Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic!

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by akakscase:

quote:

---

Also Edge for your information, You are basing your "erosion" And "time between turbide flows and mud flows" off of an evolutionary scale and not a biblical scale.

---

Sorry, but the 'biblical sense' is strictly an interpretation on your part. Second, why not use the 'correct' time scale?

quote:

---

Erosion itself happens very quickly to soft things (like top soil, soft sediments, and volcanic basalt) but happens an an imperceptible rate to the harder sediments.

---

No kidding! Now is that in the biblical time scale or the secular time scale?

quote:

---

If you are going to attack someones timescale don't use your own to attack them, use theirs.

---

Riiight! So why don't you use mine?

quote:

---

Otherwise it's like trying to say "An apple isn't an apple, because the orange said so."

---

No, I'm saying that an apple is not an apple because it is not an apple.

quote:

---

Have you also considered that in order for the grand canyon ot exist it would have had to have been on earth for almost 32 BILLION years. At the rate of "erosion" it is currently moving at it would have taken 10 billion years to cut through the last few layers, not including the volcanic basalt it is running through now.

---

You have another major, unsupported assumption here: that the rate of erosion was constant over that period of time. One might call your perpspective 'uniformitarianism,' if one didn't know better. If I said something like this you would jump all over me for making assumptions. Right?

quote:

---

Let me explain something to you. According to the bible, even the mountains of Ararat were covered with water.

---

And, in this case, the bible is wrong. Besides, where did you come up with mountains? I thought there weren't any according to some of your fellow creationists. You need to get your story straight.

quote:

---

Now, that would mean that the flood waters would have to have been at least as high as them across the surface of the planet. The mountains of Ararat are justly called mountains because they are several thousand feet tall. Now put all that water on top of North America. Then in a perios of about 100 days take it all away. What you have is a FLOOD that would make the mudslide by Mt. St. Helens looks like a spilt glass of water.

---

Sounds like you are making my points for me. There is no comparison, so why do you (all) keep comparing MSH to the Flood?

quote:

---

Now mix in every known surface mineral in North America (Which by the way are also the primary minerals in all the geographic strata in the grand canyon) and have it quickly receed. Not only would that lay your strata, but the Grand Canyon could also have been formed by the last of the receding waters.

---

So, you are saying that coral reefs grew to hundreds of feet thick on a year?

quote:

---

Then expose this new strata to gravity, air, and a bombardment of new radioactive waves from the sun. What you end up with is a nicely layered sedimentary collumn (you notice I didn't use "geographic collumn") of hard packed earth after a few short years.

---

No, you would have a mudflow. No canyon. This is getting kind of surreal here. Radioactive waves from the sun???? You mean the rocks were sunburned?

quote:

---

after 4400 years you end up with a mostly solid rock with many different layers.

---

Riiiight! All nicely sorted as well.

quote:

---

And all of this took less the 1/1000th the time you think. Scientists can't prove long term geographic erosion, but the short term cataclismic erosion is everywhere for us to see.

---

You mean we don't see erosion of caused by glaciers, streams or waves? News to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
Consider this: Scientific evidence lead to the "geologic column". In every single instance I have come across that in an educational book I have laughed because almost immediately afterwards it says something to the degree that THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN DOESN'T EXIST.

---

Really? Can you give us a reference on this? Perhaps a quotation?

quote:

---

It is completely made up.

---

Is this what you say or what your textbooks say?

quote:

---

Also dating of geographic layers is based on the "index fossils". BUT the fossils are dated by the strata they are found in. This is circular reasoning. The only way we "know" how old a fossil is, is by going off of a guess by "scientists" in the 1700's and 1800's.

---

Wrong. The early columns were simply relative time scales. It was noticed that the fossil assemblages changed with time and that beds could be correlated by index fossils. Then new areas could be compared with the classical columns. No circular reasoning at all. You have been reading too many creationist websites and I can guarantee you that I have NEVER conversed with a creationist who even understands what circular reasoning is. No exceptions.

quote:

---

These are also the same people who thought that sicknesses were caused by bad blood.

---

Riiiight! Just like christians of the day, eh?

quote:

---

George Washington was bled to death because he had the flu and doctors bled the "Bad Blood" out of him. Many of the "scientists" of the time thought evolution was a lie in the extreme.

---

Yep, the same ones that bled George Washington, I guess. By the way how do you get evolution back to the time of Washington, and who was promoting it at the time?

quote:

---

Evolution was a lie in the extreme and it's only purpose is to make people doubt the bible (which when ever someone tried to disprove it scientifically with concrete facts [which evolution doesn't have] they were converted, I know one) then turn away from it.

---

Actually, most people turn away from creationism. We could take a poll and see... Besides, evolution doesn't really care about the bible in the least. Hate to rain on your paranoia parade, but evolutionists are not out to disprove the bible.

quote:

---

Now I do belive in micro-evolution. I do not belive in macro-evolution, actually every time I see it posted anywhere I wind up laughing so hard tears come to my eyes. Needless to say I go through about 3 boxes of tissues a day.

---

I'm not surprised.[This message has been edited by edge, 09-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
...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.

---

Things pretty slow up there, eh?

quote:

---

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.

---

How many formations did you encounter? Seems to me that if you just dug into soil you have shown nothing. You simply got your layers of soil back. Do you have documentation or did you conveniently forget your camera?

quote:

---

...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.

---

Riiight! How many limestone beds? Sandstones? Shales? How many unconformities? Any Mesozoic rocks? I don't hear these things as being in your description.

quote:

---

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?

---

I think all us evolutionists would say no. You have been deceived as to our theory.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[B]I'm still waiting for an explanation on how he and his buds dug up 70,000 cu ft of permafrost with a swiss army knife... [/QUOTE]Well, to be fair, permafrost is discontinuous in the area around Delta. And, as you know, every Alaskan has a backhoe in their garage. The point remains that this is not a trivial task.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: True, but is there a lot of 'fermica' mining there?

---

Of course. It's renewable you know. All you need is a 4x4 pick up and drive it over the tundra a few hundred times. Voila' a new fermica deposit!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

True. However, he mentioned muskeg nearby. IIRC, muskeg only forms on tundra (correct me if I'm wrong), primarily due to the lousy drainage caused by the ground being frozen solid x-meters down. ...

---

Not sure. I imagine that any poorly drained area could have muskeg, and I think Delta is pretty flat. All I know for sure is that permafrost is a real bxxxh to dig. Then when you're done, you've got a mess...

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

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?

---

Just a bump. Now that we are done discussing permafrost and pick-up truck lithification (at least I hope we are), I am really interested in TB's answer to this question. Please tell us why you would compare this proximal, stratovolcanic environment to the entire geological record. I know, I know, this is just a bunch of unimportant details, but humor me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
I just love how you take one or two things out of context to attack it. Try using the whole thing next time. Now to answer you questions:

​

1) The geologic collumn I am refering to is the complete geologic collumn. First off... Unconformities doesn't explain it. If it doesn't exist don't use it as proof for aging other collumns.

---

Hmm, AK, can you please give us a reference in which any geologist, anywhere in the world says that the geological column must be complete at any location? I think you will see that this is a strawman argument created by your favorite professional creationists for you to trip over in your crusade against evolution.

quote:

---

2) Cited: Bone graveyards (note the s) in the Badlands. Next, only the largest and most durable bones survived intact. There are many fragments found in these graveyards from much smaller and less durable bones. Who's to say that some of those may not be mammilian. (I'm not using this as proof though, it is just a hypothesis)

---

Yeah, well, that's a good thing, because lots of fine bones have been found in the fossil record including fossilized egg shells.

quote:

---

3) The evidence of erosion is plain to see to the trained eye which mine is (Masters in Geology, UAF, specializing in natural resource exploration).

---

Oops, I think I just felt the collective shudder of hundreds of UA geologists.

quote:

---

Next the evidence of a massive shift in the earth would be shown with sharper peaks on the mountains, massive landslides, and, somewhere nearby, evidence of upthrust earth.

---

You mean sharper than the Alaska Range? Or the Himalayas? What do you mean by sharper? Are you saying that the modern high ranges are not formed by erosion?

quote:

---

4) The shifts would have had to have been drastic over short periods of time, and the river remained on the same course afterwards for extended periods of time. Thus earthquakes or vocanice action (which is extremely easy to disprove) would be the only answer to.

---

This makes no sense at all. Why would any shifts have to be drastic?

quote:

---

Now as to what you said afterwards:

​

I use feet so that the common every day American has a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. OK, First lets use the OEM and say it was flat at first, then the upthrusting began very slowly. This would be a fairly good cuase of the Grand Canyon. But lets talk basic geophysics. It the plateau slowly thrust upward, where are the stress fractures?

---

Umm, AK? Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? Why would rapid uplift not create fractures?

quote:

---

What happens? You get all sorts of fractures and fissures all over the place of the upthrusting. THERE IS NONE ANYWHERE NEAR the Grand Canyon.

---

Wow! Any pictures I've seen have all kinds of fractures.

quote:

---

Now the YEM:
Before the flood the earth was relatively flat with VERY shallow oceans.

---

Have you checked your bible for references to mountains or hills?

quote:

---

Either in the crust, but most likely between the crust and outer mantle of the earth there was a fairly large pocket of water.

---

Sure, that makes sense. Super dense water, no doubt.

quote:

---

Also there was an outer globe of water above the earth in a mid to low orbit.

---

You sound quite convinced. And your evidence for this is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
OK, edge it is clear that not only are you firmly rooted in your beliefs of on old earth, but you also will not use a persons WHOLE answer as a quote. (Fragements answer I said was a theory, not fact as you posted it as)

---

No, I wouldn't call it even a theory, much less a fact. The point is that you believe this nonsense. Or at least you believe is is possible.

quote:

---

Next, The "COMPLETE GEOLOGIC COLLUMN" doesn't exist anywhere in this world except text books and imagination.

---

I guess the others have shown you the error of this statement adequately.

quote:

---

YOU can take all the strata you want and shuffle it any way you want, but you still won't have a complete geologic collumn.

---

I note that you have not answered my challenge to find anyone (other than professional creationists) who says that there should be a complete geological column anywhere. Why not?

quote:

---

Why? Because the strata used for it was pulled from too many places, too far removed from each other to be viable.

---

Again, who says so? Plenty of trained people think that the correlations are valid.

quote:

---

That's like taking an eskimo skeleton from northern canada and putting a chimpanzees head on it, then calling it the missing link. Think about it for a while.

---

Okay, I've thought about it. Kind of a silly thing for a creationist to do. Now what?

quote:

---

BTW The fratures in edge mentioned, are the wrong type, or part of the canyon itself so I must ask. him. What is it, fracture or erosion. You can't use both feasably and come up with the same answer.

---

You mean fractures cannot be eroded? This is getting more and more bizarre.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Edge, in a sense, I do agree with his statement (see message 48, and critique if you wish).

​

The "geologic column" that he is talking about, is a summary illustration.

---

Correct. I am not sure that AK or most other creationists understand this.

quote:

---

It gives time divisions and durations. It really gives no information on geology (the rocks) in itself.

---

It is basically a time scale. There is no geological axiom that says rocks of all ages must be present at any given location. Having said that, there are some places where the column is remarkably complete.