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

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

A reply from Edge, directed to TB:

quote:

---

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.

---

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. 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. If you are going to attack someones timescale don't use your own to attack them, use theirs. Otherwise it's like trying to say "An apple isn't an apple, because the orange said so." 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.Let me explain something to you. According to the bible, even the mountains of Ararat were covered with water. 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. 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.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. after 4400 years you end up with a mostly solid rock with many different layers. 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.Go here and tell me what you see. In one week I will tell you about this picture.Go here and tell me what you see. In two weeks I will tell you about this picture.You may be surprised by the answer.Edit by Adminnemooseus (10:30pm, 9/15): Added UBB quote code, and supplied attribute above it[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-15-2002]

TB, I was replying to Edge's reply. AS to the broken links, I just checked my email and found out that I was at 117% capacity. I'm going to build a web page with those two pictures in it. I'll post it a little later. I am a creationist. And I don't belive the flood came in surges. If it came in surges the bible would say it came in surges. You can show me every piece of scientific evidence you want and I will still not think the flood happened in surges. It happened all at once.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. It is completely made up. 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. These are also the same people who thought that sicknesses were caused by bad blood. 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.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. Many of our evolutionary "facts" are theories, or outright lies. There are still things taught as facts in our textbooks today that were proven lies 125+ years ago.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.

BTW: I will pay anyone who can give me absolute irrefutable proof of evolution. Also if you do that I will burn every bible I find. Then I will stand before the world and say evolution is true. (I am refering to macro-evolution)

OK for those creationists who try to say the flood came in surges reread Genesis 7:10 through 8:12. Then read Revelation 22:18-19.
If you are going to use the bible as an argument, use it as it is written, in black and white. Adding to or taking away from the bible, then using it, destroys your proof.Now, as for all those who have been relentlessly attacking me and what I have said I will make it plain and to the point. Evolution is a lie. Every time someone has come up with "proof" for evolution, the ancient age of the earth, or anything that would disprove the bible they have either later admitted to lying or are proven wrong. the geologic collum as you see in text books does not appear anywhere on earth. Strata age has been disproven by petrified trees and out of place bones. Fossil age has been disproven through "fossil graveyards" when dinosaur bones from several million years difference have benn found together, sometimes mixed together.Now to deal with the Grand Canyon part of this. The long term formation of the grand canyon is impossible because in a fairly large portion of it the ground is HIGHER than the headwaters of the river that formed it. This means for a while water had to flow uphill in order to carve the canyon. And I'm not just talking about a couple of feet, I'm talk many many many feet.I think anyone who belives in an ancient earth needs to pay a visit to Valdez Alaska some time in their life. Then they need to drive through Keystone Canyon and look at it from the top of Thompsons Pass. It's only about a mile long but it cuts through some of the hardest rock in Alaska. (It took the Military Corps of Engineers 6 million tons of dynamite to widen 1 mile of the canyon 10 feet so they could put a road through it. You can still see the drill marks.)
From a geologic (ancient earth) point of view the canyon is a marvel of nature. It is also impossible. There are almost no signs of erosion anywhere on it. The only possible explanation for it is a MASSIVE shift in the earth that cracked two mountains apart, completely through. There is also no evidence of this.Enough of that rabit trail though. Back to the Grand Canyon. I've already stated one major stumbling block for it's long term creation. Want another? Sure you do.Even utilizing minor to moderate catastrophic events (powerful earthquakes, large localize floods, and powerful vulcanism) you still won't be able to get many of the formations you see today. To get those formations the river would have had to shift places HUNDREDS of times. VERY large earthquakes, while able to be used to explain this, would also disprove it, because they would destroy these formations. As I posted before the Alaskan Earthquake of 1964 shifted many rivers courses. However, many (but not all) reverted to their original couse within a few years. Of the few that didn't most empty into the same river within a few miles of it's original place. The only exception to this is Jarvis Creek. It dumps into a totally different river. It's original course was completely leveled by the quake. The Grand Canyon would not have withstood the numerous earthquakes (by nature of the strata it cuts through) it would take to do this and most likely the upper portion of it would now be the Grand Lake.For those who are willing to look there are thousands of tiny reasons why the Grand Canyon could not have been created in the manner it is believed to have. There are very few explainations on how it could be there, the most plausable being an enormous flood first built up the ground (tidal action causing the separation of the strata layers) then when it ran off cut the canyon out before the ground solidified.

To Edge and everyone else who's had a crack at my experiment. First off Delta Jct. is 100 miles south of Fairbanks, 350 NE of Anchorage, and is in an odd zone where you have about 7 different types of land. You have gravel and bedrock areas, musqueg (and the permafrost in these areas is about 17 inches (42.5 cm) down), clay silt and fermica areas, massive iron ore (very poor grade, almost useless to mine) deposits, areas of top soil like that found in the plain states, areas where there are so many mixes of types that I call them stew pots (you can find gold, quartz, jade, copper, iron, zinc, fermica, mica, granite, a whole slew of different types of semi-precious stones, and just about every type of rock found in North America), and volcanic basalt (one of my favorites because you can occasionally find obsidian on the perimiters of these). All of this you can find in the Delta/Tanana basin. And no, everyone doesn't have backhoes in their garages, only every 5th person does (or so it seems). You can rent them almost anywhere, and they aren't that expensive. Now as to how much gas we went through a tank a week, but we also drove the thing all over the place too. Delta is huge but sparsely populated (about 4,500 people within a 1500 square mile area(mostly farmlands)). I've lived in the states, and will be visiting there again soon just to reinforce my belief that I should live in Alaska. I take one look at the outside, any time of the day, and day of the year, and know that this was created by someone infinately more intelligent than me. If you wanna believe that all you are is a mixture of goop that somehow created extremely complex ogranisms fine by me. I know that I was created by God, and nothing you say (without irrefutable proof) will change my mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]the geologic collum as you see in text books does not appear anywhere on earth.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

I've seen that proven wrong here about a dozen times but even if it were true that there is no complete geologic collumn it is because there are unconformities. The geologic record is not to be expected to found in one place, it is generated by correlating rock units around the world.

​

[QUOTE][B]Fossil age has been disproven through "fossil graveyards" when dinosaur bones from several million years difference have benn found together, sometimes mixed together.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Cite. And tell me, why weren't modern mammal bones found in the mix, if the world is as young as you claim?

​

[QUOTE][B]
From a geologic (ancient earth) point of view the canyon is a marvel of nature. It is also impossible. There are almost no signs of erosion anywhere on it. The only possible explanation for it is a MASSIVE shift in the earth that cracked two mountains apart, completely through. There is also no evidence of this.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

No evidence, or you weren't able to find any evidence? This is a good point for you to share your credentials with your eager audience.

​

[QUOTE][B]To get those formations the river would have had to shift places HUNDREDS of times. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Which is what one would expect with an old Earth. And, rivers are constantly meandering.

​

[QUOTE][B]The Grand Canyon would not have withstood the numerous earthquakes (by nature of the strata it cuts through)[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

What earthquakes?

​

[QUOTE][B]The long term formation of the grand canyon is impossible because in a fairly large portion of it the ground is HIGHER than the headwaters of the river that formed it. This means for a while water had to flow uphill in order to carve the canyon. And I'm not just talking about a couple of feet, I'm talk many many many feet.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

No, you're talking about many kilometers. However, the whole Kaibab Plateau has been uplifting very slowly since the canyon began to form. In the Old Earth model, the river never had to flow 'up'. How you deal with that in a young Earth model, I don't know. Plus, you already pointed out that the giant earthquakes necessary in a young Earth model would leave voluminous evidence, if not seriously altering the canyon, pretty much destroys the YEC perspective as well as I could on my own.

​

Also, near the GC is Bryce Canyon. As you can see by the vertical rock structures in that picture (Hoodoos) erosion was not from lateral movement of water, it was from vertical movement from above, that is, eons of rainfall.

​

Bryce Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

---

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.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)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). 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.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.5) See answer 4Now 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? There would be stress fratures all over the place. Try this very easy very basic experiment at home:1) get a plastic party plate
2) make a thick paste with corstarch and water (enough to fill the plate)
3) fill plate and let dry (aproximately 24 hours for mine)
4) gently push up from the bottom of the plate using finger.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. If you observed closely you noticed that you could lift the starch a little bit without the fractures. This is why a 4500 year old plateau dosn't have the fractures. It hasn't pushed up enough yet.Now the YEM:
Before the flood the earth was relatively flat with VERY shallow oceans. Either in the crust, but most likely between the crust and outer mantle of the earth there was a fairly large pocket of water. Also there was an outer globe of water above the earth in a mid to low orbit. (Did you know that extremely cold ice (like that you would find in a mid orbit) is magnetic?) The world would therefore be full of small geothermic springs and the orbiting ice would keep the world warm (Ice/snow is the best insulater known). Then something tragic happened and the world (which was probably orbiting at a 90 degree and to the sun) got tilted. The Magnetic poles were thrown off and all the ice that was in orbit almost litterally got sucked to earth by the shifted magnetic poles. It would melt as it entered the atmosphere and become rain. Meanwhile as the world tilts several thins happened. First the surface of the world would shift and fracture, realeasing all that geothermally heated water into the air and shallow seas (killing anything around it). The steam would turn to clouds as it rapidly cooled and surface temperature would drop radically. The part (most likely the north pole) that pointed away from the sun would quickly drop below freezing and snow would start falling by the yard (which is why you find standing mammoths frozen in ice). You would quickly have a disaster that would change the face of the planet. After all this water was released from beneath the crust the crust would cave in, and form the modern day oceans. That is where all the water went. Very little of it evaporated. Now, the sinking crust would sink very rapidly, and thus the water (which had been having extraordinary tides which cause the layered strata) would rush toward the oceans. Now here is how the Grand Canyon would be formed be this: The water ran downhill and as it lowered it started carving away the top of the plateau. Then once it reached the level of the pleateau the water would begin to run in the lower channels (early Grand Canyon) and carve the then soft sediment rapidly. Pretty soon that channel would be pretty deep, and as the water behind it diminished it would reduce itsself to a small water channel in a deep canyon like what you see today. The Higher ground only increased the ammount of soft soil erosion, and never once did the water flow up hill. Now there is more to this theory which I will post later. But right now, I'm going to get some dinner. (BTW You can thank Kent Hovind for this theory)

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) Next, The "COMPLETE GEOLOGIC COLLUMN" doesn't exist anywhere in this world except text books and imagination. 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. Why? Because the strata used for it was pulled from too many places, too far removed from each other to be viable. 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.Next, for all you who are attacking my Masters. I get the masters for one purpose. A job, and that was a long time ago. Next, about 65% of the "geology" I learned at that time was based on evoloution. So I do not use it. Now, I personnaly believe the earth is young (I've never seen irrefutable proof, even in the grand canyon, that it's old). There are too many inconsitencies in current science to even try to use current science to proove it's old. For my part, I believe god created this earth perfect, and then later almost completely destroyed it. And in the near future he will come back, desroy completely and then rebuild the perfect earth again, where only those who believed in and obeyed him will be around to see. This is my last post.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.