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

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

EdudeYes 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.

jwNo 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.

^ The fall introduced broken html links.

akakscaseWe are not trying to say it couldn't have happened gradually. We are saying it could have happened rapidly. You can believe your eons interpretaiton if you want. In totality I find the flood a better answer.Hold on - who's side are you on !!!!!I do consider interruption to the flood flows. The data makes it very clear that the flood, if it occurred, ocurred in surges. What's your point. Am I the TB you were referrring to?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-15-2002]

akakscaseAs you undoubtedlty know I am a creationist. Nice to have you on board.The surges that most (and I really mean all) flood geolgoists propose occured during the one year of the flood. Is it in the Bible? Not really in black and white although I intend to carefully study the Hebrew for Gen 7:17 "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth." It would give me a warm fuzzy feeling to discover that the Hebrew for 'kept coming' was suggestive of 'surges' but I'm not going to count on it. The flood is the 'rebirth' of the earth (one of Peter's epistles links baptism with the flood) and I actually see the surges as possibly analogous to 'birth contractions'.The surges do primarily come from observational science. There are dinosaur footprint pathways at dozens and dozens of verticle levels within the geological column.Most flood geologists ackwoledge that the geo-column concept is fairly accurate. There is a camp that has severe doubts. Do you read CEN TJ, a creationist technical journal. Have a read there. From my mainstream and CEN TJ readings I have no doubt that geo-col is basically correct and that the flood occurred in surges during the flood year.I do agree that Woodmorappe might be on to somehting with his geographical/stratigraphical fossil distribution stuff where his exhaustive analysis shows that in any fixed vertical cross section there are rarely good examples of the standard fossil order.If the surges occurred during the flood year why are you so anti the idea?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-16-2002]