The Ark Encounter Geology

[Bradskii]

I think that conclusion would be reasonable given this is a Christian forum and your perspective is not Christian. There tends to be an implicit motivation by nature of what faith or not-faith you declare with topics like these, unless of course your say otherwise

I'll argue against fundamentalist ideas all day long. But in other conversations I am more interested in the difference in opinion between different members of the forum. Why they believe.

As I said to a Catholic on another thread just yesterday, my views on morality align pretty much with, for example, Catholics. Except on some matters that generally involve sex.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here.

oh I see.

Without even watching it, I wouldn't expect it to be a challenge for me. No more than it would be for the cringing audience (based on the responses).

Did you have a specific question about the video or are you more curious about how Christians approach certain topics if it?

 

[Estrid]

I think that conclusion would be reasonable given this is a Christian forum and your perspective is not Christian. There tends to be an implicit motivation by nature of what faith or not-faith you declare with topics like these, unless of course your say otherwise

I really don't agree.

Implicit motivation is not it at all.

I see this unfortunate assumption all the time, and it
functions to put up a wall that doesn't need to be there.

I understand that those who, feel that either the flood is literal
history or Jesus is a liar and their faith collapses will feel to
even question it is an attack on the very foundation of Chridtianity.
That only the worst motives could be involved, some going to the
extreme of invoking Satan. But it's a mistake
to assume the motives of a varied group of
people you do not know.

I can tell you that among educated people
in Hong Kong, the antics of yecs are an extreme
turn off to those who explore a mild curiosity
in the rather strange alien religion that Christianity
is seen to be. The ignorance and anti intellectualism
invooved makes it unacceptable.

That is not what Christianity is about but a
vocal element would have it so, and it does
turn people away.

Now me, I'm no Christian nor ever would be,
but I've nothing against it, I know Christians
of intelligence and character, and find it a
mostly benign thing.

If anything, my comments on specific
bits of nuttiness that I see coming from
creationists is my support of Christianity,
which-as you cannot but know- is ill served
by those whose self styled Truth backed by
similarly self styled inerrant Bible interpreting
is a sham and a disgrace when it is spread
with lies, half truths, deception of every sort.

I won't attempt to diagnose the motives of all
who do this but it is a clear and certain thing that
it is impossible to be a yec who is both well
educated and honest.

I'm no enemy of Christianity, and certainly not
for pointing that out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent OP. I often bring up fossils as strain markers to those that try to claim that rocks had to be hard and "don't break". Anyone that has worked with fossils tends to know that they are usually more brittle than the rocks that they come out of, which can make preserving them a challenge. I used to have a favorite image of two trilobites that were at roughly 0 degrees to each other in the same fossil. One was clearly stretched and the other was clearly compressed. How does one do that with bodies that are more brittle than the rocks that they exist in?

EDIT: Well that was easy. Knowing which terms to use makes it rather simple:

"Day 16. I often tease our palaeontologist that the only good fossil is a strain marker. So here are two nice strain markers trilobites (Asaphellus homfrayi and Angelina sedgwicki) with an elongation lineation . Tremadocian, locatity unknown, Keele collection."

Rock 366 : Day 16 : Deformed Trilobites

Structural geologists often refer to fossils jokingly as "strain markers" since that is how they use them. They do not care about evolution or even their use in stratigraphy.

 

[Estrid]

Excellent OP. I often bring up fossils as strain markers to those that try to claim that rocks had to be hard and "don't break". Anyone that has worked with fossils tends to know that they are usually more brittle than the rocks that they come out of, which can make preserving them a challenge. I used to have a favorite image of two trilobites that were at roughly 0 degrees to each other in the same fossil. One was clearly stretched and the other was clearly compressed. How does one do that with bodies that are more brittle than the rocks that they exist in?

EDIT: Well that was easy. Knowing which terms to use makes it rather simple:

"Day 16. I often tease our palaeontologist that the only good fossil is a strain marker. So here are two nice strain markers trilobites (Asaphellus homfrayi and Angelina sedgwicki) with an elongation lineation . Tremadocian, locatity unknown, Keele collection."

Rock 366 : Day 16 : Deformed Trilobites

Structural geologists often refer to fossils jokingly as "strain markers" since that is how they use them. They do not care about evolution or even their use in stratigraphy.

Just looking at pebbles in metaconglomerate rock should
make plastic deformation obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just looking at pebbles in metaconglomerate rock should
make plastic deformation obvious.

True, but to be a YEC one has to be an expert at denying the obvious. That makes the goal to find an example that leaves them sputtering for a while.

 

[Job 33:6]

Excellent OP. I often bring up fossils as strain markers to those that try to claim that rocks had to be hard and "don't break". Anyone that has worked with fossils tends to know that they are usually more brittle than the rocks that they come out of, which can make preserving them a challenge. I used to have a favorite image of two trilobites that were at roughly 0 degrees to each other in the same fossil. One was clearly stretched and the other was clearly compressed. How does one do that with bodies that are more brittle than the rocks that they exist in?

EDIT: Well that was easy. Knowing which terms to use makes it rather simple:

"Day 16. I often tease our palaeontologist that the only good fossil is a strain marker. So here are two nice strain markers trilobites (Asaphellus homfrayi and Angelina sedgwicki) with an elongation lineation . Tremadocian, locatity unknown, Keele collection."

Rock 366 : Day 16 : Deformed Trilobites

Structural geologists often refer to fossils jokingly as "strain markers" since that is how they use them. They do not care about evolution or even their use in stratigraphy.

I like the example here. Yea, the information is great. It would be nice if the picture were a bit more clear imo.

But yea, I mean, If the body of a shelled animal is stretched within and at the same angles of rock around it, I think it lays to rest the whole YEC argument idea that deformation occured in soft sediment.

 

[Job 33:6]

True, but to be a YEC one has to be an expert at denying the obvious. That makes the goal to find an example that leaves them sputtering for a while.

Yea exactly.

I think that fossils are nice because they are something that anyone can see and can immediately understand if they are deformed.

Many of us have going out to beach and have seen a horseshoe crab, or have seen a clamshell or some sort of bivalve. So many lay people know what a shell looks like and what a shell should not look like.

So if they see a picture of a deformed she'll, then it's kind of simplified.

Yes there are a million and one technical arguments that we could give against younger creationism. But there might only be a small percentage of that body of arguments that are actually things that the average person can readily understand without any in-depth research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yea exactly.

I think that fossils are nice because they are something that anyone can see and can immediately understand if they are deformed.

Many of us have going out to beach and have seen a horseshoe crab, or have seen a clamshell or some sort of bivalve. So many lay people know what a shell looks like and what a shell should not look like.

So if they see a picture of a deformed she'll, then it's kind of simplified.

Yes there are a million and one technical arguments that we could give against younger creationism. But there might only be a small percentage of that body of arguments that are actually things that the average person can readily understand without any in-depth research.

The understanding of YEC's of science is very limited. That is why they are always harping on about fossils when it comes to evolution. Fossils are not the only evidence for evolution. They are not even the strongest evidence for evolution. They are only the most obvious evidence to a person that is scientifically illiterate. That is why it is nice to find something simple that refutes their beliefs. And in response to your prior post, I wish that the photograph could be a bit clearer too. But if one does study that at all one can see how one is stretched and the other is compressed. Perhaps one of the trilobites just sat home and watched TV on the sofa and the other was a basketball star

 

[Job 33:6]

Yea exactly.

I think that fossils are nice because they are something that anyone can see and can immediately understand if they are deformed.

Many of us have going out to beach and have seen a horseshoe crab, or have seen a clamshell or some sort of bivalve. So many lay people know what a shell looks like and what a shell should not look like.

So if they see a picture of a deformed she'll, then it's kind of simplified.

Yes there are a million and one technical arguments that we could give against younger creationism. But there might only be a small percentage of that body of arguments that are actually things that the average person can readily understand without any in-depth research.

What I find interesting is that with a lot of the ark encounter presentations, I'm finding them to be More than just omissions of information, But there's almost this level of intentional deception.

Like the whole idea that folded sedimentary layers don't have fractures and were therefore deposited as individual grains by water.

It almost takes a level of intentional deception to make such a claim because It would require someone avoiding taking a close look at such structures, In which case if they did, they would see things like joints and fractures and faults.

It would suggest that the people who made the ark encounter presentation were smart enough to come up with the argument, but then were not honest enough to actually challenge their argument. And rather simply presented it without confirming if it was even really true or not.

But who am I kidding, we already knew that this is how they play the game. Tell the world that the moon is made out of cheese (And in this case they can pay for $50 tickets to read a poster about it) and don't worry about if it's true or not, if someone wants to challenge it they can ask questions later, after my bank account is already full.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All this talk of deformed trilobites... Is there no charity I can give to to provide them with better quality of life?

(By which I mean to say: great OP)

 

[Estrid]

True, but to be a YEC one has to be an expert at denying the obvious. That makes the goal to find an example that leaves them sputtering for a while.

Some day there will be metaconglomerate coke bottles.

 

[Ophiolite]

Some day there will be metaconglomerate coke bottles.

I suggest a substantial number of them will form brecccias, or - in a high energy environment - quartzites.

 

[Estrid]

I suggest a substantial number of them will form brecccias, or - in a high energy environment - quartzites.

Glass is forever

 

[Ophiolite]

Glass is forever

Until you drag it down a subducting plate and subject it to high temperatures in a water rich environment.

 

[Estrid]

Until you drag it down a subducting plate and subject it to high temperatures in a water rich environment.

Getting a little extreme there.
All I wanted was a metaconglomerate
Coca Cola bottle that was still clearly a coke
bottle.

 

[Ophiolite]

Getting a little extreme there.
All I wanted was a metaconglomerate
Coca Cola bottle that was still clearly a coke
bottle.

Ah. Sorry. I'm more of a hard rock man. One of my mentors viewed anything post-Cambrian as superficial drift deposits.

 

[Estrid]

oh I see.

Without even watching it, I wouldn't expect it to be a challenge for me. No more than it would be for the cringing audience (based on the respon

ses).

Did you have a specific question about the video or are you more curious about how Christians approach certain topics if it?

Educated Christians would see it as shameful garbage.

 

[durangodawood]

An excellent post, but I share @Astrophile 's objection to your assertion that sedimentary rocks are not subject to folding. In my experience they can be. I would ask you to revisit that thought, then comment.

Yeah.... I was thinking surely Ive seen folded sedimentary rock countless times in my explorations of various Utah canyons.