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

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

[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) [QUOTE][B]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)[/QUOTE][/B]Then the entire canyon would be one very large graded bed. Obviously that is not what we see.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-01-2002]

[QUOTE][B]I know that I was created by God, and nothing you say (without irrefutable proof) will change my mind. [/QUOTE][/B]That's fine but don't go around claiming you have evidence to back up your position if you don't.

[QUOTE][B]If it doesn't exist don't use it as proof for aging other collumns.[/QUOTE][/B]It does exist, it is the sum total of the world's geologic columns. [QUOTE][B]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./[/QUOTE][/B]Cite a journal reference to modern mammalian bones found amongst the dinosaur bones. [QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE][/B]Therefore there were no catastrophic shifts of Earth (or global floods) near where you live anytime recently. You discredit your own position. [QUOTE][B]Thus earthquakes or vocanice action (which is extremely easy to disprove) would be the only answer to.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't know where you are going with this but did you just imply there was no volcanic action associated with the Grand Canyon? [QUOTE][B] It the plateau slowly thrust upward, where are the stress fractures?[/QUOTE][/B]All over the place.Web resource:
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/...tudents/s97/goebel/webdoc1.htmHits from GeoRef:Reverse-drag folding across the path of the antecedent early Pliocene Colorado River below the mouth of the Grand Canyon; implications for plateau uplift, Howard, K. A. In: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 2000, Vol. 32, Issue 7, pp.41Uplift and erosion of the Colorado Plateau and Grand Canyon; implications of new calculations of large-scale rock uplift, exhumation, and river incision, Pederson, Joel L. In: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, April 2002, Vol. 34, Issue 4, pp.60Displacement rates on the Toroweap and Hurricane faults; implications for Quaternary downcutting in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, Fenton, Cassandra R. In: Geology Boulder, November 2001, Vol. 29, Issue 11, pp.1035-1038Cretaceous-Tertiary uplift of the Southwest Colorado Plateau, Young, R. A. In: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 1996, Vol. 28, Issue 7, pp.514There are a total of 55 hits. [QUOTE][B]There would be stress fratures all over the place.[/QUOTE][/B]Like we see there today. [QUOTE][B]Try this very easy very basic experiment at home:[/QUOTE][/B]I'm literate in basic geology. [QUOTE][B]Before the flood the earth was relatively flat with VERY shallow oceans.[/QUOTE][/B]Evidence? [QUOTE][B]Either in the crust, but most likely between the crust and outer mantle of the earth there was a fairly large pocket of water. [/QUOTE][/B]You mean the Mohorovicik Discontinuity was bathed in liquid water? What about the geothermal gradient? That's not physically possible. [QUOTE][B]Also there was an outer globe of water above the earth in a mid to low orbit.[/QUOTE][/B]What held it there? What kept it from sublimating away? Why didn't it block all light from reaching Earth? [QUOTE][B](Did you know that extremely cold ice (like that you would find in a mid orbit) is magnetic?)[/QUOTE][/B]I don't believe that but if it were it would be a nightmare for the YEC model because magnetic braking would occur between the sphere and the Earth. [QUOTE][B] 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).[/QUOTE][/B]Where's the light coming from? [QUOTE][B]Then something tragic happened and the world (which was probably orbiting at a 90 degree and to the sun) got tilted.[/QUOTE][/B]How? Where's the evidence for that? [QUOTE][B]The steam would turn to clouds as it rapidly cooled and surface temperature would drop radically. [/QUOTE][/B]Actually the surface would be incinerated as the latent heat of condensation was released, to the tune of 600 calories/gm of water. [QUOTE][B]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).[/QUOTE][/B]Wouldn't we be finding dinosaurs frozen too? [QUOTE][B]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. [/QUOTE][/B]That doesn't begin to explain the most obvious aspect of the geology of the ocean basins, that they are covered with basalt as opposed to the more felsic continents. [QUOTE][B]The water ran downhill [/QUOTE][/B]When did those fossil coral reefs have time to form in Texas?When did the water calm enough for fine-grained sediments to settle out, producing things like the Selma Formation in the US Gulf Coastal Plain, or the chalk cliffs of Dover? Where are the giant graded beds hundreds of meters thick that we should find? [QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE][/B]Large volumes of flowing water do not carve deep and narrow channels, they spread out over hundreds of square kilometers and produce landforms like the Scablands of Washington and some of the Martian terrain. Small volumes of water acting over very long periods of time in resistant terrain carve deep and narrow channels. You can simulate this in a sandbox if you feel like you need to but I think it's quite obvious and we do have a few examples of catastrophic flooding on Earth. [QUOTE][B]You can thank Kent Hovind for this theory[/QUOTE][/B]They let him out of jail?