The Ark Encounter Geology

[Job 33:6]

So I was peeling through some photos of Ken Hams ark encounter displays and I stumbled across an honorable mention:

So this is a classic case of a really problematic anti-scientific position that is YECism.

The presentation basically suggests that dense and hardened rocks break when they are subjected to pressure and deformation.

And so by this logic, if rock is not fractured and broken, but rather is wavy and ductile, then this rock therefore was not lithified and hardened, and by this logic, it was likely deposited by a global flood.


So now that we've broken down the ark encounters claim, we can examine if it's true.

I'm a geologist (by career, research, hobby and license) and it's easy for me to speak on these things, so here goes.

I've been to countless rock formations up and down the east coast of the US and in some cases abroad. It's very common in the earth to find faults in rock formations.

So common that, anyone reading this now, if you go to a rock outcrop near you, you will have a high probability of finding a fault. They're everywhere.

What ken Hams ark encounter doesn't talk about, are things like antithetic faults, where minor faults occur perpendicular to a large fault. Nor does the encounter talk about how thrust faults typically break at 90° angles or that normal faults typically break at 60° angles.

View attachment 301109

We have things like slickensides between faults, where rocks essentially carve and polish one another as they grind past eachother.

Brecciated fault gouge is also very common in the angular unconformities. Breccias associated with these unconformities being angular fragmented jumbles of deposits caught between two crushing massive bodies of rock.

And so, it becomes quite clear that in actuality, it's quite common that we find evidence, or more specifically, proof, that in between really every single period of geologic history, and throughout the entire history of earth, these were massive bodies of rock that were being deformed, and not actually soft sediment as the post would have us believe.


But there is still a question of why these other bodies of rock are folded and bent, but not broken.


Which is to say that these are rocks that have been heated and melted.

Additional thoughts on folding of layers:
Not sure how I made that jump from sedimentary to metamorphic and back to sedimentary topics, but anyway, It has come to my attention that the poster does distinctly depict sedimentary rock, and not metamorphic. No matter though, the causes of folding are the same in the vast majority of cases. And apparently some YECs have a history of overlooking fractures and brecciated material in folded sedimentary rock. I think it would be fair to ask the question of if the ark encounter poster accurately depicts the earth to begin with. Which is to say that if we were to find an outcrop much like the one in the poster, if we looked closely at it, is it even true that we would not find fractures within it? And the answer is that you would find fractures in it. In which case, the posted is a big giant straw-man to begin with. Which is really unfortunate for this ark encounter poster because it makes it even more dishonest than it already was. End of additional thought.

So every rock has its own physical properties. Some rocks have lower melting points than others and melt at different temperatures than others.

But overall it's quite simple that every rock, when heated, much like a piece of plastic, can bend. And with enough heat, they become similar in state to something like play doh.

And there are many studies on brittle and ductile deformation, studies on various types of rocks where people stick rocks in machines and in ovens and crush them to see how they break and fold.

There's nothing abnormal about any of this. It's just the science of structural geology.

So basically as rock is buried and otherwise subducts or has its melting pressure lowered by tectonic motion, it folds rather than breaks.

But I will throw in one other detail to help bring this concept to life, and that is sheared and strained bilaterally symmetric fossils or otherwise symmetric "strain markers" as they are known.

I'll have to make a second OP because I have an "image limit". So I'll continue to a second post.

 

[Job 33:6]

So I was peeling through some photos of Ken Hams ark encounter displays and I stumbled across an honorable mention:

View attachment 301075


So this is a classic case of a really problematic anti-scientific position that is YECism.

The presentation basically suggests that dense and hardened rocks break when they are subjected to pressure and deformation.

And so by this logic, if rock is not fractured and broken, but rather is wavy and ductile, then this rock therefore was not lithified and hardened, and by this logic, it was likely deposited by a global flood.


So now that we've broken down the ark encounters claim, we can examine if it's true.

I'm a geologist (by career, research, hobby and license) and it's easy for me to speak on these things, so here goes.

I've been to countless rock formations up and down the east coast of the US and in some cases abroad. It's very common in the earth to find faults in rock formations.

So common that, anyone reading this now, if you go to a rock outcrop near you, you will have a high probability of finding a fault. They're everywhere.

View attachment 301076

View attachment 301077




What ken Hams ark encounter doesn't talk about, are things like perpendicular propagating faulting, where minor faults occur perpendicular to a large fault. Nor does the encounter talk about how thrust faults typically break at 90° angles or that normal faults typically break at 60° angles.

We have things like slickensides between faults, where rocks essentially carve and polish one another as they grind past eachother.

View attachment 301079

View attachment 301080


Brecciated fault gouge is also very common in the angular unconformities. Breccias associated with these unconformities being angular fragmented jumbles of deposits caught between two crushing massive bodies of rock.


View attachment 301083

And so, it becomes quite clear that in actuality, it's quite common that we find evidence, or more specifically, proof, that in between really every single period of geologic history, and throughout the entire history of earth, these were massive bodies of rock that were being deformed, and not actually soft sediment as the post would have us believe.


But there is still a question of why these other bodies of rock are folded and bent, but not broken.

Which is to say that these are rocks that have been heated and melted.


Additional thoughts on folding of layers:
Not sure how I made that jump from sedimentary to metamorphic and back to sedimentary topics, but anyway, It has come to my attention that the poster does distinctly depict sedimentary rock, and not metamorphic. No matter though, the causes of folding are the same in the vast majority of cases. And apparently some YECs have a history of overlooking fractures and brecciated material in folded sedimentary rock. I think it would be fair to ask the question of if the ark encounter poster accurately depicts the earth to begin with. Which is to say that if we were to find an outcrop much like the one in the poster, if we looked closely at it, is it even true that we would not find fractures within it? And the answer is that you would find fractures in it. In which case, the posted is a big giant straw-man to begin with. Which is really unfortunate for this ark encounter poster because it makes it even more dishonest than it already was.

It should also be worth noting that, at least in my experience, most heavily folded rock that I've observed tends to be metamorphic, though in cases of shallow deformation, sedimentary rocks can be folded as well without undergoing metamorphosis.

End of additional thought.

So every rock has its own physical properties. Some rocks have lower melting points than others and melt at different temperatures than others.

But overall it's quite simple that every rock, when heated, much like a piece of plastic, can bend. And with enough heat, they become similar in state to something like play doh.

View attachment 301084

And there are many studies on brittle and ductile deformation, studies on various types of rocks where people stick rocks in machines and in ovens and crush them to see how they break and fold.

There's nothing abnormal about any of this. It's just the science of structural geology.

But I will throw in one other detail to help bring this concept to life, and that is sheared and strained bilaterally symmetric fossils or otherwise symmetric "strain markers" as they are known.

I'll have to make a second OP because I have an "image limit". So I'll continue to a second post.

So to continue:

But I will throw in one other detail to help bring this concept to life, and that is sheared and strained bilaterally symmetric fossils or otherwise symmetric "strain markers" as they are known.

See the following images:

The above images are depictions of sheared bilaterally symmetric fossils.

So just like the human body is roughly equal in form on the left side and the right side. Sea shells typically have symmetry to them. The right side equals the left side. Trilobites have symmetry etc.

And these species are hard shelled. Much like the rocks they are contained in.

And what we actually find are instances of ductile deformation of shelled organisms.

Sometimes we even find cases where rock has sheared and it has essentially "spaghettified" or pulled fossils apart, and recrystallization has occurred in between fragments, such as in the above image.

(PDF) Strain Estimation from Single forms of Distorted Fossils - A Computer Graphics and MATLAB Approach

And so, much like dense and rigid fossils undergo ductile deformation and they bend, rather than break,

So to do rocks. And this is just a fact of creation.
We know that solid rock underwent ductile deformation, much like the sheared fossils. And that soft sediment deposits are distinguishable and different from the formations that Ken Ham is describing. obviously trilobites aren't made of independent grains, so if they shear and bend, we can be quite confident that the rock is doing the same as well around them.

In fact we use deformed fossils to reconstruct or "reverse engineer" orogenic deformation with use of things called stereonets. But that's a bit technical so I won't bother talking about.

So back to the original ark encounter ken ham poster, we can conclude a few things.

A. The poster doesn't really talk about the plethora of evidence demonstrating that rock was lithified prior to deformation.

B. The poster doesn't acknowledge things like brittle and ductile deformation of rocks, nor does it touch on strain markers and deformation of bilaterally symmetric fossils which additionally prove the fact of ductile deformation of rock deep in the subsurface. And;

C. The ark encounter essentially has taken an unreasonable, unscientific and quite frankly, a dishonest approach to preaching the gospel.

So what happens when little Jonny boy is brought to the museum by his parents at the age of 10, he learns a bunch of "fake science", then goes into the world and gets his thoughts broken by actual scientists? Let's hope he doesn't abandon his faith as a result.

And this is just me spending a few minutes roaming the internet. Imagine the dishonesty that could be uncovered if I decided to actually visit the ark encounter theme park.

I suppose I'll just have to pass on that "opportunity".

 

[Carl Emerson]

Are you just questioning Ham's 'science' or do you doubt the biblical account that the Ark existed.

 

[Job 33:6]

Are you just questioning Ham's 'science' or do you doubt the biblical account that the Ark existed.

I consider it an observation of what I would say is a theologically, scientifically, and intellectually dangerous place.

It's more specific to Ken Hams "science". And yet, it goes beyond Ken Ham. There is a battle going on in the body of Christ over how to perceive science. And personally, I think the museum is a problem for Christianity. I think it's taking us in a wrong direction as a family.

Now, to be fair, it is probably a fun place to visit, who wouldn't want to see giants and dinosaurs battling to the death in dioramas?

But I think there's a difference between enjoying Jurassic park as fantasy in a movie theatre and enjoying Jurassic park as a form of Sunday school lesson where God's word seems to be transformed into a circus show at the expense of scientific inquiry.

Depicted above are what appear to be nephilim/giants, battling people and a carnotaurus from the ark encounter theme park.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I appreciate your concern...

 

[dqhall]

So I was peeling through some photos of Ken Hams ark encounter displays and I stumbled across an honorable mention:

View attachment 301075


So this is a classic case of a really problematic anti-scientific position that is YECism.

The presentation basically suggests that dense and hardened rocks break when they are subjected to pressure and deformation.

And so by this logic, if rock is not fractured and broken, but rather is wavy and ductile, then this rock therefore was not lithified and hardened, and by this logic, it was likely deposited by a global flood.


So now that we've broken down the ark encounters claim, we can examine if it's true.

I'm a geologist (by career, research, hobby and license) and it's easy for me to speak on these things, so here goes.

I've been to countless rock formations up and down the east coast of the US and in some cases abroad. It's very common in the earth to find faults in rock formations.

So common that, anyone reading this now, if you go to a rock outcrop near you, you will have a high probability of finding a fault. They're everywhere.

View attachment 301076




What ken Hams ark encounter doesn't talk about, are things like antithetic faults, where minor faults occur perpendicular to a large fault. Nor does the encounter talk about how thrust faults typically break at 90° angles or that normal faults typically break at 60° angles.

View attachment 301109

We have things like slickensides between faults, where rocks essentially carve and polish one another as they grind past eachother.

View attachment 301079

View attachment 301080


Brecciated fault gouge is also very common in the angular unconformities. Breccias associated with these unconformities being angular fragmented jumbles of deposits caught between two crushing massive bodies of rock.


View attachment 301083

And so, it becomes quite clear that in actuality, it's quite common that we find evidence, or more specifically, proof, that in between really every single period of geologic history, and throughout the entire history of earth, these were massive bodies of rock that were being deformed, and not actually soft sediment as the post would have us believe.


But there is still a question of why these other bodies of rock are folded and bent, but not broken.


Which is to say that these are rocks that have been heated and melted.

Additional thoughts on folding of layers:
Not sure how I made that jump from sedimentary to metamorphic and back to sedimentary topics, but anyway, It has come to my attention that the poster does distinctly depict sedimentary rock, and not metamorphic. No matter though, the causes of folding are the same in the vast majority of cases. And apparently some YECs have a history of overlooking fractures and brecciated material in folded sedimentary rock. I think it would be fair to ask the question of if the ark encounter poster accurately depicts the earth to begin with. Which is to say that if we were to find an outcrop much like the one in the poster, if we looked closely at it, is it even true that we would not find fractures within it? And the answer is that you would find fractures in it. In which case, the posted is a big giant straw-man to begin with. Which is really unfortunate for this ark encounter poster because it makes it even more dishonest than it already was. End of additional thought.

So every rock has its own physical properties. Some rocks have lower melting points than others and melt at different temperatures than others.

But overall it's quite simple that every rock, when heated, much like a piece of plastic, can bend. And with enough heat, they become similar in state to something like play doh.

View attachment 301084

And there are many studies on brittle and ductile deformation, studies on various types of rocks where people stick rocks in machines and in ovens and crush them to see how they break and fold.

There's nothing abnormal about any of this. It's just the science of structural geology.

So basically as rock is buried and otherwise subducts or has its melting pressure lowered by tectonic motion, it folds rather than breaks.

But I will throw in one other detail to help bring this concept to life, and that is sheared and strained bilaterally symmetric fossils or otherwise symmetric "strain markers" as they are known.

I'll have to make a second OP because I have an "image limit". So I'll continue to a second post.

Rock formed (lithified) after it became deeply buried, pressurized and heated. When subjected to stresses over the course of thousands, or millions of years, the sedimentary rock layers bent. The limestones of the Himalayas were deposited in an oceanic environment. Due to continental drift and plate tectonics, the sub continent India collided with Asia. This caused thrust faults to form. The limestone and other strata rose and bent to form the mountains. This was what I heard in Field & Structural Geology I and II at U. Mass/Amherst. The Himalayas are rising about an inch per year. Islands near oceanic trench subduction zones are sinking. Ancient writers may have seen seashells in rocks thinking the whole earth was flooded. Science indicates the rocks were formed in the ocean then lifted to form mountains.

 

[Job 33:6]

Rock formed (lithified) after it became deeply buried, pressurized and heated. When subjected to stresses over the course of thousands, or millions of years, the sedimentary rock layers bent. The limestones of the Himalayas were deposited in an oceanic environment. Due to continental drift and plate tectonics, the sub continent India collided with Asia. This caused thrust faults to form. The limestone and other strata rose and bent to form the mountains. This was what I heard in Field & Structural Geology I and II at U. Mass/Amherst. The Himalayas are rising about an inch per year. Islands near oceanic trench subduction zones are sinking. Ancient writers may have seen seashells in rocks thinking the whole earth was flooded. Science indicates the rocks were formed in the ocean then lifted to form mountains.

Yea absolutely.

It is fair to say that some mountains are still observed to be growing and slowly folding today. So these topics aren't particularly mysterious, but rather are exceptionally well understood.

Sometimes we might hear some people say that if there are seashells on the top of a mountain that the mountain must have been underwater.

And back a couple hundred years ago, flood geologists and supporters of catastrophism deferred to these concepts. This and things like glacial dropstones, were viewed as evidence for a global deluge. And some people still use these ideas today despite discoveries over the past 200-300 years.

But really when we peel away all the vegetation and trees and plants and we look at the structure of these mountains, what we see is that the layers which contain the seashells have been thrusted over top of other layers.

We see the very bottom green layer and then the yellow layer just above that and then the brown layer just above that. Can we see that with compression, these layers tend to push up above one another. And so what was once low and below sea level, is now high at the top of a mountain.

As is the case with the Himalayas. So if there is seashells in those rocks, you already know that there's rocks came from the sea, And not necessarily that the sea came from the rocks.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Just one question...how does one then answer the question of oil fields spread all around the earth deep below the surface? Is not a global flood the best answer for this?

 

[Job 33:6]

Just one question...how does one then answer the question of oil fields spread all around the earth deep below the surface? Is not a global flood the best answer for this?

Oil, gas and coal are super heated and pressurized organics. In the case of oil, it forms from the collection of dead plankton, which is then buried by marine sedimentation.

 

[dqhall]

Just one question...how does one then answer the question of oil fields spread all around the earth deep below the surface? Is not a global flood the best answer for this?

There are various continental plates moving above a partially fluid mantle. At times some of the lava erupts.

Where millions of tons of sediment are dumped from the Mississippi River into the ocean, eventually the sand and clay will. become thick enough and deep enough to become lithified and form rock. Where there is enough organic material in the sediments, oil and gas might form. West Texas was covered by a sea about 250 - 300 million years ago. The conditions were right to form oil trapped in the pores of sandstone and shale. That became the Permian Basin oil field.

It is difficult for some to believe God has been alive more than ten thousand years, yet God has more experience than some realize.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

There are various continental plates moving above a partially fluid mantle. At times some of the lava erupts.

Where millions of tons of sediment are dumped from the Mississippi River into the ocean, eventually the sand and clay will. become thick enough and deep enough to become lithified and form rock. Where there is enough organic material in the sediments, oil and gas might form. West Texas was covered by a sea about 250 - 300 million years ago. The conditions were right to form oil trapped in the pores of sandstone and shale. That became the Permian Basin oil field.

It is difficult for some to believe God has been alive more than ten thousand years, yet God has more experience than some realize.

I think your God statement is way off...any Bible believing Christian already knows this, however it seems like a cop out for evolution which is not biblical.

 

[Job 33:6]

There are various continental plates moving above a partially fluid mantle. At times some of the lava erupts.

Where millions of tons of sediment are dumped from the Mississippi River into the ocean, eventually the sand and clay will. become thick enough and deep enough to become lithified and form rock. Where there is enough organic material in the sediments, oil and gas might form. West Texas was covered by a sea about 250 - 300 million years ago. The conditions were right to form oil trapped in the pores of sandstone and shale. That became the Permian Basin oil field.

It is difficult for some to believe God has been alive more than ten thousand years, yet God has more experience than some realize.

As a Bible believing follower of King Jesus, I agree.