Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Ark Encounter Geology
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Job 33:6" data-source="post: 76037793" data-attributes="member: 399299"><p>So I was peeling through some photos of Ken Hams ark encounter displays and I stumbled across an honorable mention:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301096[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>So this is a classic case of a really problematic anti-scientific position that is YECism.</p><p></p><p>The presentation basically suggests that dense and hardened rocks break when they are subjected to pressure and deformation.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So now that we've broken down the ark encounters claim, we can examine if it's true.</p><p></p><p>I'm a geologist (by career, research, hobby and license) and it's easy for me to speak on these things, so here goes.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What ken Hams ark encounter doesn't talk about, are things like antithetic faults, where minor faults occur perpendicular or at angles 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.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301108[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>We have things like slickensides between faults, where rocks essentially carve and polish one another as they grind past eachother.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301100[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301102[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>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 poster would have us believe.</p><p></p><p>But there is still a question of why these other bodies of rock are folded and bent, but not broken.</p><p></p><p>Which is to say that these are rocks that have been heated and melted.</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]aFxfF-w4Pkk[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>So every rock has its own physical properties. Some rocks have lower melting points than others and melt at different temperatures than others.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301103[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>There's nothing abnormal about any of this. It's just the science of structural geology.</p><p></p><p>So basically as rock is buried and otherwise subducts or has its melting pressure lowered by tectonic motion, it folds rather than breaks.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>.</p><p></p><p>So to continue:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>See the following images:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301104[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301105[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>The above images are depictions of sheared bilaterally symmetric fossils.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>And these species are hard shelled. Much like the rocks they are contained in.</p><p></p><p>And what we actually find are instances of ductile deformation of shelled organisms.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301106[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]301107[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225752364_Strain_Estimation_from_Single_forms_of_Distorted_Fossils_-_A_Computer_Graphics_and_MATLAB_Approach" target="_blank">(PDF) Strain Estimation from Single forms of Distorted Fossils - A Computer Graphics and MATLAB Approach</a></p><p></p><p>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, such as in the image of the fossil seen here:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://geologylearn.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-perform-strain-analysis.html?m=1" target="_blank">Learning Geology: Why perform strain analysis?</a></p><p></p><p>Additional thoughts on folding of layers:</p><p>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 poster 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>End of additional thought.</p><p></p><p>And so, much like dense and rigid fossils undergo ductile deformation and they bend, rather than break.</p><p></p><p>So to do rocks. And this is just a fact of creation (for Christians). 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So back to the original ark encounter ken ham poster, we can conclude a few things.</p><p></p><p>A. The poster doesn't really talk about the plethora of evidence demonstrating that rock was lithified prior to deformation throughout the rock record.</p><p></p><p>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;</p><p></p><p>C. The ark encounter essentially has taken an unreasonable, unscientific and quite frankly, a dishonest approach to preaching the gospel.</p><p></p><p>So what happens when little Timmy 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I suppose I'll just have to pass on that "opportunity".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Job 33:6, post: 76037793, member: 399299"] So I was peeling through some photos of Ken Hams ark encounter displays and I stumbled across an honorable mention: [ATTACH=full]301096[/ATTACH] 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 or at angles 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. [ATTACH=full]301108[/ATTACH] We have things like slickensides between faults, where rocks essentially carve and polish one another as they grind past eachother. [ATTACH=full]301100[/ATTACH] 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. [ATTACH=full]301102[/ATTACH] 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 poster 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. [MEDIA=youtube]aFxfF-w4Pkk[/MEDIA] 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. [ATTACH=full]301103[/ATTACH] 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. . 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: [ATTACH=full]301104[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]301105[/ATTACH] 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. [ATTACH=full]301106[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]301107[/ATTACH] [URL='https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225752364_Strain_Estimation_from_Single_forms_of_Distorted_Fossils_-_A_Computer_Graphics_and_MATLAB_Approach'](PDF) Strain Estimation from Single forms of Distorted Fossils - A Computer Graphics and MATLAB Approach[/URL] 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, such as in the image of the fossil seen here: [URL='http://geologylearn.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-perform-strain-analysis.html?m=1']Learning Geology: Why perform strain analysis?[/URL] 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 poster 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. 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 (for Christians). 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. 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 throughout the rock record. 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 Timmy 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". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Ark Encounter Geology
Top
Bottom