Guy Berthault's response

to Kevin Henke's article:

Berthault's "Stratigraphy": Rediscovering What

Geologists Already Know and Strawperson

Misrepresentations of

Modern Applications of Steno's Principles

Dear Dr. Henke,

Here is my reply (translated from the French) to your challenging internet article
concerning my work. I found it most interesting and decided to answer your criticism point
by point. To do so, I will use your headings.

INTRODUCTION

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.

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. Not to do so would have prevented publication of my reports inter
alia by the French Academy of Sciences, The Geological Society of France and recently by the
Russian Academy of Sciences.

You say "his knowledge of the sedimentology literature and stratigraphic method are
decades or even centuries out of date". Here you speak without knowledge. As member of
the Geological Society of France and the French Association of Sedimentologists and
International Society of Sedimentologists (IAS), I receive all the latest information from their
publications and in particular from "Sedimentology". Since 1970 I have received from the
American Society of Geologists all the reports of the JOIDES (Glomar Challenger –
Resolution). Xavier Le Pichon sent me his report personally. I am familiar with sequence
stratigraphy from Walther up to the Exxon group by way of Bouma and Vassolovitch. I
directed the program of experiments at Colorado University performed by Pierre Julien
resident teacher of hydraulics and sedimentology. The peer-reviewed results were published
by the Geological Society of France. In 1995, Julien published his work Erosion and
Sedimentation which I used it to determine the paleohydraulic conditions which I propose
as a replacement for the principles of stratigraphy. I would recommend you read his book.

The fact that my knowledge of sedimentology is considerably more up-to-date than you
claim, doesn’t mean the above references necessarily appear in my reports.

MISREPRESENTING … PRINCIPLES

You state, "Because Berthault criticizes Steno's original ideas rather than the modified
principles used by modern geologists, his arguments are largely strawperson fallacies".
This statement suggests you are unaware that for all practical purposes the stratigraphic
scale, its sub-divisions of stages and eras were established in the middle of the nineteenth
century, not from modern principles, but from Steno's ancient principles, augmented by

Translation from the French of Guy Berthault

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/guy_response_henke.htm

1 z 4

2010-06-15 15:11

paleontological identity from the beginning of the last century.

The modern principle of superposition

You say, "The modern principle of superposition …layered sediments or sedimentary rocks
tend to be older than any sediments or sedimentary rocks directly above them". Steno says
the same thing, "Therefore, at the time when the lowest stratum formed, none of the superior
strata existed". Several pages later you write, "Also, contrary to Berthault's claims, Steno's
Law of Superposition is not violated in his Figure 7B. In the vertical direction, the overlying
materials are still younger than (were deposited after) the underlying materials". Clearly you
have not understood Figure 7B which represents stratified superposed beds prograding
simultaneously in the direction of the current. In time t1 the topset is older than the bottomset
in t2 and t3. The principle of superposition, therefore, is invalidated. The same reasoning
applies to all superposed deposits resulting from a continuous turbulent current with
fluctuating velocity.

You also say, "Large age differences between the two layers are especially common if an
erosional plane (unconformity) exists between them". In our flume experiments, a temporary
increase in current velocity eroded the deposit, creating a surface erosion covered by the new
sediment when the velocity reduces. There is, therefore, no sedimentary hiatus. It is the
"scour and fill" movement. It follows that these discordances must be interpreted not from
the rocks but the sediments of which they are constituted.

You say "Because the underlying layers need not be well lithified to survive the immediate
deposition of overlying sediments, the following statements by Berthault are nothing more
than invalid strawperson arguments". The fact that I refer to submarine borings to refute
Steno's concept of successive lithification of superposed strata merely questions the duration
of stratification, not the basic principle of superposition invalidated by our experiments.

Lower down you write, "In the 1960s and 1970s, long before Berthault's research, geologists
knew that laminae …can form under a variety of conditions". 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. But the originality of my
experiments was to have reduced a sample of friable laminated sandstone to its constituent
particles. The resultant particles were then poured dry into a flask, and then with the flask
filled with water. It could be seen that the deposit in both cases reproduced the original
lamination irrespective of the speed of sedimentation. This showed a property of mechanics,
and not chronology, applies to heterogranular mixtures, producing segregation of the
particles according to size. It explained that the resulting lamination was not formed by
successive layers. Similarly, the explanation of larves by successive deposits is challenged.

The modern Principle of Continuity

You assert that, "The modern description of the Principle of Continuity simply states that
layers MAY extend over great lateral distances". A principle is defined in physics as a law of
a general character regulating an ensemble of phenomena. Your assertion does not constitute
a law and, therefore, is not a principle. The use of the word MAY states a possibility nothing
more. Whereas the principle of continuity upon which the geological time-scale was
established in the nineteenth century defined an age for each stage.

The principle has survived for a long time as it is still defined by Jean Aubouin in his Précis
de Géologie as, "Any layer has the same age at any point". Our flume experiments have, of
course, invalidated this principle, by showing that superposed stratified deposits prograde
simultaneously in the direction of the current. They cannot, therefore, be the same age at each
point.

Translation from the French of Guy Berthault

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/guy_response_henke.htm

2 z 4

2010-06-15 15:11

The modern Principle of Original Horizontality

As with the modern Principle of Continuity, what you have to say about horizontality in no
way resembles the definition of a principle. Whereas, according to Prof. Stephen A. Nelson
of Tulane University:

Sedimentary strata are deposited in layers that are horizontal or nearly horizontal,
parallel to or nearly parallel to the earth’s surface. Thus rocks that we now see inclined or
folded have been disturbed since their original deposition. (found on the web).

This modern affirmation is very close to Steno's. What is false about it is the statement that
the inclined or folded rocks we see today have been disturbed since their original deposition.
Our experiments, published by the French Academy of Sciences and the Geological Society,
show that stratification of the deposit is parallel to the slope up to the angle of repose.

Yet, further on, you agree when you say, "Freshly deposited sediment beds on continental
shelves, sand dunes, deltas and other slopes may dip significantly, often up to their angle of
repose".

NON-UNIFORM DEPOSITIONAL RATES

In this domain, my lamination experiments showed that laminae were not chronological
markers and their thickness was independent of the velocity of sedimentation. This result is
obviously contrary to Lyellian geology.

I cannot, therefore, understand why you say here, "Contrary to Berthault's strawperson
argument", particularly as your own arguments on this subject are not dissimilar to my own.

RAPIDLY DEPOSITED LAMINAR VOLCANIC DEPOSITS

See my comments above regarding Figure 7B.

DEPOSITION OF THE TONTO GROUP

You say that, "Van Till et al. (1988 chapter 6) demonstrates that the origins are incompatible
with a rapid and violent Genesis Flood. For example, the bright Angel Shale contains a
number of thin, but coarse-grained, conglomerates".

You will recall that in a turbulent current the velocity of current fluctuates. The maximum
permissible velocities for canals with h<1m are:

Stiff clay (very colloidal) 1.52m/s
Alluvial silt when colloidal 1.52m/s
Coarse gravel 1.83m/s (Pierre Julien – Erosion & Sedimentation 1995)

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. The slight difference of permissible velocities and fluctuation of the current velocity
can be justified, as for clay, silt and coarse gravel in which large brachiopods get sorted with
finer grained sediment.

CONCLUSION

I hope the above remarks suffice to show that my works published by the official scientific
media do not justify your appellation of "strawperson fallacies".

To further the ends of scientific objectivity, and not polemic, I should appreciate hearing

Translation from the French of Guy Berthault

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/guy_response_henke.htm

3 z 4

2010-06-15 15:11

from you as to what you consider very interesting in my "hard work".

Sincerely - Guy Berthault

31 July 2003

Back to

Kevin Henke's page

Translation from the French of Guy Berthault

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/guy_response_henke.htm

4 z 4

2010-06-15 15:11