. I didn’t see anyone at the campground when I arrived, in fact I only saw one couple on the trail up to this point. They were camped at the little campsite at Rocky Creek near the Appleton Pass junction and it looked like they had just woke up. I had already been on the trail for a couple of hours by that point. When you get close to Sol Duc Park, the forest opens up a little and there are some nice meadows filled with blueberries. My sense of smell is not what it used to be, due to allergies and medications to allergies I have taken in the past. Something has to have a pretty strong scent usually before I can smell it, so maybe it was my imagination or maybe it was real, but I could swear I could smell the blueberries. It smelled just like blueberry pie to me, and it was such a strong scent. The blueberries themselves were everywhere. I stopped several times to munch on them, they were fantastic. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many blueberries, the bushes were just loaded with them. The bears wouldn’t go hungry this year! So after Sol Duc Park, the trail climbs again for a mile or two and crosses a little stream. The creek is the outlet stream of Heart Lake. I have seen Heart in pictures on-line and in books for many years and was excited to see it in person. When I got close, a couple returning from their overnight hike stopped and I asked them if they had seen any bears. The gentleman said that he saw the biggest bear he had ever seen the night before near the privy and said it must have weighed at least a thousand pounds. I pointed out the bear I could see up on the mountainside that looked like a speck it was so far away. Him and his wife said they saw it earlier but had lost track of it and were happy to see it again. Now I don’t know if black bears get up to a thousand lbs or not, but I will take his word that it was a big bear. I’m not surprised really with the amount of berries they have to eat this year. So I finally reach Heart Lake and I’m not too impressed. Maybe it’s all the people congregating near the outlet stream as I first see it, I don’t know. I didn’t even stop. I just kept on hiking past it. Once I got near the top and looked down, I was much happier and could see the famous heart shape it was named for. I was very close to my first views of Olympus and I was pretty stoked! I hiked on and finally reached the divide. It was magnificent. Olympus was much bigger than I imagined. Of course I had seen Olympus before, just never this close. I was very impressed. I hiked a little further and stopped to take a bunch of pictures and videos. I could see clouds down in the Hoh Valley and I wanted to make sure I got some good shots before any clouds obscured the view. After taking a bunch of photos, I was standing there just mesmerized by the beauty of the whole thing, reflecting on the hike. Thinking about my brother and the life he led. Thinking about my life and what I could do to improve upon it, how I could be a better husband and father. All of a sudden, during my reverie, some of the clouds from the valley started spinning around all crazy like and I took what I consider to be one of the better photos I have ever taken. It certainly is odd to say the least. I won’t go so far as to say I see Jesus in it or that its anything other than a big swirl in the cloud, but look at it and let it speak for itself. I don’t think I could ever come close to taking that picture again, even if I made it my life’s ambition. I think it was a one in a million shot, at least for me. So getting done with the photo shoot, I hike on and start seeing more people on the trail. I get to a point where I can finally see the Seven Lakes Basin and I pass a guy with a day pack coming from the other way. I said to him “nice day for a day hike”. He said it was and that he thought we were at about the half way point. I looked at my GPS and we were indeed about 9 miles into it. The trip was half over. On I hiked with Olympus on the left of me and the Lakes Basin on the right. Expansive views in every direction. These are the reasons for which I hike. Soon I came to a little side trail and there was a guy sitting there picking blueberries. After consulting my map I came to the conclusion that this was the side trail to Bogachiel Peak. I asked the blueberry picker how far it was to the top and he said “only five minutes, definitely worth it”. Two minutes later as I stood at the top, someone’s cell phone rings and he starts a conversation with someone else, laughing about how he can’t believe he has reception up here blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Bogachiel was too crowded for me so I took a couple pictures and left. The berry picker asked how I liked it and I said it was nice but a little crowded. He apologized and said that was his group up there which made me feel like a jerk for saying that. Sometimes I forget that the mountains are for everyone and not just my own pleasure. It’s hard to share sometimes but I don’t go there to be around people and phones and all that nonsense. I go to the mountains to free myself from it. To be able to fart or scratch my butt whenever I want to, or unlike when I’m in my car, to actually be able to pick my nose and not be seen doing so! I won’t go so far as to say that I’m looking forward to hike naked day, but I think you catch my drift. Soon I’m walking over to the junction of the Hoh Trail which rests on a neat little saddle. There are more people congregating here so I pass them and take a few shots of the junction which also marks the beginning of my downhill trek and final leg of the hike. Only 8 miles to the car! So on the way down, the trail skirts below Bogachiel Peak and with the fall colors, the hillside is very beautiful. As I’m hiking down I keep hearing a shrill whistle that I think is a hawk but all I see flying around is a big raven. I keep hiking and the whistle gets louder and louder occurs every time the big raven flies by. I notice movement on the hillside and see a great big old marmot watching me and I realize that it is the marmot whistling not a hawk. So this is why it’s called a whistle pig. I have seen lots of Marmots before, but I never recall hearing one whistle. It is much louder than I thought it would be. It must have been whistling to warn it’s friends of the big raven that was flying around. Down the trail I went, looking over my shoulder the whole way to see what I might have missed by doing the trail clockwise. Soon I was at the Seven Lakes Basin trail. I passed a couple of ladies on their way up and they said hi as we passed. One of the ladies turned and said “oh by the way there is a big bear sitting on the trail about 40 paces down the way”. I say oh really? She says no just kidding. Hardy har har. I actually wanted to see a bear other than one so far away it looked like a little speck, oh well. After a while I let a couple of people pass me as they keep gaining on me every time I stop to take a picture. Before long I am passing them again as they stop to throw rocks in an un-named lake just before Deer Lake. I stop too as I haven’t had lunch yet and I wanted to give them a chance to hike ahead of me so I don’t have to listen to them prattle on about God knows what (did I mention I enjoy my solitude?). It must have been around 2:00 PM or so when I stopped and it was nice to take a break after so many hours without really stopping for more than five minutes at a time. I took a good 20 minute break, ate a sandwich and took some pictures of the little lake. Soon I was hiking again and came to another lake, could this be the Deer Lake I see on the map? More photos of the nice reflections on the lake and I was off again. Not much further and I see a little wooden boardwalk style trail going through a marshy area and I see a sign that says welcome to Deer Lake. Oh good, now only a little over 3 ½ miles to go. Up to this point in my hiking career, the farthest I have ever hiked was a trip I did when I was much younger up to Flapjack Lakes and back which, if memory serves me correctly is about 16 miles round trip. On this hike I felt pretty tired at about mile 12 but once I got to around mile 16 I felt like a second wind had come on. Down the trail I went, deeper into the valley towards the Sol Duc. I eventually came to a bridge crossing the Canyon Creek which the trail follows from Deer Lake. Not much farther now. I finally reached Sol Duc Falls. There were people milling about and I felt kind of sorry for them. Sol Duc Falls is pretty but nothing compared to what I had seen today. Oh yeah, as an afterthought I took a picture of the falls too. Only .7 miles to go! Up ahead I saw someone that looked familiar. It was the day hiker that I passed going the other way at the top of the divide. I called to him and he slowed down to let me catch up so we could chit-chat. I compared notes with him and found out that he started hiking only five minutes earlier than I did. Upon further investigation I discovered that he had been to several of the same hikes that I had done this year. We both hiked Burroughs Mountain at Mount Rainier on the same weekend. We both hiked some of the same hikes in the gorge this spring. We both hiked Umtanum over near Yakima this year. What a small world, and how odd to go in different directions of the loop starting and ending at almost the exact same times. Before I knew it I was back at my car. The time was 4:40 PM so I was pretty close to my estimation of 9 hours hiking time. What a great hike. Maybe I will do it again next year from the other direction.
This trip report is dedicated to the memory of my brother Jeff Steveson.
Aug 25th 1959 – Sept 19th 2009
Rest in Peace Brother
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident, and subsequently eroded by water flow revealing the strata/layers.
Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 11/10/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Photographed in Cyberjaya, Malaysia
Colour : Creamy White
Assembly : Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia
I drive an Inokom Elantra ! ... said no Malaysian ever. Well, believe it or not, the Hyundai Elantra MD goes by the official name of Inokom Elantra in Malaysia. The reasoning behind the name change is very straightforward; Inokom is the Malaysian company which assembles the Hyundai Elantra (alongside its siblings) in the small city of Kulim in the state of Kedah, which is 200 miles to the north of Kuala Lumpur, and right beside Penang. Aside from the badge and name, the Inokom Elantra is for the most part identical to any other Elantra MD. The car originally came with Inokom badges as standard, but most buyers swapped out said badges with Hyundai ones. The practice became so common, that Inokom now offers buyers the optional choice between the two badges.
Another 'unwanted' feature that plagues the Inokom Elantra is its below average build quality, which lags considerably behind the American and Korean-made Elantras. Nonetheless, Inokom has upped their game significantly from their experience assembling the previous generation Elantra, which had even worse build quality. Inokom has improved so much, that the management in Seoul has recently contracted the company with exporting the facelifted 2014 Hyundai Elantra to neighbouring Thailand, where previously Inokom had mostly catered to the domestic consumption.
The Hyundai Elantra MD itself is a brilliant car, considering how much of an improvement it is over its predecessor. Hyundai has really outdone themselves here, with the Fluidic Sculpture design language being one the Elantra MD's most prominent features. Despite the many improvements, the Elantra MD has not sold particularly well in Malaysia.
I LIKE : Looks awesome. Powered driver's seat. Huge improvement over the previous gen. Elantra. Reasonably priced for what you get.
I DISLIKE : Interior looks and feels a bit cheap. Not nearly as refined as its main competitors. Not nearly as competent as its European-made i30 sibling.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some of the wealth of evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimantary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow.
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 18/01/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 14/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The field example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident,
Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. photographed 04/06/2018, formed several months earlier and in the early stages of consolidation.
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
"A team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia. One example is the publication of a report in 2007 by the Lithology and Mineral Resources journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It concerns the Crimean Peninsular. It shows that the time of sedimentation of the sequence studied corresponds to a virtually instantaneous episode whilst according to stratigraphy it took several millions of years. Moreover, a recent report concerning the North-West Russian plateau in the St. Petersburg region shows that the time of sedimentation was much shorter than that attributed to it by the stratigraphic time-scale: 0.05% of the time."
www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 03/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
The African Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana) is the larger of the two species of African elephant. The other species is the closely related Forest Elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis). The African Bush Elephant is also known as the Bush Elephant or Savanna Elephant.
The Bush Elephant is the largest living terrestrial animal, normally reaching 6 to 7.3 m in length and 2,4 to 3.5 m in height at the shoulder, and weighing between 2,400 to 8,000 kg. The animal is characterized by its large head; two large ears that cover its shoulders and radiate excess heat; a large and muscular trunk; two prominent tusks, which are well-developed in both sexes. African Bush Elephants are herbivorous.
The African Elephant is an intelligent animal. Experiments with reasoning and learning show that they are the smartest ungulates together with their Asian cousins.
The adult African Bush Elephant generally has no natural predators due to its great size, but the calves (especially the newborn) are vulnerable to lion and crocodile attacks, and (rarely) to leopard and hyena attacks. The Bush Elephant normally moves at a rate of 6 km/h, but it can reach a top speed of 40 km/h when scared or upset.
Humans are the elephant's major predator. Elephants have been hunted for meat, skin, bones, and tusks. Elephant trophy hunting increased in the 19th and 20th centuries, when tourism and plantations increasingly attracted sport hunters. In 1989, hunting of the African Bush Elephant for ivory trading was forbidden, after the elephant population fell from several million at the beginning of the 20th century to fewer than 750,000. Trophy hunting continues today. The population of African Bush Elephants was halved during the 1980s. Poaching is still common. CITES still considers the species as threatened with extinction.
This picture is taken at Ouwehands Dierenpark, Zoo in Rhenen, the Netherlands
De savanneolifant (Loxodonta africana) is de grootste en bekendste van de twee Afrikaanse olifanten (Loxodonta). Voorheen werd de verwante bosolifant (Loxodonta cyclotis) beschouwd als een ondersoort van de savanneolifant, maar tegenwoordig worden de twee dieren beschouwd als aparte soorten.
De savanneolifant is het grootste landdier. Een bul weegt tussen de 3500 en 8000 kg, een koe 2400 tot 4500 kg. Ze worden 240 tot 350 cm hoog en 6 tot 7,3 m lang.
Zijn dikke huid is lichtgrijs tot zwartgrijs of bruin van kleur. De oren zijn veel groter als bij de Aziatische olifant. De grote oren zijn rijk doorbloed, waardoor ze het lichaam kunnen afkoelen. Veel warmte kan via de oren ontsnappen als de olifant met deze wappert.
Zowel mannetjes als vrouwtjes hebben grote, naar voren gebogen slagtanden. De poten zijn hoog en zuilvormig. De slurf van de savanneolifant is lang en flexibel, en kan gebruikt worden als vijfde ledemaat.
De savanneolifant kwam vroeger in bijna geheel Afrika voor, met uitzondering van de droogste plekken van de Sahara en in de regenwoudgordel van West- en Centraal-Afrika. In het regenwoud leeft de verwante bosolifant. Soms leven beide soorten naast elkaar. Tegenwoordig is savanneolifant uitgestorven in Noord-Afrika en leeft hij op slechts een handvol plaatsen in Zuid- en West-Afrika.
Hij kan overleven in alle landschappen, van woestijnen tot regenwouden, van kusten tot gebergten, maar hij is vooral algemeen op savanne en grasland.
Savanneolifanten ontwortelen bomen, graven waterputten en trappen de begroeiing plat, waardoor heel nieuwe leefgebieden ontstaan en bos verandert in savanne.
Olifanten zijn niet kieskeurig en eten zowat alles wat plantaardig is.
In de jaren dertig en veertig van de vorige eeuw waren er vijf tot tien miljoen olifanten in Afrika. Tegenwoordig zijn het er waarschijnlijk 500.000 tot 750.000.
Er wordt nog altijd illegaal op gejaagd voor het ivoor en andere jachttrofeeën, maar ook worden ze gedood omdat ze landbouwgebieden verwoesten.
Daarentegen zijn er voor weinig diersoorten zoveel beschermingsmaatregelen genomen als voor de savanneolifant, en op veel plekken is hun aantal stabiel of zelfs stijgende.
Deze foto is genomen in Ouwehands Dierenpark in Rhenen.
Documentation source: Wikipedia (EN and NL)
______________________________________________________________________
Site Ouwehands Dierenpark / Zoo in Dutch, English and German: www.ouwehand.nl/
______________________________________________________________________
All rights reserved. Copyright © Martien Uiterweerd. All my images are protected under international authors copyright laws and may not be downloaded, reproduced, copied, transmitted or manipulated without my written explicit permission.
______________________________________________________________________
I am terrible at estimating. I once had to estimate how many M&Ms were in a one-gallon bucket. After several minutes of deductive reasoning, I came up with my answer: 1,385,410. I went over the actual amount. Not long ago a man asked me what the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot were. I asked him for details on the number of lottery numbers, etc. He said that I would have to choose five numbers between one and sixty-nine and then choose a Powerball number between one and twenty-six. I thought back many decades ago when I took an algebra class. Classmates said we would never use it during our lives, but I was about prove them wrong. Instead of making a wild estimate, I wrote down an algebraic equation and inserted the values the man just told me. The first answer I got was one in five hundred and ninety-six. He told me that was the stupidest answer he ever heard. I wiped away the tears and checked my formula again. I had entered the wrong number of white balls. I then corrected that, recalculated, and arrived at my new and hopefully not stupid answer. I told him that the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot were in the neighborhood of one in 292,201,338. He shook his head in disgust and informed me that no one in their right mind would even play that game if the odds of winning were that bad.
My older brother, Rex, used to tell me that the odds of someone falling out of an airplane AND being struck by lightning were better than winning the Powerball jackpot. Sadly, two years after he told me that, he was riding along with a friend taking a test needed to get a pilot’s license. My brother's friend and the instructor sat up front while Rex sat in back, taking photos of the Earth below. At some point, my brother’s friend looked to his right and saw a flock of seagulls flying over the forest. Rex wanted to get some great photos of the birds. He leaned over toward the door and the door flew open. Rex fell thousands of feet to his death. He hated seat belts with a passion. His body wasn’t found for three days. A man was hiking in the forest when a thunderstorm broke out. He started to run back to his car when he saw something in a tree. It looked like a human body. He started to run toward the tree when a lightning bolt struck the tree and then my brother. During the service for Rex, I decided to not tell that story. I instead told them the story of when Rex used to pee on me when I was sleeping. That went on for about seven months. Everyone laughed, but all I thought about was how much better my senior year would have been if he didn’t do that.
In some circles of environmental management, the common phrase is "Dilution is the Solution to Pollution". This must be the reasoning why the state of Ohio allows drilling companies to spread brine or produced water, also known as the toxic waste from hydraulic fracturing for natural gas along Ohio's roadways. Up to 10% of this radioactive, cancerous, overly salted and mysterious byproduct is spread on gravel roads to suppress dust and used as a deicer on the roads. While dilution occurs in snow events, there's not much dilution in dusty drought conditions. There are obvious inconsistencies between The Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency in regards to this improper disposal of toxic waste.
I certainly don't want this waste crusting over That Car #3!
ODNR says
"...BRINE HAULING AND SPREADING The spreading of oil-field brine is a legal, cost-effective, and efficient way to control dust and ice problems on local roads and private property in Ohio. Ohio’s UIC Program regulates the hauling and spreading of oil-field brine while local authorities, such as the County Commissioners and Township Trustees, permit the actual spreading on public roads and private property.
The Division reviews all local brine spreading resolutions and plans passed by the local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with state law. State law requires a minimum of nine brine spreading standards incorporated into all local resolutions. Local authorities have the power to require spreading standards that are more stringent than state law.
All registered brine haulers must have the identification number issued by the Division, the word “brine”, and the name and telephone number of the hauler on the sides or rear of their trucks. All of this information must be in reflective paint and the letters on the vehicle must be no less than four inches in height. Ohio oil-field brine is tracked from “cradle to grave” and all brine haulers must maintain a daily log in their trucks...." MORE:
www.ohiodnr.com/mineral/injection/tabid/10374/Default.aspx
EPA says
"....When oil and gas are extracted, large amounts of brine are typically brought to the surface. Often saltier than seawater, this brine can also contain toxic metals and radioactive substances. It can be very damaging to the environment and public health if it is discharged to surface water or the land surface. By injecting the brine deep underground, Class II wells prevent surface contamination of soil and water.
When states began to implement rules preventing disposal of brine to surface water bodies and soils, injection became the preferred way to dispose of this waste fluid. All oil and gas producing states require the injection of brine into the originating formation or into formations that are similar to those from which it was extracted....." MORE:
water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/
Columbus Dispatch says:
"...Required lab tests showed radium at levels 36 times higher than the state’s safety standard.Some critics say they worry that Ohio municipalities will spray shale brine on roadways in winter to combat ice. There are no restrictions against using shale-well brine on Ohio roadways.
Cities, townships and others now spray brine from conventional oil and gas wells. However, state officials say they routinely tell drilling companies to take shale wastewater to disposal wells...."
www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/03/gas-wel...
Akron Beacon Journal - February 2013 - if it's not good for our rivers, then why over our roads? Obviously, you can't expect "best practices" to always be followed. www.ohio.com/business/ohio-epa-investigating-dumping-of-d...
Columbus Dispatch - February 2013 "....Much of the injected water comes back up. In addition to spent fracking chemicals, it also includes naturally occurring toxic metals, radium and huge concentrations of salt....." www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/02/16/frackin...
Columbus Dispatch, March 2013 - Ohio doesn't participate in development of drilling safety standards..... like it is a good thing. "Ohio not part of nonbinding ‘fracking’ pact" www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/31/ohio-no...
Pittsburgh Post Gazette - August 1, 2013 - drilling companies take drastic measures to keep people quiet. "The non-disclosure agreement prohibiting Chris and Stephanie Hallowich from talking about the 2011 settlement of their high-profile Marcellus Shale damage case in Washington County, or saying anything about gas drilling and fracking, isn't unusual. It happens often in settling such cases. But the insistence that their two minor children, then ages 7 and 10, are also bound by the "gag order" is......" more: www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/washington/confidentia...
The Colonial the main feature in the film’s most memorable scene in 1958, The Run-Out. As a result, on a Friday night in the middle of July, an imaginary version of The Blob returns to Phoenixville’s local theater. The full house consisting of 500 people of all ages gathers inside the century-old theater to relive The Run-Out as if it were 1958 all over again. Mark Stuart, a Blobfest fan, recaps his time before The Blob’s showing in an interview with the AARP, “This is the seat where Tony sat and his girlfriend when Steve comes running up to tell them a monster has entered the city. We have to come here three hours early.” What is Stuart’s reasoning for such an early arrival? “My daughter Natalie, she’s four years old . . . insists that we sit in these seats.” If hundreds upon hundreds like the Stuarts show up early just to watch The Blob, think how many want to participate in its re-enactment. The lucky few who do enter try their best to cherish the tense final seconds before the big moment.Some of the most loyal fans repeat the movie’s lines for an even more realistic experience. YouTube videos document the faux screams and fake terror as 500 people trip and fall over each other as they exit the theater just like the original extras forty-plus years ago.
Check out the full story
pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/Blobfest.html
dai.ly/xlt3zd Full Feature Film
youtu.be/HCtcgI4BcIQ Theme Song: The Blob by the Five Blobs (1958)
As the last "A" venture of the 1950s in the sci-fi genre by a major studio, The Blob is a sort of landmark. The big studios would produce A-level sci-fi in the 60s, but by then, the mood and tenor of sci-fi films had left behind the simpler themes that marked the 50s. The Blob is pure 50s. A creature from space falls into small town America. In keeping with the trend of the later 50s, it is the spunky teens who manage to save the world. The Blob doesn't lack for production value, but does suffer from an almost adolescent identity crisis. It wavers between campy parody and a serious tale, never quite settling on either. The Blob endures as a memorable sample of 50s sci-fi culture. It was remade in the 1980s (in a more gore-centric 80s style). The B film that ran with The Blob has been nearly forgotten. I Married A Monster From Outer Space was a better movie than the title implies. It, too, was aimed at the teen audience.
Synopsis
Steve (McQueen) has Jane up at a lookout point on the pretense of looking for shooting stars, but kissing is what he's after. She's not that kind of girl. The awkward moment is broken by a falling meteor. They go investigate. On old man also investigates. He finds the volleyball sized meteor. He pokes it with a stick. It cracks open to reveal an orange-sized glob. He pokes this with his stick. it gloms onto his fingers. Steve and Jane find the old man in the road, writhing in pain. They take him to Doc Hallen. Doc sends them back out to find more clues. Meanwhile, the blob has grown. It eventually consumes the old man, then attacks Doc's nurse. It consumes Doc too, just as Steve returned without news. Steve glimpses Doc's demise. He tries to tell the police is not believed. From there, the blob consumes other late night townsfolk. Several scenes underscore how the adults don't believe "the kids" as they try to warn people. Eventually, the now giant blob attacks a theater full of people while all the adults are present. The blob engulfs a diner across the street, where Steve, Jane and a few others are holed up. No escape. High voltage shock does not kill the Blob, but does spark a fire in the diner. Using CO2 extinguishers, Steve notices that the blob recoils from cold. He gets word to the adults who round up all the CO2 extinguishers in town. With them, they chill and shrink the blob. Steve, Jane and the others escape. The blob is airlifted to the arctic. The End?
This is one of the classics of 50s sci-fi, so it has a certain mystique. The premise is pure 50s (a deadly invader from space). The "monster" as a faceless (and clawless) red mass is refreshingly different, even if it's not the first blob monster.
There is a sort of legacy connection to the Cold War, in that many of the prior invader movies were analogies for Cold War anxieties about invasion. By this time, however, invaders from space had started to become a trope unto themselves.
One of the fun features of The Blob is seeing the hackneyed solution fail. In many sci-fi films, high-voltage electricity is used to kill the monster. It started with The Thing in 1951 and persisted through the 50s and into the 60s. Good ol' electricity will save the Earth. The writers play to movie tradition. Audiences expected the power line to kill the blob. It doesn't. This was a fun twist. The blob cannot be killed. It can only be chilled.
The opening theme music, beneath the credits, has spawned much conversation. The jazzy, rock tempo and silly lyrics suggest a comedic parody of a monster movie. Yet, the movie itself is played out very much in earnest (aside from a few light comic-relief scenes). The dissonance is difficult for many to reconcile. From a teen-aged point of view, however, it's not so contradictory. The jazzy music reflects the teen mindset, out for an evening of fun and diversion at the movies. The movie itself is like a scary campfire story -- told in serious tones, but for entertainment.
Reflecting the trend of the late 50s, the protagonists in The Blob are high school teens. They are the smart ones, the responsible ones, the heroic ones who will save the world. The adults are cast as shallow fools. Only Policeman Dave and Doc Hallen get treated with any sympathy, and this only because they believe the teens. The screenplay definitely panders to its audience's ego -- teens are always right. This trend will stay in vogue awhile longer in movies, and eventually become embedded in American youth culture.
Paramount's 1958 blob is the better remembered blob monster, but it wasn't the first. Their blob was much like the one in X-The Unknown ('57), a UK film about a blob monster from within the earth. The '57 blob melted people with its radiation, but it 'fed' on isotopes. Like the '58 blob, it was semi-sentient in moving and seeking food. The "blood rust" of Space Master X-7 (June '58) was a blob-like fungus which did feed on human flesh, though it was less animate. It was suggested to have an intellect, but this was never evident.
Steve McQueen does a good enough job of acting his role as a semi-miscreant teen, but his face isn't up to the part. He was, at the time of shooting, in his late 20s. It takes a bit of willing suspension of belief to accept his as a high school boy.
Bottom line? The Blob is one of the 50s classics, so really ought not be missed. It's not high art. It is drive-in entertainment and can be appreciated as such.
Review
One of the more memorable low-budget 1950s monster movies, The Blob deals with a gelatinous alien mass which gobbles up a small town, growing bigger as it feeds on human beings. Steve McQueen is the good-hearted juvenile delinquent (okay, so he was 28) who tries to warn the adults, but they don't listen. This Pennsylvania-shot chiller has a number of well-done scenes, including an attack on a movie theater showing Daughter of Horror, as well as the standard drag-racing and other teenage hijinks. Aneta Corsaut plays McQueen's girlfriend, and Olin Howland is the old man with the stick in the film's creepy opening sequence. Kitschy, but fun, the film was followed by Son of Blob in 1972 and remade in 1988.
There should be enough clues there! We'd taken it to Cardiff on the 1115 from Paddington then travelled to Newport behind 47484 'Isembard Kingdom Brunel' because it was 'required' and a 'namer'! Poor reasoning in hindsight but it was a short trip with the 47 before taking 1056 again for the trip back to Paddington via Gloucester!
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 14/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
I found it to be quite puzzling as to why one might be using a mop outside on the pavement, on a relatively warm January morning. Upon asking Peter, he informed me that he worked at the restaurant that I can only assume was Fugu. I have passed these doors many a time and never been so inspired to take a photo of them, and with Peter's curiosity I knew he was perfect to include in the (608)strangers project. I learned the reasoning behind his mopping was to keep the salt from being tracked in the hallways. Keeping them clean helps him lessen his work load at the end of the day, so yes it seemed strange at first I was understanding once he told me. Peter seemed slightly rushed, so I requested a quick photo of him with the mop/doors/pavement for my project. Smiling he accepted, and I photographed a few bracketed exposures and knew I had at least one keeper. I extended my hand, and promised Peter to keep a copy of the print in my pocket to share with him: In the chance our paths may cross again. It's not always that happens with the 100 strangers group, but it's a pretty cool feeling when you can share your work with someone new!
210/100
This is a comparison of 3 Canon Lenses:
- Canon 28mm, f1.8 prime
- Canon 17-85 IS/USM at 28mm
- Canon 24-105L at 28mm
Each Row is shots from the same lens, shot "wide open", f8, and "stopped down" (columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively).
The top row are shots from the Canon 28mm f1.8 prime. You can use the quality of these shots as a point of comparison for the other 2 lenses.
I think the Canon 17-85 IS/USM at 28mm compares very favorably with the Canon 24-105L at 28mm. Not only at the f8 "sweet spot", but "wide open" and "stopped down" as well.
Can you guess which row represents the Canon 17-85 at 28mm? And which row represents the Canon 24-105L at 28mm?
A US Air Force Test Chart was shot using a Canon 20D, tripod, mirror lockup and remote shutter release. A 500W hot light was used for consistant lighting.
You can get a copy of the US Air Force Lens Test Chart here.
This "snippet" was cropped out of each lens chart, for comparison. No PhotoShopping.
JG/HamWithCam
A lot of folks I've known don't know they're trapped, but I can't blame them. They were caught in a net just recently cast, first fish hauled over the edge. They wanted answers to answerless questions, but they didn't discover the snare in asking. The bait was simple – the revelation of causing effect, who's pulling strings behind the chaos? It found them young and looking for the point of life, or old and hoping for last chance meaning. They were alone when it finally hit, and they felt understood because so many seemed just as isolated as them. All the school swimming in circles, stuck in the same reasoning together. Conspiracy theory was just a joke when I was young, even when it turned to fact now and then. We used to laugh about tales of aliens and assassinations, about the things people believed and wrote books about. It made for good entertainment, thrilling plots for movies, and never went much further. Maybe we had that one uncle who'd get talking about the government tracking him, but he had mental issues, and couldn't be trusted.
Then the trap went mainstream, come in like a hot new drug. But instead of dodgy prescriptions and back-alley deals, it was spread through unproven claims in online posts. I started hearing talk that felt more familiar from that crazy uncle, spouted by otherwise sane relatives. Truth turned into a numbers game. If so many people were saying it, then how could they all be wrong? Low effort was the answer. You didn't have to write a book anymore, get on TV or radio, or even be a self-proclaimed expert to tell your tale – now all you needed was the brand new digital town square, where anyone could shout to crowds of millions with just minutes of parroting preparation. There was the old time assumption that some thought and research went into the tale, but behind the scenes was shaped by daydreams and sudden random thoughts.
At the bottom of the barrel of belief is the same hopelessness that started this. The trap was the initial question: "Who's in control of all this chaos?" and the answer is eventually some evil force or corporation, a powerful group that can never be conquered. You won't be any better off believing, and it'll be plenty more excuse to consume more of the conspiracy story. The only ones who profit are getting views and making money from a dubious congregation, looking for endless non-answers. It's a diet that destroys everyone who takes a taste. One lick of the flame and you're immolated with a desire for all supposed secrets. The sense of knowing more and being better than others is the only joy you're left.
You've seen how it ends. At least one of your friends or family members is busy digging that rabbit hole, and plugging the path behind them. Several of mine are doing it now. Every day, they share a dozen different stories of what they've discovered, not seeing that it doesn't matter what's true. There are a few facts hiding in the sea of theory, but that won't save them, tossed ten bricks to one life vest. They're miserable with all they think they know, and the only relief is knowing more than you. When the last high fades, they go digging for one more. Maybe the only rehab is accepting chaos and lack of control. I wake up every day knowing that the future is vague and my usefulness is narrow – so I do what I can to be useful. If politics concerned me most, I'd run for an office. If medicine did, I'd work in a hospital. If news of the world filled my mind, I'd become a reporter. Whatever your most-consuming worry, your life will only have meaning if you attempt to fix it. I care most for individuality and strength of heart, so that's the work I try to carry out. If you're in the trap, I hope I've helped you remember to be better at yourself.
August 15, 2021
Beaconsfield, Nova Scotia
facebook | instagram | tumblr | youtube | etsy
You can support my work
get things in the mail
and see everything
first on Patreon
Barbie gained fame not simply as a product but as an icon. Barbie was said to be “the archetypal woman”, a modern Mona Lisa. On television feminists said Barbie was a bimbo and bad for children. Mrs Handler retorted that Barbie offered children choices of what to be when they grew up. Academe bent its mind to the Barbie phenomenon. Students on a sociology course were set the following exercise: “What criticisms have been made of Barbie as a role model? Do you agree with this criticism? In your opinion should the manufacturers be sensitive to this criticism? There are no ‘right' answers to these questions, but you should develop a line of reasoning that reflects your values.”
Ruth Handler was herself a success story in an honoured American tradition. Her parents had arrived in the United States in a steamship, travelling steerage, the cheapest accommodation, and settled in Denver. Her father was a blacksmith who had brought his family from Poland so that he would not be conscripted into the Russian army. Mother never felt very well, exhausted after bearing ten children. But big families have a way of looking after themselves, and Ruth, the youngest, says she was well cared for.
At the age of 19 she headed for Hollywood. She did not make it into the film business. She took a course in industrial design, met a boy on the same course and married him. Mattel was started in a garage, adding to another bit of American industrial lore. Ruth Handler and her husband at first made picture frames, then furniture for dolls' houses, then toys, including a child's guitar that found a market. The firm seems to have done reasonably well and in the 1950s Mrs Handler had a holiday in Europe. In Switzerland she came across a German-made doll about 11in tall called Blonde Lilli, of improbable proportions, dressed in skimpy clothes, and presumably designed to raise the ambitions of young men.
Suppressing her American blushes, Mrs Handler bought three and took them back to America. She said she had been thinking for some time of producing a “grown-up” doll for children, but the men in her firm said there would be no demand for one: what children liked was dolls that looked like babies. Inspired by Lilli, Mrs Handler designed a respectable American doll called Barbie (her daughter's name) with breasts but without nipples and wearing clothes that were pretty but non-provocative. The first dolls were made in Japan and in 1959 “Barbie the teenage model” made its debut at the American Toy Fair in New York. It was the success of the show, selling 350,000 Barbies in the first year. Since then more than a billion Barbies have been sold worldwide.
According to Mattel, an American girl aged up to 11 is likely to own ten Barbie dolls. French children are said to own five. But several million grown-up women are also said to own Barbies. “She is more than a doll to them, whatever their age,” Mrs Handler said. “She has become part of them.” There are Barbie collectors of both sexes: a 1959 Barbie that sold for $3 is now said to be worth $5,000 in good condition. Barbie retains an almost sexless body that can puzzle knowing children who wonder how Barbie was born without a belly button and has no obvious means of reproduction. “Hey, Momma...?”“That's enough, dear, or I'll take Barbie away.”
In defending Barbie against the feminists Mrs Handler said her creation is a career woman and not at all empty headed. But Barbie has had so many careers, and at 43 marriage seems to be a declining prospect. There is a boyfriend called Ken, named after another of Mrs Handler's children. Barbie and Ken have been together for years. What are Ken's intentions? Barbie was born in the innocent 1950s, and may find the mores of these changeable times hard to cope with. Barbie's friends of all ages are concerned.
Source: The Economist 2 May 2002.
Today we went to different tattoo shops since my cousin is planning on getting one. I am glad she is taking the time to meet the artists she has chosen to make sure what she is getting is what she really wants. I really like her reasoning behind the tattoo. Although she has been getting plenty of opposition from the family, I will support her 100%.
The outing today gave me a lot to think about. I personally only have my ears pierced. The day I turned 18 I wanted to get my industrial pierced. I am really scared of needles so actually deciding to get it done was a big deal. Failing to getting it is actually a really silly story involving Valerie. As I was walking out the door, my mother decided to inform me that getting the piercing meant I couldn’t make anymore gay friends. The thing was that I had just started talking to Valerie as a friend and I knew that they wouldn’t let me hang out with her. I immediately turned around and sat on the couch and announced that I didn’t need the piercing. Yes, I was a drama queen but it showed my parents that I wasn’t going to let them judge my friends. Since then, my mom jokes around and tells me she only said it so I wouldn’t get the piercing. Well, it worked.
Valerie has a tattoo which has troubled me from time to time. I don’t mind the reason why she has it at all. To each their own. I know what Valerie and I have and we don’t need permanent proof to strengthen our feelings. What I couldn’t understand was how easily it was for her to get something so permanent at the time she did. As I struggled to completely comprehend her decision and reasoning, I began to put myself in her situation. If at the time I believed my feeling with the person I was involved in were forever, of course I would do the same thing. I would do it because I was hopeful that the feelings would last. To any outsider, my decision would seem like the dumbest thing in the world.
I have heard plenty of times that matching tattoos are the kiss of death. And that’s when I realized that I had questioned the motives of the person I love. I was too caught up in her illogical decision that I forgot to see the beauty in her tattoo. These three little pink flowers that I once wish would disappear opened up an idea that I never thought possible. And now I can proudly say that I understand exactly why Valerie decided to get her tattoo and I would never want her to regret it. Today I learned an extremely valuable lesson, and although it took me almost a year to fully understand it, I am glad I can move on from it.
A relationship is like a tattoo. At first, the idea is what drives the action. You get to know everything about the person you’re interested in (tattoo artist) to make sure you’re compatible (portfolio). When the actual session (first date) is set, all you can think about is how it will be. After the tattoo is finished, you take care of it while showing it off, just like in a relationship. You make sure everything is perfect while introducing your gal, or guy, to the world. But taking care of a tattoo is the hard part. You can either ignore the instructions given to you by your artist and risk damages (moving too fast), or you can be extremely careful and ensure complete healing (official relationship status).
This analogy helped me understand the different relationships Valerie has been involved in. I always wondered why things happened so quickly within her relationships, and it’s because her initial happiness undermined the lasting effects. The tattoo (relationship) she was in was hit by direct sunlight (too much public exposure) which caused it to fade (end).
In our case, she remembered to let her relationship fully develop before starting to show it off. This allowed us to get to know each other completely before accepting external opinion.
This simple tattoo dilemma allowed both Valerie and I to understand that everything has a consequence, whether good or bad. We learned that communication is key and we should always ask the questions that irk us the most. The relationship Valerie and I have works so well because we know how to communicate with each other. We’re not afraid to let each other know what we like, dislike, and desire.
The African Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana) is the larger of the two species of African elephant. The other species is the closely related Forest Elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis). The African Bush Elephant is also known as the Bush Elephant or Savanna Elephant.
The Bush Elephant is the largest living terrestrial animal, normally reaching 6 to 7.3 m in length and 2,4 to 3.5 m in height at the shoulder, and weighing between 2,400 to 8,000 kg. The animal is characterized by its large head; two large ears that cover its shoulders and radiate excess heat; a large and muscular trunk; two prominent tusks, which are well-developed in both sexes. African Bush Elephants are herbivorous.
The African Elephant is an intelligent animal. Experiments with reasoning and learning show that they are the smartest ungulates together with their Asian cousins.
The adult African Bush Elephant generally has no natural predators due to its great size, but the calves (especially the newborn) are vulnerable to lion and crocodile attacks, and (rarely) to leopard and hyena attacks. The Bush Elephant normally moves at a rate of 6 km/h, but it can reach a top speed of 40 km/h when scared or upset.
Humans are the elephant's major predator. Elephants have been hunted for meat, skin, bones, and tusks. Elephant trophy hunting increased in the 19th and 20th centuries, when tourism and plantations increasingly attracted sport hunters. In 1989, hunting of the African Bush Elephant for ivory trading was forbidden, after the elephant population fell from several million at the beginning of the 20th century to fewer than 750,000. Trophy hunting continues today. The population of African Bush Elephants was halved during the 1980s. Poaching is still common. CITES still considers the species as threatened with extinction.
This picture is taken at Ouwehands Dierenpark, Zoo in Rhenen, the Netherlands
De savanneolifant (Loxodonta africana) is de grootste en bekendste van de twee Afrikaanse olifanten (Loxodonta). Voorheen werd de verwante bosolifant (Loxodonta cyclotis) beschouwd als een ondersoort van de savanneolifant, maar tegenwoordig worden de twee dieren beschouwd als aparte soorten.
De savanneolifant is het grootste landdier. Een bul weegt tussen de 3500 en 8000 kg, een koe 2400 tot 4500 kg. Ze worden 240 tot 350 cm hoog en 6 tot 7,3 m lang.
Zijn dikke huid is lichtgrijs tot zwartgrijs of bruin van kleur. De oren zijn veel groter als bij de Aziatische olifant. De grote oren zijn rijk doorbloed, waardoor ze het lichaam kunnen afkoelen. Veel warmte kan via de oren ontsnappen als de olifant met deze wappert.
Zowel mannetjes als vrouwtjes hebben grote, naar voren gebogen slagtanden. De poten zijn hoog en zuilvormig. De slurf van de savanneolifant is lang en flexibel, en kan gebruikt worden als vijfde ledemaat.
De savanneolifant kwam vroeger in bijna geheel Afrika voor, met uitzondering van de droogste plekken van de Sahara en in de regenwoudgordel van West- en Centraal-Afrika. In het regenwoud leeft de verwante bosolifant. Soms leven beide soorten naast elkaar. Tegenwoordig is savanneolifant uitgestorven in Noord-Afrika en leeft hij op slechts een handvol plaatsen in Zuid- en West-Afrika.
Hij kan overleven in alle landschappen, van woestijnen tot regenwouden, van kusten tot gebergten, maar hij is vooral algemeen op savanne en grasland.
Savanneolifanten ontwortelen bomen, graven waterputten en trappen de begroeiing plat, waardoor heel nieuwe leefgebieden ontstaan en bos verandert in savanne.
Olifanten zijn niet kieskeurig en eten zowat alles wat plantaardig is.
In de jaren dertig en veertig van de vorige eeuw waren er vijf tot tien miljoen olifanten in Afrika. Tegenwoordig zijn het er waarschijnlijk 500.000 tot 750.000.
Er wordt nog altijd illegaal op gejaagd voor het ivoor en andere jachttrofeeën, maar ook worden ze gedood omdat ze landbouwgebieden verwoesten.
Daarentegen zijn er voor weinig diersoorten zoveel beschermingsmaatregelen genomen als voor de savanneolifant, en op veel plekken is hun aantal stabiel of zelfs stijgende.
Deze foto is genomen in Ouwehands Dierenpark in Rhenen.
Documentation source: Wikipedia (EN and NL)
______________________________________________________________________
Site Ouwehands Dierenpark / Zoo in Dutch, English and German: www.ouwehand.nl/
______________________________________________________________________
All rights reserved. Copyright © Martien Uiterweerd. All my images are protected under international authors copyright laws and may not be downloaded, reproduced, copied, transmitted or manipulated without my written explicit permission.
______________________________________________________________________
After the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent civil war, the Communist leaders in the Soviet Ukraine embarked on a project to reconstruct the devastated regions along Marxist-Leninist lines. Part of this project involved a commitment to creating new schools and encouraging the population to become better educated. Much of the reasoning behind this push for education was the Soviet state’s recognition that it needed a better educated citizenry to accomplish the rapid modernization that was being advocated for by party leaders. In addition to reshaping elementary and secondary education, as well as university education, Workers schools (often called robfaks) appeared to provide further technical and ideological training to workers. Admission to one of the robfaks was contingent upon the recommendation of the local Communist party – at these schools the worker/students would receive further professional educational training, bolstered by the presence of facilities such as libraries. While most of the Workers schools conducted instruction in Ukrainian, Russian, or a mix of the two – there still were some Workers schools at which the language of instruction was Yiddish as is demonstrated by this stamp from a Workers School in Kiev.
This book stamp is from a book looted by the Nazis and sorted by Colonel Seymour Pomrenze, one of “the Monuments Men,” at the Offenbach Archival Depot.
There are two scrapbooks of archival markings from the books sorted at the Offenbach Depot in the Seymour Pomrenze Collection held by the American Jewish Historical Society (Call number P-933) There is a finding aid for the collection here The digitized scrapbooks are available here and here.
For more information on this project check the Center’s blog: 16thstreet.tumblr.com/tagged/Offenbach-Depot
Dr. Mitch Fraas, Acting Director of the Digital Humanities Forum at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries' Special Collections Center is working on a similar project for the German book stamps based on NARA microfilm of the volumes the American Jewish Historical Society currently holds. See viewshare.org/views/mfraas/offenbach-bookplates/
The Center for Jewish History would like to acknowledge the following: The American Jewish Historical Society, who graciously allowed the use of their archival materials and digital content; Mitch Fraas, Acting Director of the Digital Humanities Forum at the University of Pennsylvania Libraries' Special Collections Center, for his data and technical assistance in this project; David Rosenberg, Senior Manager for Communications, and Melanie Meyers, Senior Reference Services Librarian for Special Collections, for managing and creating the digital map; as well as Reference Services Librarian Zachary Loeb and Reference Services Assistant Ilya Slavutskiy for their work on translating and mapping.
For copyright information, click here
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 31/01/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Beaten down by the regulations imposed by the Chinese Government, this woman's pain is shed for the protection of others, in body and spirit.
For information regarding the reasoning behind the pain, please visit Wikipedia here.
ViaMoi using Canon products / Ottawa, Canada
The Ninth Spirit in this Order is Paimon, Paimoni, or Paimona, a Great Queen and very obedient unto Diana-Lucifera. She appears in most comely manifestation of perfect shape seated upon a dromedary with a most glorious crown of serpentine braided hair upon her head. Around her naked form to dance and swirl a host of lascivious female Spirits whom are singing hypnotic tones to groan orgasmic stirring the desert sands of her planet. She has a most sensuous voice to entice her Master at first coming and her 'speech' so overpowering of Sexual power and attraction that the Magician will not be able to control his thoughts for she to strongly arouse him unless he to compel her otherwise. She can teach all Arts and Sciences and other Secret things deeply Arcane of Tantra to Kamasutra. She can reveal what the Universe and that of Earth is within the grand scheme of existence and the reasoning for its formation and that of the interaction of Mind and Matter as well as any other thing her Master desires to know.
PAIMONA BENE GESSERIT WITCH OF DUNE
Paimona can be equated to a Bene Gesserit Witch whom beckons back from an Alternate World of a Future possibility whereby one can access what she represents at the level of the Quantum Dream made Lucid of Awareness. The Bene Gesserit are a key social, religious and political force of Matriarchal power structure in Frank Herbert's Science Fiction Dune Universe of superb synthesis. The Bene Gesserit are described as an exclusive Sisterhood whose Coven members train their lithe bodies and supple minds through years of in depth arduous physical and mental conditioning in order to obtain their psychic powers and heightened abilities, which can easily seem as being magical to those outside of their Coven. Due to their very secretive nature and misunderstood abilities, outsiders often call the Bene Gesserit Witches, although the title is quite apt. Acolytes who have acquired the full breadth of Bene Gesserit abilities are called Reverend Mothers within the Sisterhood ranks of the Bene Gesserit organization.
The Bene Gesserit have existed for millennia, whom appeared as a semi-mystical school of secretive Illuminati Matriarchal adepts in the arcane arts, which trained Women for service within the Empire as Truthsayers or as Sexual Mates. In reality, the Bene Gesserit were manipulating and controlling the Empire via subtle means behind the scenes in order to aid humanity to become more mature and ultimately guide the human race towards tapping into its genetic and creative potential of coming New-Age.
The Bene Gesserit are known for their superior Martial-Arts combat skills, as well as possessing an in depth understanding of precise physiological control, which allowed, among other countless uses, precise control over conception and embryotic sex determination, ageing and even the ability to render poisons harmless within their own bodies. The power over their own Voices allowed the Bene Gesserit to control others by merely modulating their vocal tones, which many a Woman is naturally quite good at to take further. Sisters who had survived a ritualized poisoning known as the 'Spice Agony' (Symbolically associated with Pre-Menstrual Menopause) achieved increased awareness and abilities through access to their Mitochondrial 'Other Memory,' and were subsequently known as Reverend Mothers.
The Bene Gesserit had developed a large-scale breeding program in order to engender a 'Superbeing,' which they could use in order to gain control over the Empire more directly. To do this they sent breeding sisters to mate with those Males whose genes the Bene Gesserit required whose bloodlines they had secretly and subtly manipulated over generations, which at a Bio-Molecular level the intelligence of the Mitochondria is accomplishing via many an intuitive Female.
One of the 'powers' of a Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother is her Other Memory, which is the summation of memories and personality traits belonging to all her female ancestors, passed down through Mitochondrial genetic memory, up to the point when each following ancestor was born where their physical contact with the mother is broken. The ego and memory of each ancestral personality trait remains as a distinct identity within the Reverend Mother's mind, whereby her ancestors are able to manifest themselves into her awareness at appropriate or emotional moments of crisis, although the Reverend Mother's ego is always the dominant personality.
A Reverend Mother only has access to her female ancestral lineage in Other Memory while her male ancestral line is totally unavailable to her, presenting its self as a dark void, which totally terrifies her to the point of death. Until the time of God Emperor of Dune, the whole purpose of the Bene Gesserit breeding program is to engender the creation of a Kwisatz Haderach male who has Other Memory and thereby able to access both ancestral lines, male and female of Hermaphrodite Awareness.
Reverend Mothers also have the ability of passing on their own ego and memory personality traits onto another Reverend Mother at will, merely by touching their foreheads together whereby attaining a form of immortality as long as their Bene Gesserit line is not broken. A Reverend Mother whom is facing her demise within the presence of another Reverend Mother will pass on her ego and memories in order to prevent the loss of experience and ancestral memories. This is especially the case when the Mother Superior perishes, it is important for a Reverend Mother to take on her ego and memories so that her plans and strategies may continue uninterrupted.
When conditions become extreme, a large Coven of Bene Gesserit will practice Extremis Progressiva, which is a mass sharing of ego and memories with each other to spread all the ego and memories amongst each other; thereby, if one Bene Gesserit survives, they all survive. In Chapterhouse Dune , the Bene Gesserit school upon the planet Lampadas is under attack by the Honoured Matres, whereby they undertake the Extremis Progressiva.
Bene Gesserit are highly trained in order to exercise their acute intuitive perception at all times, noticing to an almost terrifying degree details, which others usually miss. When their intuitive abilities are combined with their analytical training, Bene Gesserit appear to be Witches, who are capable of divining secrets from a persons circumstances, which are nigh invisible to everyone else. The heightened intuitive sensitivity of a Bene Gessrit can determine the slightest differences in air currents or that of noticing the design of a room to gauge where hidden portals and spyholes can be found; tonal variations in a person's voice and tiny physical reactions of body language allows a Bene Gesserit to deeply understand a person's emotional state, whereby she is then enabled to automatically manipulate it of martial arts reflex.
Bene Gesserit also have the ability to practice tha art of Simulflow, which literally means, the 'Simultaneous Flow Of Several Threads Of Consciousness' at any given time; Mental Multitasking, in other words. When the ability of Simulflow is combined with the average Bene Gesserit's analytical abilities as well as her Other Memory she becomes frightening of intelligence. This Simulflow can also be utilised in tandem with Other Memory; Reverend Mother Darwi Odrade practiced both forms in the book Heretics of Dune.
The Bene Gesserit are renowned for their carnal skills in Seduction, the Sexual arts and most especially that of Sexual-Imprinting. The most talented and highly-trained seducers are known as Imprinters. Men who are usually in a position of power or that of attaining influence, or those with specific genetic qualities, which the Bene Gesserit order wishes to assimilate into their breeding program, are the typical targets of a Bene Gesserit Imprinter. Those Men who are seduced by an Imprinter are permanently Imprinted by the intense Sexual experience, which the Iprinter induces and are thereafter consciously or subconsciously favourable to the Sisterhood's political machinations.
Paimona is very much a Bene Gesserit Witch as described in Frank Herbert's Dune, whose Succubus Lucid Dream domain will be of such a Universe to reveal & what one to experience within is not so far removed from ones external reality of present when to look at Dune with eye all singular of vision to perceive Associative Correspondences betwixt and between Science Fiction and Fact to merge of practical perception and utilisation.
Add a caption
BENE GESSERIT WITCH PAIMONA: The Ninth Spirit in this Order is Paimon, Paimoni, or Paimona, a Great Queen and very obedient unto Diana-Lucifera. She appears in most comely manifestation of perfect shape seated upon a dromedary with a most glorious crown of serpentine braided hair upon her head. Around her naked form to dance and swirl a host of lascivious female Spirits whom are singing hypnotic tones to groan orgasmic stirring the desert sands of her planet. She has a most sensuous voice to entice her Master at first coming and her 'speech' so overpowering of Sexual power and attraction that the Magician will not be able to control his thoughts for she to strongly arouse him unless he to compel her otherwise. She can teach all Arts and Sciences and other Secret things deeply Arcane of Tantra to Kamasutra. She can reveal what the Universe and that of Earth is within the grand scheme of existence and the reasoning for its formation and that of the interaction of Mind and Matter as well as any other thing her Master desires to know. PAIMONA BENE GESSERIT WITCH OF DUNE Paimona can be equated to a Bene Gesserit Witch whom beckons back from an Alternate World of a Future possibility whereby one can access what she represents at the level of the Quantum Dream made Lucid of Awareness. The Bene Gesserit are a key social, religious and political force of Matriarchal power structure in Frank Herbert's Science Fiction Dune Universe of superb synthesis. The Bene Gesserit are described as an exclusive Sisterhood whose Coven members train their lithe bodies and supple minds through years of in depth arduous physical and mental conditioning in order to obtain their psychic powers and heightened abilities, which can easily seem as being magical to those outside of their Coven. Due to their very secretive nature and misunderstood abilities, outsiders often call the Bene Gesserit Witches, although the title is quite apt. Acolytes who have acquired the full breadth of Bene Gesserit abilities are called Reverend Mothers within the Sisterhood ranks of the Bene Gesserit organization. The Bene Gesserit have existed for millennia, whom appeared as a semi-mystical school of secretive Illuminati Matriarchal adepts in the arcane arts, which trained Women for service within the Empire as Truthsayers or as Sexual Mates. In reality, the Bene Gesserit were manipulating and controlling the Empire via subtle means behind the scenes in order to aid humanity to become more mature and ultimately guide the human race towards tapping into its genetic and creative potential of coming New-Age. The Bene Gesserit are known for their superior Martial-Arts combat skills, as well as possessing an in depth understanding of precise physiological control, which allowed, among other countless uses, precise control over conception and embryotic sex determination, ageing and even the ability to render poisons harmless within their own bodies. The power over their own Voices allowed the Bene Gesserit to control others by merely modulating their vocal tones, which many a Woman is naturally quite good at to take further. Sisters who had survived a ritualized poisoning known as the 'Spice Agony' (Symbolically associated with Pre-Menstrual Menopause) achieved increased awareness and abilities through access to their Mitochondrial 'Other Memory,' and were subsequently known as Reverend Mothers. The Bene Gesserit had developed a large-scale breeding program in order to engender a 'Superbeing,' which they could use in order to gain control over the Empire more directly. To do this they sent breeding sisters to mate with those Males whose genes the Bene Gesserit required whose bloodlines they had secretly and subtly manipulated over generations, which at a Bio-Molecular level the intelligence of the Mitochondria is accomplishing via many an intuitive Female. One of the 'powers' of a Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother is her Other Memory, which is the summation of memories and personality traits belonging to all her female ancestors, passed down through Mitochondrial genetic memory, up to the point when each following ancestor was born where their physical contact with the mother is broken. The ego and memory of each ancestral personality trait remains as a distinct identity within the Reverend Mother's mind, whereby her ancestors are able to manifest themselves into her awareness at appropriate or emotional moments of crisis, although the Reverend Mother's ego is always the dominant personality. A Reverend Mother only has access to her female ancestral lineage in Other Memory while her male ancestral line is totally unavailable to her, presenting its self as a dark void, which totally terrifies her to the point of death. Until the time of God Emperor of Dune, the whole purpose of the Bene Gesserit breeding program is to engender the creation of a Kwisatz Haderach male who has Other Memory and thereby able to access both ancestral lines, male and female of Hermaphrodite Awareness. Reverend Mothers also have the ability of passing on their own ego and memory personality traits onto another Reverend Mother at will, merely by touching their foreheads together whereby attaining a form of immortality as long as their Bene Gesserit line is not broken. A Reverend Mother whom is facing her demise within the presence of another Reverend Mother will pass on her ego and memories in order to prevent the loss of experience and ancestral memories. This is especially the case when the Mother Superior perishes, it is important for a Reverend Mother to take on her ego and memories so that her plans and strategies may continue uninterrupted. When conditions become extreme, a large Coven of Bene Gesserit will practice Extremis Progressiva, which is a mass sharing of ego and memories with each other to spread all the ego and memories amongst each other; thereby, if one Bene Gesserit survives, they all survive. In Chapterhouse Dune , the Bene Gesserit school upon the planet Lampadas is under attack by the Honoured Matres, whereby they undertake the Extremis Progressiva. Bene Gesserit are highly trained in order to exercise their acute intuitive perception at all times, noticing to an almost terrifying degree details, which others usually miss. When their intuitive abilities are combined with their analytical training, Bene Gesserit appear to be Witches, who are capable of divining secrets from a persons circumstances, which are nigh invisible to everyone else. The heightened intuitive sensitivity of a Bene Gessrit can determine the slightest differences in air currents or that of noticing the design of a room to gauge where hidden portals and spyholes can be found; tonal variations in a person's voice and tiny physical reactions of body language allows a Bene Gesserit to deeply understand a person's emotional state, whereby she is then enabled to automatically manipulate it of martial arts reflex. Bene Gesserit also have the ability to practice tha art of Simulflow, which literally means, the 'Simultaneous Flow Of Several Threads Of Consciousness' at any given time; Mental Multitasking, in other words. When the ability of Simulflow is combined with the average Bene Gesserit's analytical abilities as well as her Other Memory she becomes frightening of intelligence. This Simulflow can also be utilised in tandem with Other Memory; Reverend Mother Darwi Odrade practiced both forms in the book Heretics of Dune. The Bene Gesserit are renowned for their carnal skills in Seduction, the Sexual arts and most especially that of Sexual-Imprinting. The most talented and highly-trained seducers are known as Imprinters. Men who are usually in a position of power or that of attaining influence, or those with specific genetic qualities, which the Bene Gesserit order wishes to assimilate into their breeding program, are the typical targets of a Bene Gesserit Imprinter. Those Men who are seduced by an Imprinter are permanently Imprinted by the intense Sexual experience, which the Iprinter induces and are thereafter consciously or subconsciously favourable to the Sisterhood's political machinations. Paimona is very much a Bene Gesserit Witch as described in Frank Herbert's Dune, whose Succubus Lucid Dream domain will be of such a Universe to reveal & what one to experience within is not so far removed from ones external reality of present when to look at Dune with eye all singular of vision to perceive Associative Correspondences betwixt and between Science Fiction and Fact to merge of practical perception and utilisation.
dated 1610, made by A. Steiger of Hildesheim ; this face shows the 6[!] senses ; 'ratio' {reasoning} was not usually included among the senses
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“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.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 12/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
The frontage of Banks's Park Brewery in Wolverhampton on 26th November 2024.
In October 2024 the Carlsberg Marstons Brewing Company announced its intention to close Banks’s Brewery, citing “restructuring” as its reasoning. This follows in the wake of recent closures of other breweries in the group, namely Jennings, Ringwood and Wychwood.
IMG_15026
ROOSTER TREE
June 20, 2012
Lichtenstein: Recontextualisation, Attribution, & the Soul of Art
2012-06-20 · 1:56 AM
Lichtenstein: Recontextualisation, Attribution, & the Soul of Art
Ah, Lichtenstein. Famous, revered, historically important… unless you’re a comics artist or cartoonist.
I have a perspective on why the fine arts–sorry, the Fine Arts–traditionally malign comics artwork & the act of cartooning. But first, two definitions of ‘cartoon.’
During a panel at TCAF 2010, I first heard Seth define a cartoonist as one who is the solitary creator of comics; the individual as writer & artist (which I like to think of as writer-artist-colourist-letterer-cover-designer-and-sometimes-publisher, or the a-e-i-o-u-&-sometimes-y of visual literature).
The other definition is one I’ve only heard from a single source, & have yet to find a concurrence beyond my own. The source is Barrie artist Tim Bilton, & he defined ‘cartoon’ as ‘to outline.’ It came up in discussion when, after attending TCAF 2010, I began to refer to myself no longer as a comics artist, but a cartoonist. Tim asked,
Do you work in stained glass?
Huh?
He explained stained glass artisans refer to arranging their metal frameworks as ‘cartooning.’ He thought it odd that I, a specialized pen & ink illustrator, would apply the term to my medium. A later convo included my assertion that I couldn’t find an online reference connecting cartooning to stained glass (did Google fail me?), & perhaps the usage was a local phenomenon.
Seth’s definition seems one of pride, in collecting self-contained comics creators under an umbrella term that could have been anything (if he has specific reasoning beyond paying homage to the comics heroes of yesteryear who made ‘cartoons,’ I am ignorant of it; maybe I should read more interviews he’s given).
If we concede that cartoon equals outline, then great, revered oil paintings had cartoons as the planning stage, sometimes even laid down on canvas to act as guides for paint to follow & cover up.
Cartooning, then, is the first step toward a work of Fine Art, but never the totality. Historically, professional cartoonists typically drew their outlines of characters & objects, then sent that art to stand on its own or be coloured/filled mechanically with separations, dot screens, etc.
To my ear, it sounds akin to a logical fallacy, & one that keeps the Lichtenstein Foundation from acknowledging any artistry on the part of the creators of Roy’s source material. Seriously, check out the links accompanying my webcartoon; they reveal ignorant & classist attitudes toward cartoonists, with zero regard for any source attribution.
Vanilla Ice tried that. He became $4 million of dollars poorer for it, & also credited the source authors. What makes audio artwork so fucking special & comics art such shit?
roostertree.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/lichtenstein-reconte...
Source for the Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein comparisons: davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
Also: www.comicsalliance.com/2011/02/02/deconstructing-lichtens...
Source & critique of Sharon Moody’s appropriation of “a page from Batman #253 (November 1973) as penciled by Irv Novick and inked by Dick Giordano,” from the script by Denny O’Neil: www.bleedingcool.com/forums/comic-book-forum/53073-sharon...
On appropriation: lavastudio.tv/blog/2012/04/inspiration-or-rip-off/
Exhaustive Lichtenstein vs. comics comparison archive, showing off Roy’s absolute dearth of creativity: www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/wit...
BTW, Andy Warhol based the works that became The Shot Marilyns on Marilyn Monroe Portrait by Corbiss Bettmann.
roostertree.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/lichtenstein-reconte...
Art review: 'Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective' smashes cliches
discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-et-knight-lichtenste...
DavidBarsalou at 12:37 PM June 15, 2012
Actually, Whamm ! was swiped from Irv Novick...
The image for Blam was stolen from Russ Heath.
You can see all of the original comic book source images at:
Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein
www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/
davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
supersiblings at 9:44 AM June 14, 2012
It's surprising to me that the feature image for this article "Whaam" gives no credit to the original artist Russ Heath. It was lifted by Lichtenstein directly from a panel he drew in DC Comic's All-American Men of War #89 in 1962. I have no problem with art interpreting art or art being made to interpret pop culture. I also don't have a problem with parody or satire or reusing someone elses drawings in your painting. The problem I have is that it should be fair to expect people to credit their sources. Comic books and particularly Russ Heath is the source of Lichtenstein's "Whaam" image. Why is it a problem to admit that?
I know Russ Heath. He lives here and continues to go to comic book conventions and sell his art. Why should a man like him in his 80s with a prolific comic book career behind him still go unrecognized by Art history. It offends me that we praise Lichetenstein while and hang his work on the wall while the original artist sits alone at a table trying to selling his work for $20 a pop.
Give credit where credit is due.
Patrick Scullin supersiblingscomics.com
billwray at 8:51 PM June 9, 2012
Dingle-- Sober up!! These are comic panels blown up. The sound effects, the graphic dot patterns, the bombastic colors and imagry are totally comic book. What are you talking about--? Pop art was abput lifting curtural imagery-- From mundane products to comic books-- yes later he did paintings that go away from comics a little, but he still used a lot of the stylized color dots and such as his graphic language. His was a comic book style-- period.
barry_dingle at 3:46 AM June 10, 2012
No use 'splaining art to a comic book guy. I respect comic book art but you should read about Abstract Expressionism. It's not as simple as you believe it to be.
barry_dingle at 5:00 PM June 9, 2012
Roy Lichtenstein's art had little to do with comic books. While his work is frequently labeled 'abstract', Lichtenstein came at painting from the perspective of a realist painter. Instead of intricately painting landscapes with photographic detail, he painstakingly recreated meaningless advertising clutter. Same premise. He painted this stuff by hand unlike Warhol who was more interested in the finished image, not the process of the creation. So I'm not so sure how pop art Lichtenstein really is. In the context of when his work was made it was pretty revolutionary.
barry_dingle at 5:11 PM June 9, 2012
Actually, I should correct myself. Warhol was definitely interested in the process of creation too, only his was more factory and product-oriented than Lichtenstein.
billwray at 8:53 PM June 9, 2012
Andy could draw better that Roy too.
billwray at 1:07 PM June 10, 2012
Barry-- I'm a painter and one who has elements of Abstract Expressionism in his work-- Kline was Abstract Expressionism-- Roy was blown up graphic art-- His work was to controlled to fit the catagory of Abstract Expressionism . One might argue that his work was a pop artsit reaction to Abstract Expressionism , but even that is not a given. Show me anyone besides you who thinks Roy was an abstract artist. If you learned the differance betweern stylization and abstraction you might grow a little as a person. Check Wikapedia he's not on the list—
billwray at 1:37 PM June 10, 2012
from Wikipedia
Roy Lichtenstein (October 27, 1923 – September 29, 1997) was a prominent American pop artist. During the 1960s, his paintings were exhibited at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York City and along with Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, James Rosenquist and others he became a leading figure in the new art movement. His work defined the basic premise of pop art better than any other through parody.
billwray at 12:24 PM June 9, 2012
Pop art stolen from comics- Not painting as much as crudely traced explotation of comic book printing shorthand. Mostly DC Comics drawn by talented unsung hard working guys. Russ Heath, Jack Able, Joe Kubert and more-- Utill his shows have a big room of the cartonists art with credit where credit is do and a breakdown of the comic book printing process-- I say he is a coward and any evulation of him is invalid and incomplete.
barry_dingle at 5:04 PM June 9, 2012
"Pop art stolen from comics"
Hilarious.
Do you understand the difference between ART and CRAFTS?
billwray at 1:11 PM June 10, 2012
So Barry-- Roy didn't take his images from comics? it's right on line-- check out the facts –
DavidBarsalou at 2:35 PM June 8, 2012
Roy Lichtenstein Was A Plagiarist
Roy Lichtenstein is the Cliché
Cliché is an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect.
Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein © 2000
The Original Comic Book Images Lichtenstein Copied
David Barsalou MFA
www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein
davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
www.facebook.com/groups/230408213304/
DonaldFrazell at 11:38 PM June 7, 2012
Cant read this mediocre drivel, goes goes on and on like Licakstamps dots. All you neeed to know is seeing Monets Cathedrals and Lickys horibly dull and lifeless versions. Case closed. its not even the lwoest common denominator, itcs comics. For babies. So be it. Grow up.
And your version of art history certainly does not match up with reality, jsust go look at the paintings and stop reading academic careerist analyzing by donothings. It has nothing to do with reality, just fiting a fale art history timeline for art investment purposes and making it esay on lazy MFAs and their teachers. , Not art appreciation.
so many cliches, so little life. dull greys considered deep rich color, sorry to point it out, but this aint braque.
Cate Conroy at 1:01 AM June 11, 2012
Hi, DF--I think it's an interesting art review. Looking forward to seeing this exhibit in July and will let you know what it was like. RL has never been one of my favorite artists, but maybe that's because I don't know much about him. All art is appropriation to some degree, but it's not copying if you do something original and new with the whole idea behind it. WW says RL stole from comic artist and he couldn't draw or even copy very well. Maybe that's true of his drawing skill, but it doesn't seem to me that he was trying to steal ideas from the comic book artists. Taking the images completely out of context of the comic story line, he provided a whole new meaning to them by placing them into the story line of Art History. In a sense, maybe he was elevating comic illustrators to a place where their skill would not normally be viewed and recognized. After seeing art like this, people might not look at comics or a picture of religious art the same way again!
He's not guilty of the "original sin" of copyright infringement. It seems to me that the virgin Roy's is an immaculate conception. This art is meant to knock up a viewer like a bolt of enlightening out of the blue that comes as quickly as it goes, saying, "Whaam, baam, thank you Ma'am!" What happens after that is the viewer's choice. Abort the mission, or create another diptych?
www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-knight-l...
WHAM! BLAM! ROY LICHTENSTEIN AND THE ART OF APPROPRIATION
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
Roy Lichtenstein is seen as one of the leaders of the "Pop Art" movement. His iconic paintings, based on comic book art, have sold for over $100 million. Hy Eisman and Russ Heath are practically destitute. Yet they are the artists whose original work Lichtenstein was inspired by--or rather, copied. David Barsalou (from my home town of Chicopee, Massachusetts) is the creator of the "Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein" project, which displays the original panels beside the Lichtenstein copies.
WHAAM! BLAM! ROY LICHTENSTEIN AND THE ART OF APPROPRIATION (2022) is a documentary about Lichtenstein, Eisman, Heath, Barsalou, and others, covering both the history of comic book art as both low and high art, and Lichtenstein use of it.
It is fairly clear that one can match up Lichtenstein's paintings with their originals, and that in many cases they are apparently merely tracings of the originals, with some changes in coloring. The question is whether what Lichtenstein did was "transformative", maing his paintings new works, or plagiarism.
This is complicated by the copyright law of the 1950s and 1960s, when the original comic book artists worked. At the time, their work was considered "work for hire" and the copyrights were owned by the publishers. And the publishers had no interest at the time in going after Lichtenstein, since that was well before his paintings started selling for millions. But the documentary looks at the moral issues as well as the legal ones. (One might suggest that the Lichtenstein estate should pay some money to the original artists. However, that might lead to the artists claiming that this was in some way an admission of guilt. Perhaps a contribution to a fund for all comic book artists in need, in recognition of their "inspiration"?)
What is revealing is how, for example, a museum curator who has a Lichtenstein hanging in their museum had no idea of the original source, or the original artist, and no interest in changing the information about the painting which hangs next to it.
This is a documentary of interest to those interested in art, in the history of comic books, and the legal and moral issues of intellectual property.
Released at a festival 9 December 2022. Rating: +3 (-4 to +4), or 9/10.
Film Credits: www.imdb.com/title/tt22774294/reference
What others are saying: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/whaam_blam_roy_lichtenstein_and_...
Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 2023 Mark R. Leeper