Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic!
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 68 (13885)
07-21-2002 11:40 AM


EvO-DuDe, from
http://EvC Forum: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate? :
-----
Added by edit on 8/13/2002:
I haven't a clue where the above address came from. It should have been as follows:
http://EvC Forum: Is Radiometric Dating Really that Accurate?
Added by edit later on 8/13/2002:
Bug reported to, and fixed by Admin. I did a little clean up also.
Moose
-----
quote:
Yesterday, just for the heck of it,I watched a creationist video about the grand canyon. They claimed that almost every feature in the grand canyon shows that it was formed rapidly in a series of catastrohpies. They gave Mt. Saint Helen's as an example of how well-layered strata can be formed rapidly, and they claimed that the appearence of the grand canyon fits far better into the creationist's 'theory' than the modern geologists's theory. Were the creationists lying?
The Mt. Saint Helens argument persists in showing up, all over the place. Now it has it's own place.
To answer the dudes question - If the creationist model comes out of vast ignorance, then they are not lying. But can you believe that anyone would think that the sedimentation of a volcanic eruption, is representative of sedimentation in general?
Moose
Edited to correct "arguement"
spelling
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 07-21-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-13-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-13-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 07-21-2002 12:31 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 9:58 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 68 (13887)
07-21-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-21-2002 11:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
EvO-DuDe, from
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=8&m=13#13 :
The Mt. Saint Helens arguement persists in showing up, all over the place. Now it has it's own place.
To answer the dudes question - If the creationist model comes out of vast ignorance, then they are not lying. But can you believe that anyone would think that the sedimentation of a volcanic eruption, is representative of sedimentation in general?
Moose
And (not to beat a dead horse, but, oh well) we should remember that if this video was the one by Steve Austin, he was the one caught in a lie about his conversion to creationism after seeing Mount St. Helens' post-eruption features.
I would say that most creationists do not lie, especially including those on this board. They are, however, deceived; and that deception falls right on target for their need to have a supernatural explanations which conform to the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-21-2002 11:40 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-21-2002 8:44 PM edge has not replied

EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 68 (13900)
07-21-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
07-21-2002 12:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
And (not to beat a dead horse, but, oh well) we should remember that if this video was the one by Steve Austin, he was the one caught in a lie about his conversion to creationism after seeing Mount St. Helens' post-eruption features.

No, the video was not the one by Steve Austin. It was called something like The Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophy, and it was narrated by some Australian dude. A creationist buddy of mine had given the video to me a few years ago.
Someone told me that there is a difference between slowly formed strata and rapidly formed strata that creationists fail to mention. Can anyone give me more info about this?
[This message has been edited by EvO-DuDe, 07-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 07-21-2002 12:31 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:02 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 68 (13912)
07-21-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-21-2002 11:40 AM


Moose
The Mt St Helen's strata and canyon arguemnts come essentially from the mud flows caused by volcanism. Very good model for the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-21-2002 11:40 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 07-22-2002 12:14 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 68 (13913)
07-21-2002 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by EvO-DuDe
07-21-2002 8:44 PM


Edude
Yes there are differences between slowly formed strata and rapidly formed strata that creationists often fail to mention. They are paleocurrents and indicate that most of the strata were laid down under rapid currents.
50% of the geological column is turbidite deposits (rapidly currents). The rest were laid with little flow but may have been formed rapidly by settling out of silts and clays during the flood in between surges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-21-2002 8:44 PM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by wj, posted 07-21-2002 10:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 11 by edge, posted 07-22-2002 12:21 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 68 (13914)
07-21-2002 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 10:02 PM


So TB, what miraculous process caused the silts and clays to settle out between the flood surges? Which law of physics will be bent to breaking point this time to accommodate a religius belief? I find it amusing how you adopt scientific concepts such as the evidence and explanations for paleocurrents when it suits you and then ignore other scientific evidence and explanations, such as settling rates, when it is inconvenient for your flood story.
And after various strata are laid down, what caused the lithification process to proceed at an enormously fast rate which is not seen today? Were they baked dry and hard by the accelerated radioactive decay?
If Mt St Helens is such powerful evidence for fast, catastrophic processes producing stratafication, which strata in the standard geological column are explained by this process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:35 PM wj has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 68 (13915)
07-21-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by wj
07-21-2002 10:18 PM


jw
No miracualous process is needed - small partilces would take a while to settle out after largeer particles were laid down.
I simply don't see why something on the scale as the flood would not be expected to deposit thousands of feet of strata?
Where is the proof that lithificaiton takes so long? It's evolutionary expectation.
Maybe they were baked dry and hard by the accelerated radioactive decay? You're almost a creationist wj! See how easy it is? Seriously I have not studied the details of this problem.
We already know that 50% of the starta wer elaid down as turbidites so I would suggest that this portion of the column was likely to have been rapidly laid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wj, posted 07-21-2002 10:18 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by wj, posted 07-21-2002 10:47 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 12 by edge, posted 07-22-2002 12:30 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 68 (13917)
07-21-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 10:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
jw
Maybe they were baked dry and hard by the accelerated radioactive decay? You're almost a creationist wj! See how easy it is? Seriously I have not studied the details of this problem.

Yes, very easy. Latch onto some known fact or process and bring it into play when convenient. Ignore the other consequences or that no such event was mentioned in the bible, the creationists' primary source of evidence. You'd think that the heat from the deposited silt being baked to siltstone might have rated a mention in the genesis story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

EvO-DuDe
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 68 (13918)
07-22-2002 12:01 AM


Weren't the fine-layered strata laid down by Mt. Saint Helen's composed mostly of volcanic ash? Geologists know the difference between volcanic ash and standard sediment, and they do understand that nice layers of ash can be laid down rapidly. The geological column is not made mostly of volcanic ash, so chances are it was not formed rapidly, unless you can give me some evidence that, you know, normal strata can be created rapidly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 07-23-2002 12:18 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 68 (13919)
07-22-2002 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 9:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The Mt St Helen's strata and canyon arguemnts come essentially from the mud flows caused by volcanism. Very good model for the flood.
Excuse me, but are you saying that mudflows deposited the geological column?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 9:58 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 09-21-2002 11:07 AM edge has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 68 (13920)
07-22-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 10:02 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes there are differences between slowly formed strata and rapidly formed strata that creationists often fail to mention. They are paleocurrents and indicate that most of the strata were laid down under rapid currents.
Are you including the Mancos Shale in this statement? After all it is the most extensive unit of the Cretaceous seaway in the intermountain west. Exactly what do the indicators tell you about the paleocurrents in this unit? After all, you say that MOST of the strata were laid down in rapid currents...
quote:
50% of the geological column is turbidite deposits (rapidly currents).
Please document this and then compare turbidites with volcanic mudflows.
quote:
The rest were laid with little flow but may have been formed rapidly by settling out of silts and clays during the flood in between surges.
Hmm, 3000 feet of shale. That's a lot of slow water deposition. Do you have any idea of the water column that would suspend this amount of sediment, drop it out quickly and leave no other traces?
[This message has been edited by edge, 07-21-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:02 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 68 (13921)
07-22-2002 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
07-21-2002 10:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
No miracualous process is needed - small partilces would take a while to settle out after largeer particles were laid down.
This is the opposite of what you said above. The clays were supposed to drop rapidly out of suspension. Which is it?
quote:
I simply don't see why something on the scale as the flood would not be expected to deposit thousands of feet of strata?
Because it could not allow for the development of coral reefs for one. Neither would it permit you to deposit chalk beds, chemical sediments or evaporites. Just to name a few.
quote:
Where is the proof that lithificaiton takes so long? It's evolutionary expectation.
Proof, again! Well, we can at least see where you are coming from. Lithification normally takes a very long time. Just look at how deep they drill in the Mississippi delta without hitting lithified rock.
quote:
Maybe they were baked dry and hard by the accelerated radioactive decay?
Baked along with Noah, you mean?
quote:
You're almost a creationist wj! See how easy it is? Seriously I have not studied the details of this problem.
Really?!
quote:
We already know that 50% of the starta wer elaid down as turbidites so I would suggest that this portion of the column was likely to have been rapidly laid.
TB, a couple of things. First, do you ever account for the time between turbidite flows or mudflows? Second, do you ever account for the many layers that have been lost to erosion? Do these factors ever enter your mind? Just because a bed or lamination can be deposited quickly does NOT mean that an entire formation or series is deposited in a direct multiple of that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 68 (13971)
07-23-2002 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by EvO-DuDe
07-22-2002 12:01 AM


Mudflows would be a thick soup of ash, debris, and whatever sediments were between the flow and its stopping point, not just ash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by EvO-DuDe, posted 07-22-2002 12:01 AM EvO-DuDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 07-28-2002 3:01 PM gene90 has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 68 (14311)
07-28-2002 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
07-23-2002 12:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Mudflows would be a thick soup of ash, debris, and whatever sediments were between the flow and its stopping point, not just ash.

Yes, normally, mudflows are unsorted. They are the most common subaerial volcanic deposit in the geological record. They are well documented, observed and modeled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 07-23-2002 12:18 AM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by akakscase, posted 09-15-2002 7:19 PM edge has replied
 Message 16 by akakscase, posted 09-15-2002 7:58 PM edge has replied

akakscase
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 68 (17469)
09-15-2002 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by edge
07-28-2002 3:01 PM


OK... First of all let me start be saying I have seen Separation of sedimentation without floods, muds slides, or vulcanism. I live in Alaska and am within a 3 minute walk of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. As some of you may know, and others not, about 380 miles of the 800 mile long pipeline is 10 feet underground. Where I live is near the longest glacial silt river in the world. Nearby is also a swamp, muskeg, the dryest area in North America, and about a dozen other natural wonders and odities. and through this lays 87 miles of buried pipeline. Recently I was able to watch repairs being done to a section of the pipeline and as they dug it out I saw the same layers of sediment (silt, clay, gravel, mica, fermica, shist, and about a dozen others I don't know the names of) above the relatively new pipeline. I was curious as to why this happened so myself and a few other creationists got together and performed a rudementary test. We dug out a square archeologists box (50 ft by 50 ft) all the way to the bedrock (about 28 feet below our feet) mixed the dirt together and refilled the hole. We then drove a F-150 pick-up truck over it 100 times for the next 5 months. Afterwards we dug a 25 x 25 ft box in it all the way down to the bedrock. We found the same layers, although not as well defined, as we did when we originally dug the box. The effect of driving a 1 ton truck over it 28,000 times had caused the separation. The house my parents bought was built in 1960 on the banks of Jarvis Creek. The builders had again dug down to the bedrock (only about 18 feet there) and placed earthquake support stuctures under the foundation of the house filling it in again, then building the house. This was not common practice here, but not unheard of. In 1964 the largest Earthqueke ever recorded hit Alaska. The earthquake was centered in the sea south of Anchorage and Valdez. In Delta it shifted the course of 15 different rivers forever. My parents moved the house 6 years later. when they dug the support columns out they found perfectly formed strata that looked to have been there for "millions" of years. At a recent archealogical dig in the area (The Broken Mammoth site up by Shaw Creek) I watched an archeologits first uncover a beautiful bone rod, then 12 inches deeper uncovered the rusted blade and corroded handle of an iron knife with an ivory hilt. There had been no obvious tampering with the strata so the knife must have come before the rod. Now this might not be unusual except the archeologists also found evidence of stone working (Several chist blades, an obsidian arrowhead, and remanants of several hearths) almost 2 feet above the knife. None had apparently been tampered with. I would like to hear your opinions on this. The strata found in this area is pretty much the same type of strata found in the Grand Canyon.
One last question for all you evolutionists: Do you belive man, dog, cats, moose, bears, tomatoes, apples, and broccoli, along will all other life evolved from a rock?
------------------
"Let the dead bury their dead." Jesus Christ - Matt. 8:22

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by edge, posted 07-28-2002 3:01 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 09-16-2002 2:02 AM akakscase has not replied
 Message 27 by Joe Meert, posted 09-16-2002 7:09 AM akakscase has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024