The "Bent Strata" PRATT a favorite YEC false claim

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
78
Visit site
✟23,431.00
Faith
Unitarian
Ondaball's thread with supposed evidence for the global flood posts a link to a page of alleged Flood Evidence on Answers in Genesis. I refuted some of these on that thread but one point that keeps coming up whenever a YEC posts a list of PRATTs that are supposed to be flood evidence is the false claim that some folded strata are too tightly bent to have formed after the rock had fully lithified (harded to solid rock). It is given on the AiG page in the following form.
Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

This specific claim is apparently from John Morris but you see many other variations on YEC pages. It is false. Geologists well know that rocks can be deformed after lithification when they are buried and subjected to heat and pressure for long periods of time. There was a very good discussion of this on the EvCforum some years ago and I need to credit Bill Birkeland with providing a lot of the information. The thread can be found HERE.

In fact there are rock strata that were deformed before full lithification but many other "bent strata" have features that could only have formed if the rocks were fully hardened before they were folded. Under pressure and at higher temperature rocks become ductile, that is they can be folded though often brittle fracture does occur. There are several web pages on deformation of rocks that give information on the processes involved.

The idea that all these "bent strata" do not show evidence of brittle failure is also false. In fact such evidence shows that the strata were solid when folded. For instance the clustered fractures in this picture could only have occured if sold rock was folded. Source Page

arches.JPEG


Other features that show that solid rock was folded are deformed fossils or deformed pebbles which are both commonly found indicators that the strata were solid when folded.

The picture below shows stretched pebbles in folded rock. There are several links to other pictures on strecthed Pebbles in Bill's Posts on EvC.
Stretchedpebble.jpg


Now let's see what Bill says about Morris's specific claim regarding the Tapeats. (Post 20)

I know at least one fellow geologist, who has visited the Grand Canyon and been to the Carbon Creek / Carbon Canyon exposure, which John Morris uses as an example of soft sediment deformation of the Tapeats Sandstone in Tom Vail's book, "Grand Canyon: A Different View". From what he personally observed, I can confidently state that anybody who objectively examines the Carbon Creek / Carbon Canyon outcrop without being blinded by their preconceived notions of what he or she wants to find there, will find an abundance of different types of small-scale folding, faulting, fracturing, and so forth within the Tapeats Sandstone that could only have formed as the result of the folding of solidly lithified beds of sandstone. Any competent conventional geologist looking at that outcrop could find within 15 minutes enough evidence to soundly refute the claims that John Morris makes about the Tapeats Sandstone having been folded while still soft. I can only conclude that John Morris seems to be completely deaf, dumb, and blind to what the the Carbon Creek / Carbon Canyon outcrop has to tell him. (This is one reason he and other Young Earth creationists are held is such low regard by conventional geologists, the majority of whom in the United States are faithful and devout Christians).

Unfortunately, at this time, I can't find any published references that specifically discuss the Carbon Creek / Carbon Canyon outcrop. However, it is only a very small side branch of the Kaibab Monocline (Kaibab Upwarp). An exposure of the main Kaibab Monocline (Kaibab Upwarp) occurs in Palisades Creek / Canyon, an outcrop, which John Morris conveniently ignores in his arguments. In that exposure, classic and other papers in structural geology, i. e. Reches (1978) and Johnson and Johnson (2000), have described in detail features within the folded and faulted Tapeats Sandstone at that outcrop that could only have been created by the folding of solidly lithified sedimentary layers comprising the Tapeats Sandstone. These papers soundly refute the claims made by John Morris that the Tapeats Sandstone was still soft when it was folded.

I would put this in the category of a classic "Flood Geology" PRATT. All real geologists and all those who have studied structural geology know that rock strata can be folded after lithification and that there is overwhelming evidence that many strata were solid when they were folded but the PRATT sounds logical and convincing to people with limited knowledge of geology. This PRATT while false, convinces the intended audience and the source of their funds and thus typifies "flood geology".
 

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Here is an image of a couple of stretched brachiopod fossil from deformed Bokkeveld shales from South Africa. These fossils could only have been stretched in this way if the rock was lithifed before it was folded.

This would also require permineralization of the fossil prior to bending, would it not?
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
78
Visit site
✟23,431.00
Faith
Unitarian
This would also require permineralization of the fossil prior to bending, would it not?
I think so but I am not sure since brachipod fossils are "hard parts" and fossils of this age are fully mineralized. I have found some research on whether deformation occurs before or after diagenesis and clearly the fossil had to be solidly imbedded in very solid rock. Soft sediment would have flowed around the hard brachipod fossil and not deformed it. Perhaps Molal has a more complete answer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums