Also worth mentioning are deformed conglomerates.
Round river rock is embedded as a conglomerate and then stretched without fracturing.
There are even examples of permineralized fossils that were deformed after they turned to rock.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288306.1990.10425690
There are levels of certainty associated with any scientific claim. However, that does not justify claiming that different claims are equal. It is possible to prove that certain ones are wrong, even though we can never prove that there isn’t a better explanation that we haven’t thought of.
There are multiple problems with the YEC claim about bent layers proving that rock was unconsolidated sediment when it bent. As the photos in previous posts show, the layers in question have cracks when the claim was made that they don’t, and deliberately misleading pictures were used. But also the claim that uncracked bending in rock would show that the layers were not lithified is untrue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9d9CRYFhPk is one video showing flexible rock. More readily available and easier to manipulate, you can try various candy bars. If you try to bend rock or chocolate very quickly, it is more likely to break. Slower, and bending becomes more likely. Colder tends to be more brittle and break easier; warmer is more likely to bend. In short, rocks can bend without cracking under the right conditions. Both the premise of the YEC argument and the data presentation are false.
Also, there are multiple pieces of evidence clearly indicating that older layers were solid rock before the younger ones were deposited. Some areas in the Grand Canyon have karst structures - limestone dissolved away to make holes, that were later filled. If you make layers of sand and mud, and then squash them so that they bend, there will also be some mixing of the layers. But instead, there are sharp boundaries between many of the rock layers.
Yet another problem is that cramming all of the geological changes into a single year-long flood requires water moving around at ridiculous speeds. The sediment for the layers would be washed away, not deposited.
You’ll find both of these in my previous post.
The portions that @T_aquaticus posted were just enlargements of the same area in both the USGS (top) and Answers in Genesis (bottom) photographs. No processing was done on the pictures other than enlarging them to the same size. You can easily do the same thing yourself on the original photographs.
But even if Answers in Genesis hadn’t included a low-quality photograph of the rock formation in question, the fact remains that there exist high-quality photographs of the same formation clearly showing fractures in the exact places where they claimed that there weren’t any.
It was not formed when wet, period. This is because we know what soft sediment deformation looks like. It looks like this:
Here’s the thing. A lack of fracturing is NOT what characterises soft sediment deformation. Sedimentary layers that were deformed when wet have two particular characteristics:
You don’t even need an advanced degree in science to see this. It’s just the elementary basics of how materials behave at different scales. In fact you can see it by doing a simple experiment in your kitchen. Try making some small figurines, the size of your finger, out of dough. Fairly easy, right? Now try making a life-size figure, the same size as yourself, out of the same dough. You won’t even be able to start before it slumps all over the place.
I’ll just get to the point of my main argument in this comment so we don’t have to exchange the different explanations for something neither one of us can prove.
I don’t support AIG explanations for everything, but I do put it on board as a consideration as I do with mainstream explanation, but there is a significant difference between the 2 which I’ll explain.
Your assumptions on me not accepting evidence that contradict creationism is false.
My decision isn’t based on any evidence at all, but what is given to me and that is the right to choose, which is what I always go back to, that being John 3:16.
After that I take the position of what I can verify myself, which is virtually nothing when it comes to historical science, so I then take what positions are available to me in distinguishing how these rocks got bent, including the ones with fractured rock. . Was it through catastrophic flooding from the biblical Noah’s flood or long age movement claimed by old age exponents.
Both explanations to me are unverifiable, so under the biblical paradigm It is a belief that there was a noah’s flood. I can personally choose to reject that story or I can accept and believe it. That choice is mine personally to make.
The other explanation doesn’t offer that choice, you only have evidence and a interpretation of that evidence and acceptance of it, which I’m not to keen on. That doesn’t however mean I think that mainstream explanations are wrong, I’m just not in a position to verify any of their claims or the freedom to accept this as a belief.
I have already pointed this out.
(Genesis 7:24), and after these 150 days the waters gradually receded from the earth
There is nothing to say the water were rushing water’s. It receded gradually. Now exactly what that may of looked like. I have no idea, but gradual receding water was more likely slowish to increased movement depending on the slope of the land I guess. If the water were starting to cut into softer sedimentation that had built up from the earlier stages of the flood than as the water continues to cut into the sedimentation the water would increase in speed.
That not a shift, but my position. Something you aren’t fully aware of… My position does also change as I learn new things. In a years time it maybe different to what it currently is. I’m under no obligation to hold onto how I currently view the world and the explanations for it.
Something plausible doesn’t mean it’s verifiable. Surely that is easy to understand. That is imagination. I can imagine rocks bending slowly over millions of years. That is plausible to me, I can imagine sedimentation being bent while soft, that is also plausible, but both explanations though are unverifiable to me. There is nothing complicated with the 2 possible and plausible scenarios. I’m just not stuck in the mud over them [pardon the pun].
To me, that sounds equivalent to “I can’t verify anything myself, so the Earth could be a globe or it could be flat.”
What you have to take into consideration is the reality of the scientific community. More than 99% of educated and practicing geologists and biologists (which includes many, many Christians) disagree with YEC. The only people supporting YEC do so because of religious reasons, not scientific ones. The debate is as lopsided as globe vs. flat Earth, and it has been for over 150 years. For YEC to be true, it would take something akin to a conspiracy to cover up a flat Earth.
John 3:16 says nothing about bent rock, and bent rock says nothing about John 3:16.
[quote=“jammycakes, post:124, topic:43863”]
But even if Answers in Genesis hadn’t included a low-quality photograph of the rock formation in question, the fact remains that there exist high-quality photographs of the same formation clearly showing fractures in the exact places where they claimed that there weren’t any.
[/qu
What I can see in that pic is the edging of that bent rock breaking away over time, which would fracture first where it is about to break away, but if it is fractured all the way through then I don’t have any issue with that either. That is AIG argument, not mine. I can see a fracture on the right hand side where a person was sitting in the 2 different shots. I don’t think that is relevant as pointed out in a earlier comment.
What we do have is unbroken bent rock.
We can clearly can see a combination of broken and unbroken rock bends. It then comes down to what the respective explanations are for this.
Are you telling me that it will only settle that way?
Anyway I’ll get back to my main argument here that I have to keep repeating.
Historical science and that being this eg of bent rock is unverifiable to me. Main stream explanation maybe true, I don’t discount it, but I can only accept and believe it. On the biblical side of things AIG explanation whether I accept it or not is based on belief and I’m free to choose to reject or accept the explanation. I’m free to choose. This being based on John 3:16. This is all I’m doing.
Creationists are saying there should be no fractures since the sediments were wet and pliable. Since there are fractures, this falsifies their claims.
Why wouldn’t the fractures verify that the rocks were solid when bent?
Just as people are free to believe in a flat Earth.
Both the premise of the YEC argument and the data presentation are false.
It’s not false unless you can prove it false. The best that can be done is an alternative explanation, which is what main stream science has done. Both explanations are unverifiable and so either one could be true or both are false. I don’t personally know, and that’s where I leave it.
I’m not obligated to choose one over the other. I leave them both on the table.
Any particular reason for this assumption.
(Genesis 7:24), and after these 150 days the waters gradually receded from the earth.
Sounds more like a slow receding of the waters, and where the water started to cut through built up area’s of sediment it would then increase in speed as it dug into it. You are putting things into the story that aren’t there, but in your imagination or someone else’s youtube video you watched. Next time to confirm go and see what scripture says and will give you the accurate answer.
Even at the start of the flood, that ark was was lifted up off the land. It wasn’t tumbled around like a cork.
Three are three main ways that rocks can bend: fluidly, which happens before it’s actually rock; plastically, which happens very slowly and under pressure; and brittlely, which happens faster than the particular rock/mineral type can bend plastically.
In the matter under discussion, the bending without breaking is claimed to have happened when the material was wet sediments. The presumption is that most people aren’t well-educated enough to know that soft-sediment deformation leaves evidence that the deformation occurred before the material became rock, so people will believe that all bent strata can be explained this way.
This is deception, and it is done regularly and repeatedly by the YEC community. The accompanying lie is that the strata in the Grand Canyon formed when it was all still wet sediments – a claim often accompanied by a picture of what is actually a fractured formation but with students strategically placed to hide the fracturing.
Plastic deformation can be used to date formations because we know from lab tests how fast various minerals and rock types can deform plastically, thus giving a minimum age to deformed rocks.
So it isn’t unverifiable, it just takes a bit of knowledge. I can’t give an explanation since that’s part of my geology studies I’ve forgotten.
Circular reasoning: you have to assume that rushing water can carve a gooseneck in order for the picture to be support for rushing water carving a gooseneck.
Where does the text say the Flood was gentle?
No. There’s a thing called “angle of repose”, which is known now for just about every kind of geological material. Soft sediments cannot support sheer cliff faces; their angle of repose is too shallow. Even large construction rock has an angle of repose; to get it to form near-vertical faces requires careful stacking.
It had to be: given the area involved and the depth of water, the sea level would have to drop about twelve meters a day. I’ve watched a minor version of that kind of runoff in a local bay when we had a near-record high tide, where the area being drained was much less, and it carved channels with sides that slumped and collapsed as the channels were cut. With hundreds of times the area involved, if Flood-waters were dropping at twelve meters a day off that vast plateau there would be a canyon at least three times, probably five, as wide as what we do observe, and with at least ten times as many runoff channels reaching into the canyon.
Tides would just make it worse; water would rush in and out multiple times a day, causing more slump and collapse.
Did you know that the amount of runoff from a geological surface can be calculated based on the dendritic drainage pattern? We learned that in both geology and geography classes. The pattern involved with the Colorado River tells us that any more runoff than a few centimeters at a time has never happened there.
Yes, we do; it’s simple physics with a smidgin of chemistry.
For whale evo, perhaps; for the geology discussed just above here it’s not that hard to learn – it’s material that would fall into the scope of a high school AP geo class.
That’s the YEC claim – it’s what “soft sediments” means. And we know that much of those soft sediments were very fluid (and slimy) mud due to the grain size in their makeup.
Now you’re relying on a YC fallacy: the formation of the Grand Canyon is not one of “historical science”, it is one of physics, including hydraulics and some other things. It isn’t a matter of having to watch the whole thing, it’s really an engineering issue: we can take the claimed figures for how those strata were deposited, calculate the water and salt content, calculate the consolidation rate, etc. and thus know the strengths – angle of repose, and so on – of the different materials, take the amount of water that is claimed to have been there, and then just run the numbers for the results (we had a computer model in the university geology department that did all those calculations and showed what would happen for any given set of materials and amounts of runoff; wish I could find one online). The results show that the Grand Canyon could not have (1) been deposited by a single event or (2) been carved by runoff from a flood with ten meters of standing water at the start.
I posted a comment on one of those once and it vanished within forty minutes. When I inquired I was told that only “degreed individuals” could post such comments. So I asked if I had such a degree then my comment would be restored, and was told no, I would have to go through an approval process.
Which from the tone of all other comments told me that only people willing to give signed agreement with their statements of beliefs wwere going to be allowed to post, degree or not.
Two hundred days in sediments with high clay contents isn’t enough for a significant change, especially not submerged.
Reading the AiG stuff always makes me want to scream, “Go back to Geology 101!” What they don’t point out in this case is that there are simple tests to tell whether rocks bent plastically or when wet – and IIRC there aren’t any strata in the GC that can qualify as having bent when wet.
Which are impressive to hike through. The forces of those floods were roughly equivalent to what would have happened where the Colorado River is, and those floods tore huge chunks of basalt – bigger than any five-bedroom house – right out of the ground. There are no such formations anywhere near the GC.
It is to a minor extent, but two hundred days isn’t enough for any significant water content reduction – I’d be surprised if it was enough for even a ten percent reduction, which still leaves the deposits qualifying as soft sediments, and in the case of clays, as slippy wet slippery soft sediment.
Unless a meteorite hits you on the head, all of astronomy is historical science. even light from the sun. That’s what you should acknowledge, unless you are a YEC. In that case you have a problem dealing with reality.
Everything you have written so far.
You don’t pay attention to scientists. Anyway, here the video I told you about
Inside Nature’s Giants: Whale
(You have to unmute it first.) It’s about a whale that died of natural causes and washed up on shore, so a group of working scientists did a necropsy on it. It’s a modern whale, but they point out all the evidence for evolution in the whale’s body. Including vestigial hind limbs! If this isn’t evidence for evolution, what does it mean for you?
Here is the Gould article, which dates from 1994:
Note that the article is out of date, since mesonychids are no longer thought to be ancestral to cetaceans, but it shows that science is self-correcting while creationists simply pass gas.
I feel like an idiot, forgetting those!
You can also read it in its original context and understand that it flooded the world known to Noah, or you can choose to force the scriptures into a MSWV straightjacket and pretend it was global.
That’s because “the other explanation” involves physics and math (and a pinch of chemistry), which don’t allow much for hand-wavy typ answers.
Yes, there is – physics and math.
Those are where I see AiG fail miserably over and over because they just don’t bother with physics and math unless they can somehow make it look like it works for them.
Not quite. The characteristics of stratified sediments are such that if you even gently bend layers of soft sediment there will be density and layer-surface changes that will result in ‘eruptions’ of more liquefied material into less liquefied as well as the other way around. If you bend the sediments really, really slowly these phenomena can be limited to the layer contact surfaces, but the phenomena can’t be eliminated. One aspect of the problem is that if you tilt sediments, at some point they will try to flow, and the more dense portions will flow through the less dense portions.
This got me thinking about the rock deformation curve from geology class, which I can’t find a duplicate of online – but then it was three-dimensional and not easy to reproduce – and if there’s any way that rocks could fracture and not be solid, which reminded me that “solid” isn’t a very inclusive term; rocks fracture when the stress experienced crosses a three-dimensional surface expressing temperature, pressure, and strength modulus, so rocks can actually fracture when not solid . . . but yeah, though a rock that isn’t actually “solid” can fracture, one that isn’t solid can’t bend without fracturing.
No – a proposition can be falsified even if an alternate explanation is not available. That’s how I know – not believe, but know – that the GC and the strata in it were not formed in any massive flood; stick in the numbers and the results say “No way”.
But one – in the case of the GC, the YEC one – can be (easily) falsified.
So is anyone using the term “global” to describe the Flood – that just isn’t in the text.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
