Berthault's Sedimentation Experiments

Julien, Pierre Y. et al.  “Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures.”  Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 164(5):649–660.  1993.  A laboratory experiment on sand mixtures in a small recirculating flume that could be tilted, published in a French geology journal (received 26 October 1992, accepted 15 April 1993).  It reports that stratification under a continuous supply of mixed sand grains results from segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded beds, and desiccation for joints.  The article uses it as the source for the claim that superposed strata need not be successive layers.

1. 1a.

   Section Abstract, page 649:  “Rather than successive sedimentary layers, these experiments demonstrate that stratification under a continuous supply of heterogeneous sand particles results from : segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and desiccation for joints.  Superposed strata are not necessarily identical to successive layers.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 1b.

   Page 659, section conclusions:  “In summary, these experiments demonstrate that stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures can result from : segregation for lamination, non-uniform flow for graded-beds, and desiccation for joints.  Therefore, superposed strata are not necessarily identified to successive sedimentary layers.” ↩ ↩

3. 1c.

   Page 659, section acknowledgements:  The reviewers thanked are:  “Mrs. Berne, Postma and editorial advisor Mr. Seguret.”  George Postma is a sedimentologist at Utrecht; M. Séguret is a structural geologist at Montpellier. ↩ ↩

4. 1d.

   Page 649, section author footnote:  Julien is given as.  “Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Research Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA.”  Berthault's affiliation on the same footnote is a home address:  “28 boul. Thiers, Meulan, 78250, France.” ↩

5. 1e.

   Page 658, section conclusions:  “Lamination essentially results from the mechanical segregation of heterogeneous particles in a moving layer.  Lamination is possible without turbulence and without the migration of low amplitude bedforms.  Through lateral movement of particles of constant mass density, finer particles fall within the interstices of rolling coarser particles.”  Page 655:  The velocimeter is an ultrasonic Doppler instrument, and its stated accuracy is:  “an accuracy of + 0.003 m/sec or 2 % of reading, whichever was greater.” ↩

6. 1f.

   Page 654:  The apparatus is a tilting plexiglas flume 0.15 m wide, 0.15 m deep and 2.40 m long, with a tailgate 0.15 m wide and 0.02 m high inserted at the downstream end to force deposition.  Figure 5:  “Small recirculating flume”. ↩ ↩

7. 1g.

   Page 655:  “The new deposit reached the downstream end of the flume about 20 to 30 minutes after inserting the tailgate.” ↩

8. 1h.

   Page 656:  “These results primarily show that the delta thickness increases as Vd decreases, while Vu remains fairly constant (Vu = 50 cm/s).”  Berthault 2000, ICR Impact 328, p. iii, describing the same runs for a general reader:  “At 1 m/s superposed laminae formed laterally in the direction of the current.  A reduction of velocity to 0.5 m/s caused larger particles to collect on the previous laminae”. ↩

9. 1i.

   Page 658:  The sand was taken from the Bijou Creek channel near Hoyt, Colorado, close to McKee et al.'s locality III (D10 = 0.34 mm, D50 = 0.75 mm, D90 = 1.65 mm, silt and clay 0.1%), deposited in the flume and dried for seven days under solar lamps.  No vertical cracks formed;  the horizontal planes between crusted fine and coarse sand.  “separated easily.” ↩

10. 1j.

    Table I, page 650:  “Summary of hypotheses explaining the origin of horizontal lamination.”  Twenty entries running from Kuenen & Menard 1952 to Paola, Wiele & Reinhart 1989.  Entry 7, Moss 1963 and Kuenen 1966:  “Grains of similar susceptibility to transport tend to deposit together, i.e. spatial & temporal selection of similar grains due to grain interaction under quasi-steady flow condition - the 'like-seek-like' principle.”  Entry 13, Middleton 1970:  “Smaller grains filter down between larger ones during flow, thus displacing the larger ones towards the free surface.” ↩ ↩

11. 1k.

    Page 651:  “Middleton [1970] proposed that grading arose because smaller grains tended to filter down between the larger ones during flow, thus displacing the larger grains toward the free surface.  This segregation mechanism is also referred to as ‘kinematic sieving’ in Allen [1982].” ↩

12. 1l.

    Page 658, section conclusions:  “Sufficient space, or rolling distance, is required for clear lamination to develop in moving layers of heterogeneous particles.” ↩

13. 1m.

    Page 658:  “These experiments simply support previous observations that joints can result from desiccation and not necessarily from periods without sediment settling.” ↩

14. 1n.

    Page 658, section conclusions:  “Upper flow regime conditions similar to the Bijou Creek flood can be reproduced in the laboratory, and clear stratification of heterogeneous mixtures is evidenced by using coarse and fine sand grains of different colors.” ↩

15. 1o.

    Page 649, section introduction:  “Stratified sand deposits up to 12 feet (3.8 m) in thickness formed within a few hours.  The violent flood deposited superposed thick horizontal strata of fine and coarse sands, characteristic of the upper flow regime with internal layering in the form of microscale lamination.”  The printed metric conversion is wrong:  12 ft is 3.66 m, not 3.8 m. ↩

Berthault, Guy.  Guy Berthault's response to Kevin Henke's article.  Jul 31, 2003.  Berthault's point-by-point reply, translated from the French, to Kevin Henke's web article on his stratigraphy work.  Berthault answers Henke's headings in turn, defends his flume experiments, and says that he is not a creationist.  The article uses it for that denial and for his statement that the contradictions between Genesis and geology motivated his research.

1. 2a.

   Berthault is replying to Kevin Henke, who had called him a 'young-Earth creationist'.  “You qualify me as a 'young-Earth creationist'.  This is incorrect.  I am not a creationist.  I do not use the Bible to construct geological models to accord, in particular, with the Deluge.” ↩ ↩

2. 2b.

   The sentence immediately following the denial:  “If it is true, that being a Catholic, the contradictions between biblical Genesis and historical geology motivated my research, I, nevertheless, took great care to avoid bias and conduct my work with objectivity.” ↩

3. 2c.

   Berthault is replying to Kevin Henke, who wrote that in the 1960s and 1970s geologists knew laminae 'can form under a variety of conditions', long before Berthault's research.  “My lamination experiments in France were in 1974.  At that time, I knew about the earlier flume experiments in lamination.  In my report to the Academy I cited Edwin Mc Kee's work in 1965.” ↩

4. 2d.

   Berthault answers Henke on the coarse interbeds in the Bright Angel Shale.  The two velocities are quoted from Julien's own textbook Erosion and Sedimentation (1995) as maximum permissible canal velocities for depths under 1 m.  “If, therefore, the velocity of the turbulent current fluctuates between 1.52 and 1.83m/s, there will be alternate deposits of clay, silt and coarse gravel.  This is the case with Bright Angel Shale.” ↩

Berthault, Guy et al.  “Research on erosion of consolidated and semi-consolidated soils by high speed water flow.”  Izvestiya VNIIG 257:10–22.  2010.  A laboratory study of how fast clear water must flow before it erodes rock, run at the Vedeneyev Russian National Research Institute of Hydraulic Engineering in St Petersburg in a closed high-pressure pipe loop that reaches 27 m/s.  The pagination caution is this: the Russian original is Izvestiya VNIIG 257:10–22, and the English typescript carries its own printed footers 1–11, so every page number below is a typescript page.  The samples were weighed on a "Shinko AJ-12KCE" balance reading to a 100 mg scale division (typescript p. 5), but the same page gives the absolute error of the wet-weighing method as ±5.0 g, so the effective resolution on a soaked monolith is grams, not milligrams.  The article uses it as the strongest evidence in Berthault's own work against a rock-cutting Flood, though the rig used clean water only.

1. 3a.

   Section Conclusion 1, page 10:  “Limestones (samples 2 and 3) and dolomitic monoliths are resistant to eroding action of water flow with velocities up to 26m/s.  Taking into account variation of the velocity of 5%, it is possible to conclude that upper non-erosive velocity is about 27.5 m/s.  Summary duration of the flow action was 22.5 hours for sample 2 in series 1 – 2; 18 hours for sample 3 in series 5 – 6 and 13 – 15; 36 hours for sample 3 in series 25 – 26; 15.5 hours for sample 5 in series 3 – 4.” ↩ ↩ ↩

2. 3b.

   Page 1:  “So as to perform scientific experiments on erodibility of consolidated soil under impact of the high-speed water flow a closed loop circulation hydraulic high pressure pipe system has been designed and built; the installation is provided with a right-angled cross section of 29.5 cm2 where an average flow speed can reach 27 m/s.” ↩

3. 3c.

   Section Conclusion 1, continued, page 10:  “Artificial roughness on the surface of limestone (sample 3) and inclination of the surface against flow did not increase erosion of the sample.” ↩

4. 3d.

   Section Conclusion 2, pages 10–11:  The conclusion begins on typescript p. 10 and carries its numbers on typescript p. 11.  “Sandstones could be eroded under relatively small velocities of affected flow.  Minimal erosive velocity varies within wide limits depending upon the mechanical properties of the rock.  For fissured obolus, sandstone the velocity is about 4.5 m/s, for weathered glauconitic sandstone – about 11 m/s.” ↩

5. 3e.

   Pages 1–2:  “a closed loop circulation hydraulic high pressure pipe system”.  “Working area 5 of the installation is a pipe of rectangular section of 290 mm in width and 50 mm in height”.  Describing the rig, the paper says the sample set is flush with the floor and the discharge is read off an ultrasonic flow-meter.  The experiment therefore measures clear-water erosion only. ↩

6. 3f.

   Section Conclusion 3, page 11:  “rocks begin with destruction of ties between separate blocks and washing-out of the blocks from erosion zone with velocities less than minimal erosion ones for monolithic rocks”. ↩

Kuenen, Ph. H.  “Experimental turbidite lamination in a circular flume.”  The Journal of Geology 74(5, Part 1):523–545.  Sep 1966.  A laboratory experiment in which a perfectly steady, slowing current ran through a circular flume, a water channel shaped like a ring.  It found that such a current still makes lamination, meaning fine layers, provided the deposit does not build up too quickly, and that pulses in the current are not needed.  The article uses it as the 1966 flume demonstration of the mechanism that the 1993 flume paper also shows.

1. 4a.

   Section Abstract, page 523:  “However, current pulsations are so numerous that they should produce ten to a hundred times more laminae than are present.  It is shown experimentally that a perfectly steady, decelerating flow, comparable to the lower part of a turbidity current, produces grading, rippling, and convolution.  But it also creates lamination, provided the accumulation is not too swift.” ↩ ↩

2. 4b.

   Section Abstract, page 523:  “Adjacent laminae can have median diameters differing by a factor of 3, and brick particles show concentrations by a factor of 6 in some laminae.  The selective concentration is due to the tendency of particles moving along the bottom to join stationary ones of equal weight, density, and shape. … Horizontal lamination in deposits formed by rivers is believed to result in most cases from the same selective action and not from pulsations.  This picture is very close to that deduced earlier by Moss and argued so convincingly on the basis of composition of natural laminae.” ↩

Berthault, Guy.  “Sédimentologie — Expériences sur la lamination des sédiments par granoclassement périodique postérieur au dépôt.”  Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, Série II 303(17):1569–1574.  1986.  A short laboratory note, presented to the Academy by Georges Millot, on how mixed grain sizes settle into laminae as they are deposited.  Its English abstract reports that the laminae form by a spontaneous, periodic and continuous grading process, and that a horizontal current makes them build laterally in the direction of the current.  The article uses it as Berthault's first note on the experiments, where he quotes Lombard on Kuenen's 1966 flume.

1. 5a.

   Section English abstract, page 1569:  “These sedimentation experiments have been conducted in still water with a continuous supply of heterogranular material.  A deposit is obtained, giving the illusion of successive beds or laminae.  These laminae are the result of a spontaneous, periodic and continuous grading process, which takes place immediately, following the deposit of the heterogranular mixture.  The thickness of the laminae appears to be independent of the speed of sedimentation but increases with extreme differences in the size of the particles in the mixture.  Where an horizontal current is involved, thin laminated superposed layers developping laterally in the direction of the current are observed.”  The misspelling is in the printed text.  The mixture proportions and the 2.5 mm couplet thickness are from the same page.  The printed running head on this page reads.  “C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, t. 303, Série II, n° 17, 1986   1569”. ↩

2. 5b.

   Page 1569:  Quoting Augustin Lombard's treatise:  “Kuenen (1966) a reproduit ces laminae sans faire intervenir des pulsations de courants; elles se forment pendant des décélérations (p. 248).”  On the same page he points at dry-powder segregation as the closest analogue:  “Un rapprochement saisissant peut être fait avec l'écoulement à sec, de mélanges de poudres [2].  Il est montré expérimentalement une ségrégation des particules de même calibre.”  His 1988 note names reference [2] on p. 718:  “H. Campbell [2] has demonstrated that a dry flow of a mixture of powders gave rise to a segregation of particles of the same size.” ↩ ↩

McKee, Edwin D. et al.  “Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965.”  Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37(3):829–851.  Sep 1967.  A field study of the sand left by a flood on Bijou Creek, Colorado, in June 1965.  The authors dug 75 trenches and ran 137 mechanical analyses of sand from four localities, and found sand laid down rapidly by fast, upper-flow-regime water, typically two to three feet thick and up to 12 feet in one place.  The article uses it as the field record behind a flume study that opens with the same flood and takes its sand from the same creek bed.

1. 6a.

   Section Abstract, page 829:  “These deposits consist of sand that was laid down in mid-June, 1965 during rapid movement of the upper flow regime.  They are composed largely of horizontal or nearly horizontal layers that cover the channel and extend outward beyond the banks on each side of the stream commonly for distances of one-quarter to one-half mile or more.  Typical thickness of these deposits ranges from two to three feet, but a maximum of 12 feet was measured at one place on West Bijou Creek.”  Section Method, page 829:  “mechanical analyses of 137 samples from the four localities studied”.  Page 832:  “At these sites a total of 75 trenches was dug.” ↩ ↩

2. 6b.

   Page 831:  “On the morning of June 18, 1965, peak discharge 12 miles above the mouth of the creek (locality IV of this paper) was reported as 466,000 cfs.  A mean velocity of 16.4 fps (feet per second) was computed on the basis of a total cross-sectional area of 28,380 sq ft for channel and overbank flow, and a mean velocity of 21.83 fps for the main channel”. ↩

3. 6c.

   Page 831:  “it seems probable that the major part of the floodwater traveled nearly the full length of the Bijou Creek drainage area in a period of 9 to 12 hours.” ↩

4. 6d.

   Page 836:  “The prevalence of nearly horizontal, even bedding in coarse sediment and the absence of observed ripple bedding or subaqueous megaripple structures indicated deposition by relatively high-velocity currents of the upper flow regime (Simons and Richardson, 1961, p. 91; Simons, Richardson, and Nordin, 1965, p. 35-37).”  Page 850:  Numbered conclusion 3.  “Stages in development of flood deposits may be recorded at any particular place by changes in the structure of sand.  Horizontal stratification is characteristic of rapid flow, whereas climbing ripple lamination, convolute structures, festoon bedding, and scour surfaces commonly result from decrease of velocity during waning stages.” ↩

5. 6e.

   Page 841:  “The contact between trough-planer cross strata and flat-lying or horizontal strata possibly represents an increase in water velocity and a change from lower to upper flow regime, as the result of a second flood stage in this area.” ↩

Berthault, Guy.  “Experiments in Stratification.”  Impact (328):i–iv.  Institute for Creation Research.  Oct 2000.  “Guy Berthault is an independant researcher from France”.  A 4 pp. popular summary by Berthault, written for the Institute for Creation Research's Impact series, of his flume experiments and what they show about how strata form.  The article uses it for Berthault's own description of the flume, his statement that the method gives minimum conditions, and his three conclusions about strata.

1. 7a.

   Page iii:  “This led to a series of experiments conducted in their modern hydraulics laboratory at Fort Collins.  Pierre Julien, a sedimentologist, was in charge of the experiments.  They took place in large glass-walled flumes”.  The 1993 paper calls the same apparatus a "Small recirculating flume", 0.15 m wide, 0.15 m deep and 2.40 m long, in plexiglas. ↩ ↩

2. 7b.

   Page iv:  “These relationships can be used to determine the minimum paleohydraulic conditions (velocity of current, depth of water, discharge and speed of accumulation of sediments) from sedimentary rock structures.” ↩ ↩

3. 7c.

   Page iii:  “1. Strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time;  2. Strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies;  3. Strata are not always a measure of chronology.”  Page ii:  On why he began:  “Searching the geological and sedimentological literature, I was surprised to find that there was little experimental data on the formation of strata.”  He credits McKee as prior art:  “American geologist Edwin McKee reported his observations of sediments deposited in 1965 when Bijou Creek in Colorado overflowed its banks due to 48 hours of torrential rain.” ↩

4. 7d.

   Page iv:  “The experiments demonstrated that current deposited strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies.  This is consistent with sequence stratigraphy.” ↩

Berthault, Guy.  “Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data.”  Lithology and Mineral Resources 37(5):442–446.  2002.  An English translation of a 2002 Russian article (Litologiya i Poleznye Iskopaemye No. 5, pp. 509–515; received 18 February 2000) in which Berthault argues from his experiments that Steno's principles of stratigraphy should give way to paleohydraulic analysis.  He says Steno's model did not fit his experimental data because it overlooked the current and its chronological effects.  The article uses it because Berthault himself calls the method's results minimum values, and because it is where he proposes the replacement.

1. 8a.

   Section Abstract, page 442:  “Stratigraphy, the basis of geological dating, was founded in the 17th century on the three well-known principles assumed by Nicolas Stenon: superposition, continuity, and original horizontality.  Successive observations and experiments show that Stenon's stratigraphic model was not in line with experimental data, because it had 'overlooked' the major variable factor of sedimentology: the current and its chronological effects.” ↩

2. 8b.

   Pages 445–446, figures 7a–7b:  The chain of conversions uses Rubin & McCulloch's San Francisco Bay diagram for depth and a depth-velocity diagram for velocity, then Hjulström-type competence curves for transport capacity.  Its cited sources are Hjulström 1935, Lebedev 1959, Neill 1968, Levi 1981, Maizels 1983, Van Rijn 1984, Maza & Flores 1997, Rubin & McCulloch 1980 and Southard & Boguchwal 1990.  Berthault's reference list gives Rubin & McCulloch as "J. Sediment. Petrol., 1980, no. 26, pp. 207-231."  The paper is in Sedimentary Geology 26:207–231 and its title reads "superimposed", not "superposed".  The same error appears in ICR Impact 328. ↩

3. 8c.

   Page 446:  “It is, therefore, possible to appreciate the time the particles took to fall and, based on the capacity, to evaluate the time taken for the sediment to precipitate.  Such data would, of course, only be minimum, but it would nevertheless give access to knowledge of the genesis of sedimentation.”  In the conclusions on the same page:  “Having established the sequences of cycles, their paleohydraulic conditions must be determined.  These would be minimum conditions, because it is possible that certain cycles, resulting from tectonic processes, attained an amplitude beyond anything comparable today.” ↩ ↩

Lalomov, A. V. et al.  Research of paleohydraulic conditions and determination of actual time of sedimentation of Cambrian–Ordovician sandstones of St.-Petersburg region.  2006.  A 24-page report of joint 2004–2005 research by the Geological Laboratory ARCTUR in Moscow and the Lithological Department of the Geological Faculty of St Petersburg State University.  It applies an Einstein procedure, with the authors' additions, to four members of Cambrian and Ordovician sandstone near St Petersburg, and totals 2,919 years, which the authors say can give only the order of magnitude of the duration.  The article uses it as the best-documented application of the paleohydraulic method, and as a case where the method's own arithmetic gives centuries against the 25 million years on the stratigraphic chart.

1. 9a.

   Table 4, page 16:  Formula (3) in the report is Td = Hmax · Ce · L / (qT · Cf).  The table's arithmetic reproduces from its own inputs: Sablino lower, 8 m × 100,000 m ÷ 38.62 m³/day/m ÷ 0.5 = 41,429 days against a printed 41,424; Sablino upper, 4 × 80,000 ÷ 8.52 ÷ 0.8 = 46,948 against 46,969; Ladoga, 9 × 100,000 ÷ 5.11 ÷ 0.4 = 440,313 against 439,907; Tosno, 5 × 120,000 ÷ 3.72 ÷ 0.3 = 537,634 against 537,012.  The printed years are 114, 129, 1,205 and 1,471, summing to the printed total of 2,919. ↩ ↩

2. 9b.

   Page 16:  “Relative error of the calculation is too large for exact determining of the duration of sedimentation because of approximate estimation of some parameters such as the channel slope, direction of the flow, extension of Formation and coefficient of effectiveness, therefore we can definitely determine only order of the value of the duration.  Thus we can suppose that according to Einstein procedure with our additions, the duration of deposition of all sequence of Cambrian-Ordovician Sandstones of SPb region did not exceeds 3000 years, that is about 0.001% of 25 million years that is assigned to the sequence by stratigraphic chart.” ↩

3. 9c.

   Page 16:  The same sentence as the 3000-year estimate, ending with this clause:  “we can definitely determine only order of the value of the duration.” ↩

4. 9d.

   Page 18:  “Absence of 99.999% of assumed sedimentary sequence is reason for questioning of the conventional chronostratigraphy based of Stenon's principles that should be revised on the foundation of modern observations and experiments [Berthault, 2004, 2006].”  Computed for this article from the report's own total: 2,919 ÷ 25,000,000 = 0.0117%, so the missing fraction is 99.988%.  The printed "0.001%" is too small by a factor of about twelve. ↩

5. 9e.

   Table 4:  Computed for this article from Table 4 by setting the efficiency coefficient Cf to 1 in every row and leaving all other inputs unchanged: Sablino lower, 8 × 100,000 ÷ 38.62 = 20,715 days; Sablino upper, 4 × 80,000 ÷ 8.52 = 37,559; Ladoga, 9 × 100,000 ÷ 5.11 = 176,125; Tosno, 5 × 120,000 ÷ 3.72 = 161,290.  Total 395,689 days, or 1,083 years at 365.25 days.  Cf is bounded above by 1 by its own definition as a coefficient of flow effectiveness, so this is the shortest duration the printed table can yield. ↩ ↩ ↩

6. 9f.

   Page 17:  “We took into account alternation of direction of the flow by coefficient of effectiveness of the flow that allows eliminating influence of multiplying migration of the sediments in the point of observation.  Also, we consider partial erosion of the strata.  As we took into calculation maximal values of the parameters, so the calculation gives us maximal duration; real time of deposition could be less.” ↩ ↩

7. 9g.

   Page 17:  “Based on the analysis of tidal cycles, Kulyamin and Smirnov established that the pure deposition period of Cambrian – Ordovician sandstones in the Baltic region is approximately 170 days, including a mere of 130 days for Middle – Upper Cambrian Sablino sandstones and 40 days for Lower Ordovician Pakerort sandstones (analogue of Tosno Member) [Kulyamin and Smirnov, 1973].  Study of analogous sediments in the SPb district also showed that the pure deposition time of Lower Paleozoic sands is estimated at 100 – 200 yr., while stratigraphic duration of the Sablino Member is 10 – 15 Ma [Tugarova et al., 2001].” ↩

8. 9h.

   Page 17:  “Accumulation of thick fine grained layers of clay with significant content of organic carbon that are evidence of long interrupts of sedimentation (stagnation) are not observed in the COS sequence. … Content of organic carbon is about 0.1 – 0.3%; the content is invariable in the vertical sequence that is evidence of lack of stagnation periods.” ↩

9. 9i.

   Page 17:  Stating the mainstream explanation before setting it aside, the report says:  “They explain this effect by erosion of significant part of the sediments in geological sequences and by the multiple rewashing of sediments in shallow-water zones with an active lithodynamics characterized by alternations of sedimentation and seafloor abrasion depending on the force of gales and currents.  Meyen believed that only a tiny share (0.01- 0.001%) of the total time of sedimentation in shallow-water zones is usually documented because of the abundance of latent hiatuses [Meyen, 1989].” ↩

Lalomov, A. V.  Paleochannels of Ural folded belt and piedmont area: reconstruction of paleohydraulic conditions.  2008.  A 25 pp. final report on a 2006–2007 joint research project by the Geological Laboratory ARCTUR with IGEM RAS and the Research-Exploration Centre "Monitoring" in Khanty-Mansiisk.  It works out how long the flows that cut ancient river valleys (paleochannels) in the Urals would have needed to erode them, with results from under a day for an Oligocene valley to 320.1 years for one zone of the Kijim valley.  The article uses its erosion times of 0.8 to 320 years per zone.

1. 10a.

   Table 3, page 20:  The caption, "Time of erosion for Turgay's Debacle", sits at the foot of page 19, and the table is on page 20.  It gives the Oligocene valley "< 1 day" and the Quaternary valley "83 years".  Page 21:  Kijim valley table: zone A 0.8 years, zone B 47.3 years, zone C 7.5 years, zone D 320.1 years.  Page 20:  “Even in this case of very conservative estimation the time of erosion of Oligocene valley is less than one day.  The value of Te for Quarter valley is about 83 years.” ↩ ↩

2. 10b.

   Section Conclusions, page 25:  “These intensive currents could carry out huge erosion work in a short time: days in weakly consolidated sediment and years in hard metamorphic rocks.”  Pages 24–25:  “Whereas Quarter erosion could be connected with outburst of giant glacial lake, the reason of earlier Oligocene flood is unclear.”  Page 20:  On p. 20 he concedes:  “in the case of the complex structure of eroded geological strata (consolidated and incohesive) time of erosion for solid rocks is much more than for friable sediments”. ↩

Lalomov, A. V.  “Reconstruction of paleohydrodynamic conditions during the formation of Upper Jurassic conglomerates of the Crimean Peninsula.”  Lithology and Mineral Resources 42(3):268–280.  2007.  A 2007 paper by A. V. Lalomov of the Institute of Geology of Ore Deposits, Petrography, Mineralogy and Geochemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences, on the flow conditions that formed Upper Jurassic conglomerates in Crimea.  It gives no figure for how long that took, and its author calls his own reading "debatable".  The article uses it for the Crimean case, where Lalomov gives no number at all.

1. 11a.

   Page 277:  “Since the nature of parameters involved in the calculations is approximate, we cannot give the exact figure.  However, even the most approximate estimate shows that, although the formation of the UJCS sequence is considered as a stratigraphically long-term process (several millions of years), in reality in terms of geology it can be referred to as a virtually instantaneous episode (not millions of years).” ↩

2. 11b.

   Page 279:  “The proposed interpretation is debatable and we do not reject the classical mechanism of UJCS formation (Khain, 1983).  Nevertheless, catastrophic mechanisms cannot be excluded from the consideration.”  Page 278:  On causes:  “Interpretation of the causes of catastrophic sedimentation is hypothetical. … The available data do not allow us to draw a single conclusion about the reasons of such powerful and intense geological event”. ↩ ↩

Computed for this article.  Froude-scaled flow speed in 100 metres of water, from Berthault's flume depth and velocity.  n.d.  Computed for this article; it is not taken from any source, and no source in this literature publishes it.  Froude number Fr = v ÷ √(gh) gives Fr = 1.0 ÷ √(9.81 × 0.15) = 1.0 ÷ 1.213 = 0.824 at v = 1.0 m/s and h = 0.15 m, and holding that number at h = 100 m gives v = 0.824 × √(9.81 × 100) = 0.824 × 31.32 = 25.8 m/s.  Two stated assumptions are load-bearing.  First, 0.15 m is the flume's channel depth, and the 1993 paper does not print its water depths, so the real depth was smaller and the real Froude number larger:  at h = 0.10 m the scaled speed is 31.6 m/s, and at h = 0.05 m it is 44.7 m/s, both above the 27.5 m/s non-erosive threshold, which would reverse the conclusion drawn from it.  Second, Froude similarity is the standard scaling for free-surface open-channel flow, but nothing obliges a natural flood to share a flume's Froude number, and Paola et al. 2009 call exactly this kind of "direct algebraic transformation" the thing experimental stratigraphy must give up.  Taking 0.5 m/s instead of 1.0 m/s halves the answer to 12.9 m/s.  The article uses it, offered as an order-of-magnitude check on whether the two Berthault datasets sit together, not as a claim about how fast a Flood ran. ↩ ↩

Snelling, Andrew.  “Sedimentation experiments: Nature finally catches up!”  Journal of Creation (then CEN Technical Journal) 11(2):125–126.  Aug 1997.  A short article in the creationist Journal of Creation by Andrew Snelling, which says that the 1997 Nature papers by Makse and colleagues, on grains of different sizes segregating as they are poured, confirm Berthault's flume results.  It complains that Nature did not mention Berthault's work, and it says a laminated deposit of the kind Berthault made could form catastrophically.  The article uses it as the origin of the claim that Nature confirmed Berthault.

1. 13a.

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

2. 13b.

   “That such a laminated deposit could form catastrophically has been confirmed by Berthault's sedimentation experiments and applied to a creationist understanding of the Flood-deposition of thinly laminated shale strata of the Grand Canyon sequence.” ↩

3. 13c.

   “On June 12, 1980 a 25 foot (7.6 m) thick stratified pyroclastic layer accumulated within a few hours below the Mt St Helens volcano”.  The primary measurements are worked up in the Mount St. Helens article, not here. ↩

4. 13d.

   The two Academy presentation dates are given as 3 November 1986 and 8 February 1988, with these English translations:  Berthault 1988, "Experiments on lamination of sediments", CEN Tech. J. 3:25–29;  Berthault 1990, "Sedimentation of a heterogranular mixture: experimental lamination in still and running water", CEN Tech. J. 4:95–102;  Julien, Lan & Berthault 1994, "Experiments in stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures", CEN Tech. J. 8(1):37–50. ↩ ↩

Berthault, Guy.  “Sédimentation d'un mélange hétérogranulaire.  Lamination expérimentale en eau calme et en eau courante.”  Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris, Série II 306:717–724.  1988.  A short laboratory note, presented to the Academy by Georges Millot, on experiments in which a continuous supply of mixed grain sizes settled through still water and then into running water.  Its abstract reports that the laminae thin out as the fall of the grains through the water gets higher, and that in running water many types of lamination appear, even superimposed.  The article uses it for the drop-tube result and for Berthault's conclusion that lamination needs a minimum disturbance of the water.

1. 14a.

   Section Abstract, page 717:  “The experiments demonstrate that in still water, continuous depositing of heterogranular sediments gives rise to laminae which disappear progressively as the height of the fall of particles into water, and apparently their size, increase.  Laminae follow the slope of the upper part of the deposit.  In running water, many closely related types of lamination appear in the deposit, even superimposed.”  Section Apparatus, page 717:  The experiments were run for Berthault by.  “MM. Penquer, Guillaume and Bertinier, at the 'Institut de Mecanique des Fluides de Marseille'”.  The drop tube is.  “a rectangular tube 200 x 150mm x 4,7 mm deep, filled initially with 2m of water, then with 4,7m”.  (the "mm" is a printing error for m).  Page 718, section Apparatus:  The tilted aquarium has.  “the same dimensions as the PVC tube”.  with a water depth of 1.10 m, and the flume is.  “10m long x 29cm deep x 0,5m wide”.  with a discharge that.  “could vary from 16 to 70 I/sec.” ↩ ↩

2. 14b.

   Page 718:  “This tended to prove that the disturbance of water, here caused by the falling particles, was a necessary factor to the segregation to take place into large and small particles giving an appearance of lamination”. ↩

3. 14c.

   Page 718:  “These experiments, in calm and running water, confirm that the continuous deposit of a heterogranular sediment can give rise to horizontal and cross lamination, provided that a minimum disturbance of water is involved.” ↩

4. 14d.

   Page 718:  “No penetration of coloured grains through the surface of the deposit was observed during these experiments, contrary to the observations made by the author during one of his initial experiments, which was certainly accidental.” ↩

5. 14e.

   Page 718:  “Thus, it would be necessary to pursue such experiments in larger flumes to reproduce flow sedimentation and study the variations of deposit structure with all determining parameters.”  On the same page he names the mainstream work his results should be compared with:  “These results should be compared with flume experiments by Guy [3] and Williams [4] … They should also be compared with the observations by McKee [5] of structures of sediment deposits from the Bijou Creek flood.” ↩

Henke, Kevin R.  Berthault's Stratigraphy: Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawman Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles.  n.d.  A critique of Berthault's stratigraphy by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D., written outside peer review.  Henke argues that Berthault attacks Steno's original 17th-century wording of the principles rather than the modern versions, and that Berthault's experiments repeat what geologists knew decades or more than a century ago.  The article uses it for the claim that most of Berthault's discoveries are not new.  Berthault's reply to it is dated 31 July 2003.

1. 15a.

   Section Conclusions:  “Most of Berthault's 'discoveries' are not new.  Although Berthault's hard work is very interesting, he and his YEC colleagues are often unaware that geologists knew about these 'discoveries' in sedimentology and field geology decades or even more than a century ago.” ↩

2. 15b.

   “The 'B subdivision' of the Bouma sequence consists of upper-flow regime laminae (Boggs, 1995, p. 72-73, 115), which strongly resemble Berthault's laboratory results.”  On priority:  “In the 1960s and 1970s, long before Berthault's research, geologists knew that laminae … can form under a variety of conditions, which may include rapid deposition (Boggs, 1995, p. 113-115; Harms and Fahnestock, 1965; Bouma, 1962).” ↩

Paola, Chris et al.  “The 'unreasonable effectiveness' of stratigraphic and geomorphic experiments.”  Earth-Science Reviews 97(1–4):1–43.  2009.  A review by four authors of why small laboratory experiments on landscapes and sedimentary basins match the field systems they imitate, even though they cannot be exact scale models.  The authors call that match "unreasonable effectiveness" and attribute it to natural scale independence, and they say experiments should be used to study scale dependence rather than applied to the field wholesale through direct algebraic transformation.  The article uses it because it defends flume experiments against easy dismissal while forbidding the direct transformation that the paleohydraulic method performs.

1. 16a.

   Section Abstract, page 1:  “The observed consistency between experimental and field systems despite large differences in governing dimensionless numbers is what we mean by 'unreasonable effectiveness'.  We suggest that unreasonable experimental effectiveness arises from natural scale independence.” ↩

2. 16b.

   Page 38:  Recommendation 5.  “Do not exaggerate the importance of scaling limitations.  Nearly all of the papers cited in this review, especially those aimed at the landscape and basin scales, include some form of disclaimer about scaling, which go as far as asserting that the experimental results are only of qualitative value.  Although it is understandable that the limitations of imposed scaling and the lack of a full understanding of natural similarity lead experimentalists to be cautious, it is also no wonder that skeptics find it easy to dismiss the results altogether.” ↩ ↩

3. 16c.

   Page 37:  “We cannot create true scale models or exact analogs.  But this is necessary only if we intend to apply the experimental results to the field wholesale, through some form of direct algebraic transformation.  Abandoning this naïve idea, and freeing experimental landscape research from its death-grip on the control wheels of dynamical scaling, opens the way to using experiments to study scale dependence and independence”. ↩ ↩

4. 16d.

   Page 39, section 5.3.2 Cohesion and life:  “Two major players that have so far been missing from most landscape experiments are biota and cohesive sediment.  Both effects introduce new forms of scale dependence: for example, the ratio of surface area to volume goes up inversely with grain size so that cohesive effects inevitably become more important as the absolute grain size diminishes. … But the specifics of particle cohesion in the environment, influenced by geochemistry, compaction, flocculation, and various microbial effects, have been difficult to quantify.” ↩

Southard, John B., and Lawrence A. Boguchwal.  “Bed configurations in steady unidirectional water flows. Part 2. Synthesis of flume data.”  Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 60(5):658–679.  Sep 1990.  A review that combines flume experiments on bed configurations, the shapes a sand bed takes under flowing water, into one depth-velocity-size diagram.  The flume data reach only about a meter of depth, so the authors extend the boundaries by extrapolation to 3 m and say a further extension to about ten meters should introduce no gross distortions.  The article uses it because Berthault cites this paper as one of the two sources of his paleohydraulic conversion.

1. 17a.

   Page 675:  “The major difficulty, of course, is that flume experiments are mostly limited to flow depths of less than a meter, and similarly systematic observations in natural flows are scarce.” ↩

2. 17b.

   Page 675:  “The depth-velocity-size diagram expressed in Figures 2 and 3 spans a depth range of more than an order of magnitude, from less than a tenth of a meter to almost a meter, with good coverage of data.  The field boundaries are constrained well enough in this depth range that extrapolation of the field boundaries by another order of magnitude to about ten meters to cover much of the range of natural flow depths in rivers and tidal currents should introduce no gross distortions in velocity estimates”. ↩

3. 17c.

   Page 675:  “The 3 m boundaries are purely an extrapolation from the entire set of boundaries at shallower depths.  We have no good basis for evaluating the error introduced by this extrapolation, but at this stage it is likely to be only a minor effect within the overall context of hydraulic interpretation of natural flows, with its attendant difficulties of flow unsteadiness and bed-form lag.  Extrapolations to even deeper flows and their reconcilement with field data we leave for the future.” ↩

4. 17d.

   Page 675:  “Rubin and McCulloch (1980) have combined such extrapolation with their own synthesis of available field data on bed configurations from deeper natural flows to produce a depth-velocity-size graph applicable to natural flow environments.”  The paper cited is Rubin, D. M. & D. S. McCulloch, "Single and superposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations," Sedimentary Geology 26:207–231, 1980.  Berthault miscites it as Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 26 in at least three publications. ↩

Makse, Hernán A. et al.  “Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures.”  Nature 386:379–382.  Mar 27, 1997.  A laboratory experiment whose apparatus was two transparent plates 300 mm by 200 mm apart with a 5 mm gap, into which a dry, equal-volume mixture of two grain species was poured near one edge, and the mixture formed alternating layers of small and large grains.  The layers formed only when the large grains had the larger angle of repose, the steepest slope a heap of grains can hold, and spherical grains, whose two sizes have equal angles of repose, were predicted and confirmed not to stratify.  The article uses it for the grain property that sorts a mixture into layers, and for the authors' own admission that their experiment did not use the continuous range of grain sizes found in rock.  Mirror:  arXiv

1. 18a.

   Section Abstract:  “Here, we report a novel spontaneous phenomenon arising when we pour a mixture between two vertical plates: the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have larger angle of repose than the small grains.  In contrast, we find only spontaneous segregation when the large grains have smaller angle of repose than the small grains.” ↩

2. 18b.

   “we note that the case of spherical grains should not lead to stratification because the angles of repose of the large and small grains are the same.  We confirm this prediction experimentally.” ↩

3. 18c.

   “Experiments using a continuum size distribution are ongoing, since geological rock formations (which also display stratification) generally occur in the presence of a continuum distribution of grain size.” ↩

Berthault, Guy.  “Orogenesis: cause of sedimentary formations.”  Open Journal of Geology 3(2B):22–24.  Apr 2013.  A 2013 paper by Berthault in Open Journal of Geology.  Venue caution:  the publisher SCIRP is open-access and has a weak and much-criticised review record, so this is not peer review of the same order as his 1993 paper in the Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France.  It summarises his erosion experiments on sedimentary slabs of sandstone, shale and limestone at the Saint Petersburg Institute of Hydrology, and it claims an 18° Eocene polar shift on the authority of a single 1996 reference, a claim that is not supported by the palaeomagnetic record.  The article uses it for the single 27 m/s erosion threshold that it gives for all three rocks, which it says misreports the 2010 experiment.

1. 19a.

   Page 23:  “In particular, Berthault et al. (2011) [12] showed that Cambrian Ordovician sandstone in the St. Petersburg region represents less than 0.05% of the time attributed to it by the stratigraphic time scale.  This result of 0.05% does not take into account the velocity of the erosive currents which created such rocks as conglomerates.”  The same 0.05% figure appears on the front page of Berthault's own site, sedimentology.fr.  Arithmetic: 0.05% of 25 million years is 12,500 years; the 2006 report's "0.001%" is 250 years; its own Table 4 gives 2,919 years. ↩

2. 19b.

   Page 23:  “Experiments on sedimentary slabs (sandstone, shale, limestone) were performed at the Saint Petersburg Institute of Hydrology (Berthault et al., 2010).  Erosion started when the velocity of current reached 27 m/s.”  The 2010 paper's conclusion 1 says the opposite for limestone, and its conclusion 2 gives 4.5 m/s and 11 m/s for two sandstones. ↩

Sadler, Peter M.  “Sediment accumulation rates and the completeness of stratigraphic sections.”  The Journal of Geology 89(5):569–584.  Sep 1981.  A compilation of nearly 25,000 rates of sediment accumulation, which vary enormously and fall as the time span over which they are measured grows.  Sadler attributes that fall mainly to unsteady, discontinuous sedimentation.  The article uses it for his general conclusion that every sedimentary section must contain hiatuses, gaps in the record, at some scale.

1. 20a.

   Section Abstract, page 569:  “A compilation of nearly 25,000 rates of sediment accumulation shows that they are extremely variable, spanning at least 11 orders of magnitude.  Much of this variation results from compiling rates determined for different time spans: there is a systematic trend of falling mean rate with increasing time span.  The gradients of such trends vary with environment of deposition.  Although measurement error and compaction contribute to these regressions, they are primarily the consequence of unsteady, discontinuous sedimentation.” ↩

2. 20b.

   Page 569:  “it follows that all sedimentary stratigraphic sections must contain hiatuses at some scale.”  Page 570:  “since sedimentation is unsteady, its continuity can be meaningfully specified only in terms of some stated time scale.” ↩

Hebert, Jake et al.  “Do Varves, Tree-Rings, and Radiocarbon Measurements Prove an Old Earth?”  Answers Research Journal 9:339–361.  2016.  A rebuttal in the Answers Research Journal, a creationist journal, of a BioLogos essay by the old-earth geologists Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, which used counts of Lake Suigetsu varves and radiocarbon dates to argue for an old earth.  In its section on rapid lamination it says Berthault's laboratory experiments showed that multiple laminations can form spontaneously, and that Nature did not acknowledge his earlier work.  The article uses it for its description of Berthault as a "French creation scientist" whose "groundbreaking" experiments showed rapid lamination.

1. 21a.

   In the section on rapid lamina formation:  “Geologists have known for quite some time that multiple laminae may form very rapidly.  French creation scientist Guy Berthault performed groundbreaking laboratory experiments demonstrating that multiple laminations can form spontaneously when sediment mixtures consisting of particles of different sizes are deposited in air, running water, or still water.  This occurs because particles of different sizes have a tendency to spontaneously segregate and stratify themselves.”  “Even uniformitarian geologists have acknowledged that stratification can occur quickly.  Almost ten years later, the results of similar experiments were published in Nature (Makse et al. 1997), although Nature did not acknowledge Berthault's prior work (Snelling 1997).” ↩

Dehler, Carol et al.  “The Cambrian of the Grand Canyon: refinement of a classic stratigraphic model.”  GSA Today 34(11):4–11.  Nov 2024.  A 2024 review by seven authors in GSA Today, the membership publication of the Geological Society of America.  It revisits Edwin McKee's 1945 model of the Cambrian Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon, and it argues that the group records at least five stratigraphic sequences rather than one transgression with only minor regressions.  The article uses it to show that a shoreline moving across time was already part of the mainstream model in 1945.

1. 22a.

   Page 4:  “Using the physical stratigraphy and trilobite biostratigraphy of the Cambrian Tonto Group in the Grand Canyon, together with Walther's law (Walther, 1894), he hypothesized that the shallow water Tapeats Sandstone, deeper water Bright Angel Shale, and the deepest water Muav Limestone transgressed across a slowly subsiding geosyncline—experiencing only minor regressions.” ↩

2. 22b.

   Page 9:  “In contrast, McKee's diagram (1945, Fig. 1) portrayed an interpretation of a time-transgressive eastward-migrating shoreline that deposited vertical sandstone-shale-carbonate stacking patterns as the shoreline moved landward.” ↩

3. 22c.

   Section Abstract, page 4:  “Instead of McKee's interpretation of one major transgression with only minor regressions, there are at least five stratigraphic sequences, of which the lower three are separated by disconformities.  These hiatal surfaces likely represent erosion of previously deposited Cambrian sediments that were laid down on the tropical, pre-vegetated landscape.”  Page 9:  The duration comes by way of an analogue, the Aptian record of the Arabian Peninsula:  “has a strikingly similar depositional pattern to the Tonto Group, spans a similar duration (~14 m.y.), and hosts three unconformities”. ↩

Karlstrom, Karl E. et al.  “Redefining the Tonto Group of Grand Canyon and recalibrating the Cambrian time scale.”  Geology 48(5):425–430.  May 2020.  A 2020 paper in Geology by eight authors that dates the Tapeats Sandstone, the Bright Angel Formation and the Muav Formation of the Grand Canyon's Cambrian Tonto Group.  It gives maximum depositional ages from the youngest isotope-dilution detrital zircon (DZ) ages in the Tapeats, and it dates the other two formations by their trilobite biozones.  The article uses its ages of about 508 to 499 million years for these three units.

1. 23a.

   Section Abstract:  “Maximum depositional ages (MDAs) based upon youngest isotope-dilution DZ ages for the Tapeats Sandstone are ≤508.19 ± 0.39 Ma in eastern Grand Canyon, ≤507.68 ± 0.36 Ma in Nevada, and ≤506.64 ± 0.32 Ma in central Arizona. …  The Tapeats Sandstone is ca. 508–507 Ma; the Bright Angel Formation contains Olenellus, Glossopleura, and Ehmaniella biozones and is ca. 507–502 Ma; and the Muav Formation contains Bolaspidella and Cedaria biozones and is ca. 502–499 Ma.” ↩

Berthault, Guy.  “Sedimentological interpretation of the Tonto Group stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River).”  Lithology and Mineral Resources 39(5):504–508.  2004.  A 2004 paper by Berthault in Lithology and Mineral Resources.  It argues that the Tonto Group layers, from the Tapeats sand to the Bright Angel clay, were laid down side by side in different zones of water, not one after another.  The article uses it because its six-zone diagram is credited to Austin's 1994 ICR book rather than to Berthault, and because its central claim is asserted rather than computed.

1. 24a.

   The paper also states:  “our laboratory experiments in the University of Colorado [Julien et al., 1993]”.  Julien is at Colorado State University, a different institution.  Manuscript p. 6, the figure caption reads:  “Diagram from [Grand Canyon, 1994]”.  which the reference list gives as:  “Grand Canyon.  Austin, S.A., Ed., San Diego: ICR Publishers, 1994.  284 p.” ↩

2. 24b.

   Manuscript pp. 3–4:  “Without going into the calculations, an answer can be obtained by examining the data. … The simultaneous deposit of a particle of clay (Bright Angel) in zone 5 and sand (Tapeats) in zone 4 is therefore certain.”  Manuscript p. 4:  “Bright Angel, therefore, progressively covers Tapeats from west to east in zones 5 and 6 and not successively as expressed by the principle of superposition.” ↩

MacAndrew, Alec.  “The Curious Case of the One-Man Band: The work of Guy Berthault: Revolutionary Geology or Extravagant Hubris?”  evolutionpages.com.  2007.  A critique of Berthault's flume work by Alec MacAndrew, writing on a personal site, not a peer-reviewed source.  The author is a hostile critic, and his arguments are used here, not his authority.  He accepts that Berthault's flumes sort sediment into layers, but argues that the results do not undermine the standard stratigraphy of the geological record.  The article uses it for the arithmetic it supplies on a Flood-length deposit of the Grand Canyon sequence.

1. 25a.

   “If this were true, then the whole sequence from Tapeats to Kaibab would represent a deposition of considerably more than 4000 feet in a single event – if we associate this single event with the Noahic flood then this entire sequence must have been deposited at an average rate of more than 35 feet a day”.  Arithmetic offered for this article:  4,000 ft ÷ 371 days = 10.8 ft/day;  4,000 ft ÷ 110 days = 36.4 ft/day.  MacAndrew evidently uses the 110-day prevailing-waters window rather than the whole Flood year, which he does not state.  MacAndrew also records that Berthault.  “openly follows the flood geology of the Young Earth Creationist, Steve Austin”.  and that Berthault.  “is an adviser to the Kolbe Center”.  and that the Tapeats carries.  “water ripple marks, trilobite trails and brachiopod fossils”. ↩

Rubin, David M., and David S. McCulloch.  “Single and superimposed bedforms: a synthesis of San Francisco Bay and flume observations.”  Sedimentary Geology 26(1–3):207–231.  Apr 1980.  A synthesis that combines San Francisco Bay observations of bedforms with flume observations of the same kind.  Southard and Boguchwal cite it for field data on bedforms in deeper natural flows.  The article uses it as a worked case of a reference error, since three of Berthault's and Lalomov's documents cite it under the wrong journal.

1. 26a.

   The bibliographic record gives the title as "superimposed", where every citation in this literature prints "superposed".  Three documents miscite the paper: ICR Impact 328, p. iv, reference 6; Berthault 2002, p. 446; and Lalomov 2008, report p. 27. ↩