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. 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
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'.
*
Tonight's Episode:
"Smoke Knows"
or
Cela, aussi, n'est pas une pipe
Grant's Tobacconists, est. 1849, has mysteriously shuttered after selling, smokes, cigs, stogies and fine tobacco in various forms, as well as related accoutrements, to Fog City for over 162 years. Is there a connection between the long forgotton swilrling curls of fumes that once unfurled behind the closed doors of The Palace Hotel? The Ghost Detective investigates.
* * *
The Damned Human Race
By Mark Twain
(Published in 1905)
I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the “lower animals” (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals. In proceeding toward this unpleasant conclusion I have not guessed or speculated or conjectured, but have used what is commonly called the scientific method. That is to say, I have subjected every postulate that presented itself to the crucial test of actual experiment, and have adopted it or rejected it according to the result. Thus I verified and established each step of my course in its turn before advancing to the next. These experiments were made painstakingly in the London Zoological Gardens, and covered many months of painstaking and fatiguing work.
Before particularizing any of the experiments, I wish to state one or two things which seem to more properly belong in this place than further along. This in the interest of clearness. The massed experiments established to my satisfaction certain generalizations, to wit:
1. That the human race is of one distinct species. It exhibits slight variations–in color, stature, mental caliber, and so on–due to climate, environment, and so forth; but it is a species by itself, and not to be confounded with any other.
2. That the quadrupeds are a distinct family, also. This family exhibits variations–in color, size, food preferences and so on; but it is a family by itself.
3. That the other families–the birds, the fishes, the insects, the reptiles, etc.–are more or less distinct, also. They are in the procession. They are links in the chain which stretches down from the higher animals to man at the bottom.
Some of my experiments were quite curious. In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl–that, and to provide some fresh meat for his larder. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot. In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl–if any–I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anaconda’s cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no further interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isn’t; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesn’t. This seemed to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a great deal in the translation.
I was aware that many men who have accumulated more millions of money than they can ever use have shown a rabid hunger for more, and have not scrupled to cheat the ignorant and the helpless out of their poor servings in order to partially appease that appetite. I furnished a hundred different kinds of wild and tame animals the opportunity to accumulate vast stores of food, but none of them would do it. The squirrels and bees and certain birds made accumulations, but stopped when they had gathered a winter’s supply, and could not be persuaded to add to it either honestly or by chicane. In order to bolster up a tottering reputation the ant pretended to store up supplies, but I was not deceived. I know the ant. These experiments convinced me that there is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly, they are not.
In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.
Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no harm is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster. Cats are loose in their morals, but not consciously so. Man, in his descent from the cat, has brought the cat’s looseness with him but has left the unconsciousness behind–the saving grace which excuses the cat. The cat is innocent, man is not.
Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity–these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed. Man, with his soiled mind, covers himself. He will not even enter a drawing room with his breast and back naked, so alive are he and his mates to indecent suggestion. Man is “The Animal that Laughs.” But so does the monkey, as Mr. Darwin pointed out; and so does the Australian bird that is called the laughing jackass. No–Man is the only Animal that Blushes. He is the only one that does it–or has occasion to.
At the head of this article we see how “three monks were burnt to death” a few weeks ago, and a prior “put to death with atrocious cruelty.” Do we inquire into the details? No; or we should find out that the prior was subjected to unprintable mutilations. Man–when he is a North American Indian–gouges out his prisoner’s eyes; when he is King John, with a nephew to render untroublesome, he uses a red-hot iron; when he is a religious zealot dealing with heretics in the Middle Ages, he skins his captive alive and scatters salt on his back; in the first Richard’s time he shuts up a multitude of Jew families in a tower and sets fire to it; in Columbus’s time he captures a family of Spanish Jews and–but that is not printable; in our day in England a man is fined ten shillings for beating his mother nearly to death with a chair, and another man is fined forty shillings for having four pheasant eggs in his possession without being able to satisfactorily explain how he got them. Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate–unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesn’t dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails–man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He alone is of that distinction.
The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, as the Hessians did in our Revolution, and as the boyish Prince Napoleon did in the Zulu war, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.
Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country–takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.
Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some man’s slave for wages, and does that man’s work; and this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do his work. The higher animals are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living. Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people’s countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man”–with his mouth.
Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of the Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet’s time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary’s day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete–as per the telegrams quoted above–he will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is his is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.
In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.
Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbytarian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh–not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.
One is obliged to concede that in true loftiness of character, Man cannot claim to approach even the meanest of the Higher Animals. It is plain that he is constitutionally incapable of approaching that altitude; that he is constitutionally afflicted with a Defect which must make such approach forever impossible, for it is manifest that this defect is permanent in him, indestructible, ineradicable. I find this Defect to be the Moral Sense. He is the only animal that has it. It is the secret of his degradation. It is the quality which enables him to do wrong. It has no other office. It is incapable of performing any other function. It could never have been intended to perform any other. Without it, man could do no wrong. He would rise at once to the level of the Higher Animals.
Since the Moral Sense has but one office, the one capacity–to enable man to do wrong–it is plainly without value to him. It is as valueless to him as is disease. In fact, it manifestly is a disease. Rabies is bad, but it is not so bad as this disease. Rabies enables a man to do a bad, but it is not so bad as this disease. Rabies enables a man to do a thing which he could not do when in a healthy state: kill his neighbor with a poisonous bite. No one is the better man for having rabies. The Moral Sense enables a man to do wrong. It enables him to do wrong in a thousand ways. Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense. No one, then, can be the better man for having the Moral Sense. What, now, do we find the Primal Curse to have been? Plainly what it was in the beginning: the infliction upon man of the Moral Sense; the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it.
And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor–some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance–insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirchless innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development–namable as the Human Being. Below us–nothing. Nothing but the Frenchman.
There is only one possible stage below the Moral Sense; that is the Immoral Sense. The Frenchman has it. Man is but a little lower than the angels. This definitely locates him. He is between the angels and the French.
Man seems to be a rickety poor sort of a thing, any way you take him; a kind of British Museum of infirmities and inferiorities. He is always undergoing repairs. A machine that was as unreliable as he is would have no market. On top of his specialty–the Moral Sense–are piled a multitude of minor infirmities; such a multitude, indeed, that one may broadly call them countless. The higher animals get their teeth without pain or inconvenience. Man gets his through months and months of cruel torture; and at a time of life when he is but ill able to bear it. As soon as he has got them they must all be pulled out again, for they were of no value in the first place, not worth the loss of a night’s rest. The second set will answer for a while, by being reinforced occasionally with rubber or plugged up with gold; but he will never ger a set which can really be depended on till a dentist makes him one. This set will be called “false” teeth–as if he had ever worn any other kind.
In a wild state–a natural state–the Higher Animals have a few diseases; diseases of little consequence; the main one is old age. But man starts in as a child and lives on diseases till the end, as a regular diet. He has mumps, measles, whooping cough, croup, tonsillitis, diptheria, scarlet fever, almost as a matter of course. Afterward, as he goes along, his life continues to be threatened at every turn: by colds, coughs, asthma, bronchitis, itch, cholera, cancer, consumption, yellow fever, bilious fever, typhus fevers, hay fever, ague, chilblains, piles, inflammation of the entrails, indigestion, toothache, earache, deafness, dumbness, blindness, influenza, chicken pox, cowpox, smallpox, liver compliant, constipation, bloody flux, warts, pimples, boils, carbuncles, abscesses, bunions, corns, tumors, fistulas, pneumonia, softening of the brain, melancholia and fifteen other kinds of insanity; dysentery, jaundice, diseases of the heart, the bones, the skin, the scalp, the spleen, the kidneys, the nerves, the brain, the blood; scrofula, paralysis, leprosy, neuralgia, palsy, fits, headache, thirteen kinds of rheumatism, forty-six of gout, and a formidable supply of gross and unprintable disorders of one sort and another. Also–but why continue the list? The mere names of the agents appointed to keep this shackly machine out of repair would hide him from sight if printed on his body in the smallest type known to the founder’s art. He is but a basket of pestilent corruption provided for the support and entertainment of swarming armies of bacilli–armies commissioned to rot him and destroy him, and each army equipped with a special detail of the work. The process of waylaying him, persecuting him, rotting him, killing him, begins with his first breath, and there is no mercy, no pity, no truce till he draws his last one.
Look at the workmanship of him, in certain of its particulars. What are his tonsils for? They perform no useful function; they have no value. They have no business there. They are but a trap. They have but the one office, the one industry: to provide tonsillitis and quinsy and such things for the possessor of them. And what is the vermiform appendix for? It has no value; it cannot perform any useful service. It is but an ambuscaded enemy whose sole interest in life is to lie in wait for stray grapeseeds and employ them to breed strangulated hernia. And what are the male’s mammals for? For business, they are out of the question; as an ornament, they are a mistake. What is his beard for? It performs no useful function; it is a nuisance and a discomfort; all nations hate it; all nations persecute it with a razor. And because it is a nuisance and a discomfort, Nature never allows the supply of it to fall short, in any man’s case, between puberty and the grave. You never see a man baldheaded on his chin. But his hair! It is a graceful ornament, it is a comfort, it is the best of all protections against certain perilous ailments, man prizes it above emeralds and rubies. And because of these things Nature puts it on, half the time, so that it won’t stay. Man’s sight, smell, hearing, sense of locality–how inferior they are. The condor sees a corpse at five miles; man has no telescope that can do it. The bloodhound follows a scent that is two days old. The robin hears the earthworm burrowing his course under the ground. The cat, deported in a closed basket, finds its way home again through twenty miles of country which it has never seen.
Certain functions lodged in the other sex perform in a lamentably inferior way as compared with the performance of the same functions in the Higher Animals. In the human being, menstruation, gestation and parturition are terms which stand for horrors. In the Higher Animals these things are hardly even inconveniences.
For style, look at the Bengal tiger–that ideal of grace, beauty, physical perfection, majesty. And then look at Man–that poor thing. He is the Animal of the Wig, the Trepanned Skull, the Ear Trumpet, the Glass Eye, the Pasteboard Nose, the Porcelain Teeth, the Silver Windpipe, the Wooden Leg–a creature that is mended and patched all over, from top to bottom. If he can’t get renewals of his bric-a-brac in the next world, what will he look like?
He has just one stupendous superiority. In his intellect he is supreme. The Higher Animals cannot touch him there. It is curious, it is noteworthy, that no heaven has ever been offered him wherein his one sole superiority was provided with a chance to enjoy itself. Even when he himself has imagined a heaven, he has never made provision in it for intellectual joys. It is a striking omission. It seems a tacit confession that heavens are provided for the Higher Animals alone. This is matter for thought; and for serious thought. And it is full of a grim suggestion: that we are not as important, perhaps, as we had all along supposed we were.
* * *
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'
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
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
The book contains the complete unabridged stories of The Red-Headed League; The Sign of Four; A Case of Identity; A Scandal in Bohemia; and A Study in Scarlet.
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'.
March 22, 2019 was Extinction Rebellion Declaration Day in Melbourne with people gathering in Treasury Gardens before marching on the Victorian State Government offices, then the Commonwealth Government offices in Treasury Place. We had the solemnity of the Climate Guardian angels to amplify our message that we are in a climate crisis needing climate emergency action.
Declaration:
OUR DEMANDS
WE CALL ON THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
TO DECLARE A CLIMATE EMERGENCY AND INITIATE A TRANSITION TO ZERO EMISSIONS AND BEYOND AT A SCALE AND SPEED NEVER BEFORE SEEN IN PEACETIME
§ We demand that the Australian government and the media tell the truth about the climate emergency and honestly inform the public that we are facing a threat to human civilisation that imperils the life of most people on Earth.
Our leaders have promoted the falsehood that climate change is not a serious or imminent threat to our survival. We are in a climate emergency and the population deserves to be informed.
¬¬¬¬¬¬
§ The earth is already too hot. It is reckless beyond imagining to continue making our planet hotter. We demand that all levels of government work to rapidly reduce greenhouse gases to zero by 2025. We must also commence the massive task of removing excess greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere until we restore a safe climate.
Urgent action is not only required but achievable. We must move to an emergency footing to address this threat to our survival.
§ Our democracy has been corrupted by vested interests and our political representatives have failed to protect us. We demand that the emergency transition be directed by a Citizens’ Assembly as we move towards a democracy fit for purpose.
We need a national Citizens’ Assembly to initiate, direct and oversee the implementation of those solutions that governments are clearly unwilling or unable to achieve without such assistance.
We hold the following to be true:
This is our darkest hour. Humanity finds itself in a crisis unprecedented in its history.
Unless this crisis is immediately addressed, it will result in the destruction of all that we love and hold dear: this land, its peoples, its ecosystems, and the very future of the human race.
The science is clear: we are in the sixth mass extinction event and we will face catastrophe if we do not act now.
Biodiversity is being annihilated around the world. Our seas are poisoned, acidic and rising. Flooding and desertification will render vast tracts of land uninhabitable and lead to mass migration. The insect population of the planet is plummeting, threatening the very basis of our global ecosystem. The breakdown of our climate has begun. There will be more bushfires, unpredictable and destructive storms, increasing drought, and famine as food supplies and fresh water become scarce and unreliable. But this is not just a matter of adjusting to new difficulties. We are fast approaching the point of no return. Unless we act now everything around us will begin to die with terrifying swiftness and our species too may perish. Already millions of lives have been lost. Soon it will be billions if we do not act.
Across Australia we are already seeing the onset of disaster.
This summer we have been ravaged by fire and flood, our arable land killed by drought, and our rivers choked by rotting fish as we continue to mismanage our ecosystems. In an age where we are losing species to extinction at a rate far greater than normal, we have had our first mammalian extinction directly due to the climate emergency. The Bramble Cay Melomys has been sent to extinction by the unnatural flooding of its island home in northern Queensland. Our culture of endless expansion and consumption killed this little life, but it is not too late to save ourselves. The ecological crises destroying this land of ours can no longer be ignored or denied by anyone who claims to have reason, conscience, or morality.
In accordance with these values, with truth and with the weight of scientific evidence, we declare it is our duty to act on behalf of the security and well-being of our children, our communities, and the existence of life on earth.
Australia’s economy is founded upon the values of industrialisation and commercialisation of the natural world. It has dispossessed and impoverished the Indigenous people of this land and tragically degraded country that was cared for over tens of thousands of years. No longer will this nation be one of destruction and genocide. We need to hear the ancient wisdom of the world’s indigenous people, and treat our home with deep love and respect. The land is our mother. We cannot live without her and all the other species with which we share her.
We, in alignment with our consciences and our reasoning, declare ourselves in rebellion against our government and those corporations that threaten our future until such time as our demands are met.
Some of our political representatives openly deny that we are in a climate emergency. Many advocate change that is too gradual, ineffective or insufficient to the global crisis we are facing. We believe this is done in order to protect the profits of their political donors. But we are not content to die because our leaders lack the wisdom and courage to do what needs to be done to ensure a safe climate future.
The wilful complicity displayed by our government has shattered meaningful democracy and cast aside the common interest in favour of short-term gain and private profits.
Like a termite colony undermining the structure of a house, consumer capitalism and the politicians it has bought will destroy the foundations of life on this planet. When politics has become corrupted by the powerful few it is our right as citizens to restore meaningful democracy. It is our right to protect the security of the land and its peoples where our governments have failed. It is our sacred duty as people who believe in life and love to rebel.
As much as we are powered by a knowledge of the imminence of complete desolation, we are strengthened by hope and the knowledge of what is possible.
In Tasmania, after Lake Pedder was lost, protestors left behind the idea of politely asking power to change its mind, and used direct action to save the Franklin River from being dammed. Thousands of people from all over the world joined the Franklin River Blockade, and thousands were arrested. Prisons overflowed, but the campaign ended with the river being saved. The hand of power was forced, and all because of the far greater power of the people deploying direct action.
The same happened to the Terania forest in New South Wales in the 1970s. This will happen again in the Galilee Basin when the Adani mining licence is cancelled and all fossil fuel extraction is banned once and for all time. Do not think that we haven’t tried everything else possible. This is our last resort.
We hereby declare the bonds of the social contract, which the government has rendered invalid by their complete failure to protect us, to be null and void.
We call upon every principled and peaceful citizen to rise with us. To be freed from oppression by the powerful few we will cast aside social divisions based upon race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, and gender, and come together and fight for our lives. We will not allow corporate profiteers to dictate government decisions that place us and future generations in deadly peril.
This rebellion is for everyone, and it is international.
We are a global movement. We stand with every other land rising with us, all over the world. Our near neighbours on Pacific Islands are already losing the land under their feet. We stand with and acknowledge the traditional owners of the land. Indigenous Australians have already faced the consequences of ecological and cultural destruction and the Traditional Owners’ objections to mining on their lands have been repeatedly ignored or overridden. We say no more. We say enough!
We will no longer stand idly by and witness the destruction of our only home by the greedy few. We are many. We will act. We will rise. We demand justice. We will protect ourselves. We will prevail.
With love and rage
#ExtinctionRebellion
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
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
Did this recently. Having fun with india ink and gouache. Man! Had lots of fun doing this. Wanna do more.
© Laika
Look! I painted some more, for my own personal reasonings: Space kid!, Space kids 2 and Space kids 3. Enjoy!
I have no other outlet for this essay, so if you're just here to see the photograph, then that's just dandy, but if you have the time to read my essay, any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Because We Can
There are few genuine human rights - rights which we should fight for, die for if necessary. These include the right to life and political participation, right to subsistence and rights to peace and clean environment. 1 There are rights which we can expect, which our local government has provided us. Then there are the “rights” Which many of us expect because society implies that that they are essential, often incorrectly, sometimes illegally and almost always inappropriately.
We live in a state of entitlement at the moment. I suspect this is something which may apply generally to the world, especially the western “civilised” world but, as it is the place I know best, I know it applies to England. There is a new motto on the lips of almost everybody in this fair country - “because we can”. People no longer choose to think about the moral, ethical or financial factors involved in their decisions. If I want to do something, I feel entitled to it, and therefore I will do it.
This attitude, this state of entitlement, has become particularly obvious in the last few days - the cry of “because we can” has been heard over the airwaves, seen on screen, written in text, tweeted, facebooked, and I’m sure, even google plussed, not just by the easily targetable social groups that some areas of the media and society have chosen to blame. Now we have entered the post-event analysis of causes, the common theme is commentators using the riots as evidence of their own specific issues; “the riots are clear confirmation of my long-held view that {insert pre-existing world view here}” 2 This is endemic in our country, and is ruining the nation and the state that we live in.
The much maligned annual educational statistics offer a prime example. “It is estimated that at least 1 in 4 of our economically active adults is functionally innumerate ... 22% of 16–19-year-olds are functionally innumerate” 3 "After 11 years of formal education, employers say they get kids coming to them who can't read, who can't write, who can't communicate, and don't have that work ethic."4 Is it the fault of the educators? Is it even the fault of the government? Or is this entitlement state also to blame? How many teachers out there have had students demanding that “they get them an A*”, as if the responsibility is that of the educator, not the educated? Work hard, and life will be your reward. If I had any belief that extending maths teaching from 5 to 16 to 5 to 18 would improve the aforementioned statistics, I would support this idea, but I know that just extending the course will do precisely nothing to extend the education. These children are being educated - there is no question that the education is there and is being provided. But if I teach the concept of differential equations to students who have spent their educated lives opting out with low attendance, submitting no homework, poor behaviour in class, they will not learn - they resist the teaching available. By the time they are 16, they would have had numerous maths teachers with many styles so no one teacher can be blamed. They will be just as unable to solve these equations as the child who has spent 2 terms learning how a compass point can be used to make patterns in a pencil tin lid. There is a huge portion of society out there that believes that leaving school before one has achieved any qualifications is justifiable, because the state will look after them - the benefits system will provide. Why shouldn’t we avoid all education? Because we can. Because it’s not my responsibility, and it’s my right to.
The situation is the same with smoking. Smoking is a legal right. Smoking is permissible in public in almost all countries. There are certain rules and regulations that have been introduced by various societies to try to curb the socially negative aspects of smoking, and taxes rise and rise on cigarettes to try to curb the purchase. Yet this is a habit which has not been suggested to have a link to various disease, but proven beyond almost all margins of statistical doubt to have both clinically and statistically significant links to disease, not even recently, but for over 60 years 5,6. It would be virtually impossible not to have been “educated” on the dangers of smoking, but it is easy to ignore this education, because we can. I condemn smoking, just as I am condemn the concept of “I smoke because I can, but I’m also going to demand free treatment because I can”. This tends to both follow and precede the need for lengthy, expensive and potentially preventable treatment for disease.
The same can also be said for alcohol. There are increasing numbers of the very young suffering illnesses related to long term alcohol abuse. They drank because they could. Because they did not understand that just because you can go out and get smashed and drink until you pass out, it doesn’t mean you should. Alcohol misuse appears to be the cause in around half of all violent crimes (1.2 million per annum) 7 There is a genuine issue with the state of entitlement when being allowed to drink means Friday night isn’t fun without a visit to A&E, or causing one. A recent study showed that 35% of the admissions to hospital (excluding long term care and pregnancy (although I suspect there is a significant proportion of them too)) is related to alcohol. This increases to 70% of admissions to A&E between the hours of midnight and 5am 8. The same report estimates the cost of alcohol to the NHS at £1.6 billion, although more recent estimates have been as high as £2.7 billion per annum.
I am a dentist when I am not writing and, while I shall not stand and bang my own drum too long, I see too many patients who believe that the upkeep of their teeth is my responsibility. The twice yearly (if they’re well behaved) cleaning of their teeth in my chair is the only time they are cleaned. Yet when it is suggested that their own participation in their own hygiene would improve matters they become indignant. Because they can.
There are socio-economic links here as well, primarily around the politics of cuts, welfare and benefits. While I have a basic knowledge of the issues surrounding who is claiming benefits, who can be and who shouldn’t be, I feel that I would expose myself potentially by expressing too strong a view on these issues. Suffice to say, the cry of “because we can” rings on the lips of many who perhaps are not using the system quite as it was intended.
In the news over the last few days, it may have been noticed that amid the turbulent markets, the surprise news that Apple is now the most valuable company in the world, starvation and famine in Somalia, that the National bank of Greece was the best performing bank and continuing uprising for democracy in Syria, there was a small incident of civil unrest in England. As I write this there are estimates of tens of millions pounds of damage, 5 dead, countless injured, some severely, more than 1000 people arrested 9. There was an initial peaceful protest over human and civil rights relating to a shooting. This quickly led to mass unrest, arson, looting and thuggery. The images that have been seen repeatedly are vile, disgusting and show some of the worst in human nature. An explicit discussion of the incident is not necessary here - there are hundreds of better sources for that information than me. What links in with this is the general attitude of the thugs, the criminals, the arsonists, the looters; why act the way you have? Because we can.
There are recordings of 14 year olds claiming that they were “retaking their taxes”, 18 year olds saying that if you can, why wouldn’t you steal hundreds of pounds worth of electronics and fashion goods. Be aware, these are not essential supplies that are being looted - this is luxury goods, which people feel entitled to, because they are available. If one can simply smash a window and grab one, why pay? If one can beat a 68 year old man to the brink of death, why not? Run 3 young boys over, killing them? Why not? Shall we burn down a 150 year old family business? Of course! And why? Because we can. These are not people with a message, a cause, moral reasoning for what they are doing. That much was obvious when they attacked the media. If you look at almost every past disturbance with a real cause behind it, the rioters, rebels, insurgents, call them what you will, will protect the media, because they know that is the best way of getting their message spread. When you attack the messenger, you clearly have no message.
So who should be responsible for curbing these behaviours? Who should back up the rights with responsibilities? Who should teach society (and it’s not just the young) that there are repercussions to every action? Parents need to teach their children that poor, antisocial behaviour is not tolerated? If your child comes home with a new 50” HDTV, they should be punished, not cherished for providing your house with another distraction from the poor behaviour. But there’s the rub. What if the parents do not know? What if they joined their children in looting and violence? If they have never learnt to control their children? If their parents, or their parents before them failed to impart these life lessons? We may be onto our nth generation of ASBO parents - their ignorance is not a whole excuse, but they cannot expect to teach something that they do not know themselves.
As a society we need to do something about this, not leave it solely to the parents. Teachers can help, but only with the respect and trust of both the students and the parents. If a child is punished for something at school, be it late or poor attendance, or physical and verbal abuse of both students and staff, shockingly becoming more prevalent, then the punishment needs to be supported, if not backed up at school. Too many parents, instead of supporting these issues, challenge and appeal against any and all forms of punishment, citing that “little timmy wouldn’t possibly sexually harass their teacher, it’s just not in his nature”. Except that it is, and he does it, because he can, because he will get away with it. Teachers are not blameless either - many incidents go totally unreported, simply because it’s easier not to bother with the hassle that will come from it. This then spreads up the line. The same can be said for extracurricular law makers - police will tolerate surprising levels of antisocial behaviour, because it is easier to ignore it - an arrest means paperwork, time off the street, lower police presence, and more antisocial behaviour. It is simply an excuse. I do not have the answers. I wish I did, but as a society we can work together to solve this.
So why should we try to resolve these issues? Why should we try to curb antisocial behaviour, binge drinking, rioting? Why should we stop people harming our communities and people within our community? Why should we care? Because we can.
Ben Matthews.
1. United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
2. T. Harford, @timHarford twitter feed, 10 August 2011
3. C. Vorderman (Chair) “A world-class mathematics education for all our young people” August 2011
4. David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, speaking on the BBC, July 2011
5. Doll, R. and A.B. Hill, Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. Preliminary report.British Medical Journal, 1950: p. ii:739-48
6. Wynder EL, G.E.A., Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchogenic carcinoma. JAMA, 1950. 143: p. 329-36
7. Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England, March 2004
8. Strategy Unit Alcohol Harm Reduction Project – Interim Analytical Report – September 2003
9. BBC news website, 11 August 2011.
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
Graphs are very general, can represent anyting. Egg example, instead of 60 axioms, just 9 rules. Iconic representation is easier than logic.
This point was also made by in the next talk Hybrid Reasoning and the Future of Iconic Representations by Catherine Recanati
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 140
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 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 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, 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 17/02/2018, 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'.
wearandcheer.com/gorgeous-highlights-for-any-hair-color/
Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles because two kinds of melanin: eumelanin and pheomelanin. Commonly, if further eumelanin is there, the color of the hair is darker; if a smaller amount eumelanin is present, the hair is lighter. Heights of melanin can vary over time reasoning a p...
by Farida Sarwar on Wear and Cheer - Fashion, Lifestyle, Cooking and Celebrities - Visit Now wearandcheer.com/gorgeous-highlights-for-any-hair-color/
You must like it and share it with your friends.
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 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 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, 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 20/02/2018, 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'.
Ben Goertzel presents How Might Probabilistic Reasoning Emerge from the Brain? Ben Goertzel and Cassio Pennachin of Novamente
The topic of this talk, along with an earlier talk by Matthew Ikle Probabilistic Quantifier Logic for General Intelligence: An Indefinite Probabilities Approach will likely be covered in much more detail in a forthcoming (July, 2008) book Probabilistic Logic Networks: A Comprehensive Framework for Uncertain Inference by Ben Goertzel, Matthew Ikle , Izabela Lyon Freire Goertzel, and Ari Heljakka
In Technical Session # 7: Neural Network and Brain Modeling
Session Chair: Randal Koene , Laboratory of Computational Neurophysiology, Center for Memory and Brain, Boston University at the The First Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI-08)
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 Pei Wang
I030308 037
(A nice little image to look at, and more Flickr blog therapy to put up with. ^_^;)
Forgive me if I seem incoherent tonight, and don't seem to make much sense. I'm very tired, and I'm going to go to sleep soon after this.
Getting right to the point - Politics, but not the kind we're hearing about in Washington, D.C., or even up in Sacramento, CA. This has to deal with whether to accept guys (admirers, "tranny chasers", etc.) on one's contact list, or just exclude them and only accept contacts from other tgirls/tgurls or genuine girls.
Some of you out there do one or the other. I can understand the reasoning behind the decision either way. In a way, it's like you're being penalized if you're not enough of a "girl" to warrant acceptance into the community, or perhaps you're just sick of having to deal with negative comments from people who have nothing better to do than hurt you, or others, to make themselves look better. Maybe it's because you've had it with having to fend off suitors, or dealing with people adding you who have the standard Flickr "blockhead" image, no photos available to you, photos in their collection that aren't of themselves (their own personal "masturbatorium"?), or photos of their own naughty bits.
I'm still taking my first few cautious steps closer and closer to the door of the closet I've imprisoned myself in for 20-odd years now. This side of me I've kept repressed for so long, feeling ashamed, and resigning myself to giving up. Fortunately, a few people out there said the right things to me at the right time, plus I felt I wanted to make myself more visible, after seeing some of you out there, so this has resulted in who you are seeing here now. (But I'm still afraid to make the rounds to other TG folk on here, comment on their pictures, etc. Yeah, I still have self-esteem issues, I've had them for quite a long time. Self-doubt still plays a big part in my life.) I still don't feel that I'm "real" enough to be worth talking to, or getting to know. I'm still in a sort of "limbo" as I'm putting myself together. It's kind of like rewriting my own "operating system" from existing source code elements, while writing new code to form the core executables, the kernel, the standard libraries, and the hardware abstraction layers. Think of me as being in an extended beta test phase for now.
I've had at least one person on my contact list tell me the Flickr community needs to get to know me as Julie, and that it's going to take time to establish this identity. I'm just glad that I've got some sort of basic elements to draw off of. I wonder how much of my real self is integrated in Julie, or how much of her is integrated in me? I seem to be clinging to keeping both sides of me separate, but there may really be not much of a distinction eventually.
I'm still experimenting, but I am getting more and more comfortable. It will take time.
Here's another excerpt from a filtered post on The Julie Anne Project LiveJournal:
(So... Why Is This A "Project"?)
[Because I am a project in the making. A personification of a character I created. A part of me that manifested on the page as a character, a girl in need of a back story.
What better way to establish the character than walking in her shoes? (Be it 3" heels, ballerina bow flats, or Reebok Freestyle hi-tops?)
That doesn't mean to say that Julie Anne on the printed page or a webcomic is transgendered. In a perfect world, Julie Anne would be a real girl.
This journal is an experiment in progress to see how my thought processes go when I'm not required to think and act in boy-mode. Though I may not be dressed for the part most of the time, it's a chance to see where my writing style goes. Forty years of living in a "man's world" won't change overnight.
So, the project will continue until an answer is reached, until the truth is found, until the story can be told... Until the door to the closet is opened, and Julie Anne can gain the confidence to walk out into the light and enter the world.
The experiment continues...]
The experiment has taken on a life of its own. It started with a series of drawings, progressing to writing, even taking on the persona here to have conversations with my other self. There are more and more moments where Julie Anne is just under the surface, even when I'm not presenting as Julie Anne. (Case in point, last Saturday night's visit to Candy Heaven in Old Sacramento - www.flickr.com/photos/julieanne03/4613926886/ )
The experiment may continue at FanimeCon. Nothing is set one way or the other. I want to meet others. I need to reach out, to talk to other people, to seek validation, acceptance, hopefully friendship, and ever so often, constructive criticism to keep me in check, and further refine myself. I'm sure I know most of what I need to do. Some things are becoming more and more second nature.
I don't want to be in limbo, I don't want to be a "blank slate", or a "chameleon" - I want to find out who I am, what my place in this world is, find my true voice, and be comfortable and accepting of who I turn out to be.
And so, I'm continuing on the journey, wherever it takes me. Maybe I'll make the rounds out there real soon.
Again, if this isn't making sense, I'm coming off of 4 hours' sleep within the last 36 hours. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Hopefully I'll get some well-deserved sleep soon in the next day or two. I'm working on a project for a friend in the meantime. I hope I don't make myself sick right before FanimeCon.
nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/covid-excess-mortality.html
What a Single Metric Tells Us About the Pandemic
Live long enough in a pandemic and you will see the entire narrative landscape shift, even flip, sometimes more than once.
As recently as a month ago, Americans of a certain cast of mind could have still looked to China — and indeed all of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania — with some plausible pandemic envy. Those early lockdowns in Wuhan were brutal, yes; some of the surveillance testing, contact tracing, and quarantine measures imposed in places like South Korea and Singapore were very restrictive, true; closed borders and reentry policies in Australia and New Zealand went further than those of any country in Europe or the Americas; and while the Sinovac vaccines weren’t as effective as those made by Moderna or Pfizer, the success of true “zero COVID” policies through the region meant that in many places, shots got into arms without anything like a major COVID surge ever having taken place.
All of that seemed like an unimaginable triumph. Now, after a brutal Omicron wave punishing its largely unvaccinated elderly, Hong Kong has a cumulative death toll approaching Canada’s. (In February, it was 25 times lower.) Omicron spikes elsewhere in the region — in South Korea, in Singapore — have proved less threatening, given higher rates of vaccination among the elderly. But panicked lockdowns imposed again in China suggest that the country’s leadership, at least, believes an enormous amount of pandemic vulnerability remains — enough to justify a total shutdown of Shenzhen, a city of almost 20 million and such a critical economic and manufacturing hub that American observers immediately started raising their expectations for inflation.
Narrative turnabouts are not new with Omicron. Some are familiar: The disease wasn’t spread through the air, then it was; masks weren’t worth it, early on, then became not just essential but badges of personal vigilance, then only useful if they were KN95s. Some narrative shifts were more obscure: Omicron was said to be “mild,” though it is roughly as severe as the original strain in immunologically naïve populations. Others have been somewhat memory-holed, as when much of the public-health Establishment spent the fall of 2020 suggesting that herd immunity would be reached when 60 or 70 percent of the country was infected or vaccinated, a threshold we have now long since surpassed with nothing like herd immunity in sight; or when it spent the summer of 2021 insisting that breakthrough cases were exceedingly rare and breakthrough deaths essentially nonexistent, when in fact probably a quarter of all American deaths since Delta have been among the vaccinated. Some reversals were technical, as when rapid tests were first considered imprecise, became indispensable during Omicron, then had their efficacy in preventing transmission called into question. Some had to do with policy: School closures were once part of a first-response wave of restrictions, but a growing understanding of the relatively low risk to kids and real costs of keeping them home has meant schools are now broadly viewed as among the most important places to remain open. And some had to do with personal behavior, as when many of the same people who spent 2020 yelling at Thanksgiving travelers and arguing that responsibility to protect others should dominate one’s personal behavior spent 2021 reasoning that vaccines had absolved us all of that responsibility. Many of those who once reacted in horror to “Let it rip” proponents began wondering if anything at all could have stopped the early spread in its tracks.
Our experience of the pandemic has been littered with bad-faith argumentation and instigation, but most of these narrative reversals are not that, or even signs of what Harvard’s William Hanage has called the “motivated reasoning” of the pandemic. One narrative replacing another is one description of the scientific method, and among the many astonishing features of this pandemic is how quickly science was able to process and respond — perhaps without adequate speed, but at least fast enough for vaccines to be designed within two days, manufactured within two months, and rolled out to the vast majority of the world within two years. But the unsteady narratives of COVID-19 are reminders that, as sure as we might have been about how to interpret our experience of it, the stories we told ourselves about what we were dealing with and what we should be doing to protect ourselves were often incomplete, clouded by much more uncertainty and ignorance, wishful thinking and reflexive panic, than we were ever comfortable acknowledging.
There is one data point that might serve as an exceptional interpretative tool, one that blinks bright through all that narrative fog: excess mortality. The idea is simple: You look at the recent past to find an average for how many people die in a given country in a typical year, count the number of people who died during the pandemic years, and subtract one from the other. The basic math yields some striking results, as shown by a recent paper in The Lancet finding that 18.2 million people may have died globally from COVID, three times the official total. As skeptical epidemiologists were quick to point out, the paper employed some strange methodology — modeling excess deaths even for countries that offered actual excess-death data and often distorting what we knew to be true as a result. A remarkable excess-mortality database maintained by The Economist does not have this problem, and, like the Lancet paper, the Economist database estimates global excess mortality; it puts the figure above 20 million.
As a measure of pandemic brutality, excess mortality has its limitations — but probably fewer than the conventional data we’ve used for the last two years. That’s because it isn’t biased by testing levels — in places like the U.S. and the U.K., a much higher percentage of COVID deaths were identified as such than in places like Belarus or Djibouti, making our pandemics appear considerably worse by comparison. By measuring against a baseline of expected death, excess mortality helps account for huge differences in the age structures of different countries, some of which may have many times more mortality risk than others because their populations are much older. And to the extent that the ultimate impact of the pandemic isn’t just a story about COVID-19 but also one about our responses to it — lockdowns and unemployment, suspended medical care and higher rates of alcoholism and automobile accidents — excess mortality accounts for all that, too. In some places, like the U.S., excess-mortality figures are close to the official COVID data — among other things, a tribute to our medical surveillance systems. In other places, the numbers are so different that accounting for them entirely changes the picture of not just the experience of individual nations but the whole world, scrambling everything we think we know about who did best and who did worst, which countries were hit hardest and which managed to evade catastrophe. If you had to pick a single metric by which to measure the ultimate impact of the pandemic, excess mortality is as good as we’re probably going to get.
So what does it say? A year ago, it seemed easy enough to divide pandemic outcomes into three groups — with Europe and the Americas performing far worse than East Asia, which appeared to have outmaneuvered the virus through public-health measures, and much of the Global South, especially sub-Saharan Africa, which looked to have been spared mostly by its relatively young population. Today, a crude count of official deaths, not excess mortality, suggests the same grouping: North America and Europe have almost identical death counts with official per capita totals eight times as high as Asia, as a whole, and 12 times as high as Africa. South America’s death toll is higher still — ten times as high as Asia and 15 times as high as Africa.
The excess-mortality data tells a different story. There is still a clear continent-by-continent pattern, but the gaps between them are much smaller, making the experiences of different parts of the world much less distinct and telling a more universal story about the devastation wrought by this once-in-a-century contagion. According to The Economist, Europe, Latin America, and North America have all registered excess deaths ranging from 270 to 370 per 100,000 inhabitants; excess mortality in Asia is estimated between 130 to 330; in Africa, the range is 79 to 220. These numbers are not identical, but, all things considered, they are remarkably close together. The highest of the low-end estimates is barely three times the lowest; the highest of the high-end estimates is not even twice as high as the lowest.
If you adjust for age, as the Economist database does separately, the differences among continents grow more dramatic — suggesting a reversal of outcomes, rather than a convergence. Outside of Oceania, Europe and North America were among the best in the world at preventing deaths among the old, and they were several times better at protecting their elderly, of whom they had many more, than Africa and South Asia. East Asia performed better, but only slightly: Canada is in line with China, Germany just marginally worse than South Korea, Iceland in the range of Japan. By almost any metric, Oceania remains an outlier: The Economist estimates zero excess deaths among the elderly in New Zealand, for instance, and gives the whole region an excess-mortality range of negative 31 to positive 37 per 100,000 residents, meaning it’s possible fewer people died there than would’ve had we never even heard of SARS-CoV-2.
In the country-by-country data, the divergences grow even bigger. Perhaps most striking, given both self-flagellating American narratives about the pandemic and current events elsewhere on the globe, is that the worst-hit large country in the world was not the U.S., which registered the most official deaths of any country but ranks 47th in per capita excess mortality, or Britain, which ranks 85th, or even India, which ranks 36th. It is Russia, which has lost, The Economist estimates, between 1.2 million and 1.3 million citizens over the course of the pandemic, a mortality rate more than twice as high as the American one.
Russia is not an outlier. While we have heard again and again in the U.S. about the experience of the pandemic in western Europe — sometimes in admiration, sometimes to mock — it has been eastern Europe that, of any region in the world, has the ugliest excess-mortality data. This, then, is where the pandemic hit hardest — in the countries of the old Warsaw Pact and formerly of the Soviet bloc. In fact, of the ten worst-performing countries, only one is outside eastern Europe. The world’s worst pandemic, according to the data, has been in Bulgaria, followed by Serbia, North Macedonia, and Russia, then Lithuania, Bosnia, Belarus, Georgia, Romania, and Sudan. (Have you read much about pandemic policy in any of these countries?) Peru, which had what is often described as the most brutal pandemic in the world, ranks 11th — with the smallest gap, among those countries with the most devastating pandemics, between the official COVID data and the estimated excess mortality. (You probably haven’t read much about Peru, either, but its lockdowns were severe — for months, only one member of each household was allowed out once a week. At one point, an exemption was extended allowing for children under the age of 14 to leave their homes for 30 minutes of exercise per day, so long as it was conducted less than 500 meters away.)
Because The Economist allows you to explore how excess mortality evolved over time, country by country, the data also clearly showcases the pandemic as a tale of two years — a mitigation year, 2020, and a vaccination year, 2021. Early in the vaccine-distribution phase, with the U.K. and U.S. moving most quickly, it was striking how so few of the countries that had done well in preventing spread in 2020 were doing well in providing vaccines quickly. Over the course of 2021, many of those gaps disappeared, with countries across East Asia and Oceania eventually accelerating their vaccine distribution and parts of Europe that were slow at the outset starting to catch up too. But the U.S. took the opposite course. In 2020, the U.S. had done a bit worse than average among its OECD peers. In 2021, when pandemic outcomes were often determined by the relative uptake of American-made vaccines, the U.S. did much, much worse than that. In country after country in Europe, the pandemic killed a fraction as many last year as it had the year before. In the U.S., it killed more. A year ago, it was possible to defend the American record as merely below average — worse than it should have been but not, judging globally, cataclysmically bad. Today, it is cataclysmically bad, which is both outrageous and ironic, given that it is largely American vaccine innovation that has changed the pandemic landscape for the rest of the world — the rest of the rich world, at least.
On February 1, 2021, just after the inauguration of Joe Biden, the U.S. had registered, according to The Economist, 178 excess deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, quite close to Britain’s 166, Belgium’s 162, and Portugal’s 201. Fast-forward a year and those gaps have exploded. The U.S. has now registered 330 excess deaths per 100,000 — meaning our total has roughly doubled. In Britain, the excess mortality grew only 30 percent; in Portugal, it was 17 percent.
The gaps between deaths in the U.S. and countries that had done better in the first year of the pandemic, like Germany or Iceland, have gotten even bigger. If the U.S. had the same cumulative excess mortality of Germany, it would have had 600,000 fewer deaths. If it had the excess mortality of Iceland, it would have had a million fewer deaths — and would have only lost about 100,000 Americans in total.
How did this happen? The answer is screamingly obvious, if also, in its way, confusing: The U.S. drove an unprecedented vaccine-innovation campaign in 2020, which empowered much of the world to turn the page on the pandemic’s deadliest phases, then, in 2021, utterly failed to take advantage of its power itself. But what is perhaps even more striking is that American vaccination coverage isn’t just bad, by the standards of its peers, but getting worse. About two-thirds of Americans have received two shots of vaccine, a level that is in line with Israel and not far off from the U.K., though below many other wealthy countries. (And even in the U.K., vaccination was more effectively directed toward the old.) But over the last six months, the country has had an opportunity to make up that gap with boosters and has simply not taken it. Only 29 percent of Americans have had a booster shot of vaccine, which puts us behind Slovenia, Slovakia, and Poland and means that less than half of those people happy to be vaccinated a year ago have chosen to get a third shot through Delta and Omicron. Booster campaigns seem like an obvious opportunity for easy public-health gains, yet remarkably few Americans seem to think it’s worth the trouble. Why? For everything we think we know about the pandemic and how people have responded to it, that one remains a maddening mystery.
www.newsday.com/news/health/coronavirus/coronavirus-boost...
COVID rates are rising again. Who's most at risk?
As the percentage of people testing positive for COVID-19 continues to rise on Long Island, experts say those who didn’t contract the coronavirus in the past few months are most at risk, but if they’re vaccinated, their vulnerability drops.
The spread of the highly contagious omicron subvariant BA.2 and a decline in mask-wearing are causing the rise in rates after they declined sharply following the omicron surge earlier this winter, said Dr. Leonard Krilov, an infectious disease expert and chief of pediatrics at NYU Langone Hospital-Long Island in Mineola.
The positivity rate likely will continue to rise somewhat, but he didn’t expect a major new wave of infections.
“The immunity levels in the population are pretty good” because of vaccination and the large number of people infected with the coronavirus in recent months, he said. “I’m guardedly optimistic we won’t see major blips.”
WHAT TO KNOW
■ The percentage of people testing positive for COVID-19 continued to rise on Friday, to 2.31%. It had been 1.99% on Tuesday.
■ Experts don’t believe there will be another major surge, because there is relatively strong immunity from the vaccines and from infections during the winter omicron spike.
■ A second booster shot may be advisable in the near future, especially for older adults and those with certain medical conditions, experts say.
After the Long Island positivity rate reached nearly 27% in early January, it fell to 1.52% by March 9. But it’s been steadily rising since then, with the increase accelerating in recent days, going from 1.99% on Tuesday to 2.31% on Friday.
Dr. Bruce Farber, chief of public health and epidemiology for Northwell Health, said people who both contracted the virus in recent months and are vaccinated, and especially those who also received booster shots, are most protected against new infection. But immunity gradually wanes over time, he said.
"Every month that goes by and we’re further away from January, when most of those people got infected, the number of vulnerable people is going to grow," he said.
Farber said that, to limit the spread of the virus, “the things we can do are give another booster or change our lifestyles again." But, he said, "there’s no appetite in our country" for reinstituting restrictions such as mask mandates.
"The only remaining option is really boosters," he said.
Considering a 2nd booster shot
It’s unclear when a second booster shot is advisable, Farber said. Earlier this month, Pfizer and BioNTech asked for Food and Drug Administration authorization for a second booster for those 65 and older, and Moderna asked for authorization for additional boosters for all adults.
The Biden administration is planning to allow everyone 50 and older to receive a second booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccine, although it would only be an option, not a recommendation, according to multiple news outlets. The proposal was first reported late Friday in The New York Times. The FDA could authorize a second booster in the next several days, the reports said.
Krilov said focusing on older age groups first is logical.
“The argument for it, and it makes some sense, is that after 50, 60, you don’t respond as well, your immune system isn’t quite as robust,” he said. “To boost that population does make some sense. … Everybody’s felt that we’re going to at some point need additional boosting. It’s figuring out the timing of it.”
Data out of Israel, which for months has allowed second boosters for people 60 and older and other vulnerable groups, is promising, Farber said. But the results are from two months after the booster was given, and “normally we don’t make decisions based on two-month follow-ups,” he said. It’s unclear how quickly protection wanes after two months, he said.
Farber worried that if the FDA gives older adults an option for a second booster, but not a full recommendation, it could be confusing and lead “to very mixed messages among the public.”
Farber said people 60 or 65 and older probably should get a second booster, if authorized. For people in their 50s, it would depend on how much time they spend in crowded indoor spaces and whether they have health conditions making them more vulnerable, he said.
“A healthy 50-year-old may want to pass on a booster right now, but a 50-year-old with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, that’s a whole different picture,” he said.
56% of eligible NYers boosted
In New York, 56% of those eligible for a booster have received one, and 76.1% of the population has received at least two vaccine doses, or one of the Johnson & Johnson, according to state data.
Unvaccinated people 12 and older are more than three times as likely to test positive for the coronavirus than boosted people, and 21 times more likely to die of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The timing of a second booster would be a judgment call, Krilov said. With the positivity rate still relatively low, it may make more sense for many people to wait until just before the fall, when the risk likely will be higher.
“On the other hand, if I have multiple risk factors, I’d probably say get it as soon as it’s approved,” he said.
The number of COVID-19 hospitalizations rose on Long Island, from 119 on Thursday to 123 on Friday, state data shows. But that was after a large drop, from 143 patients on Wednesday. More than 58% were admitted for a reason other than COVID-19.
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 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 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 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, Isle of Wight. Formed 20/02/2018, 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'.