|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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: 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" ------------------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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
EvO-DuDe Inactive Member |
quote: 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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
EvO-DuDe Inactive Member |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Excuse me, but are you saying that mudflows deposited the geological column?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: Please document this and then compare turbidites with volcanic mudflows.
quote: 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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: This is the opposite of what you said above. The clays were supposed to drop rapidly out of suspension. Which is it?
quote: 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: 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: Baked along with Noah, you mean?
quote: Really?!
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3843 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Mudflows would be a thick soup of ash, debris, and whatever sediments were between the flow and its stopping point, not just ash.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, normally, mudflows are unsorted. They are the most common subaerial volcanic deposit in the geological record. They are well documented, observed and modeled.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
akakscase Inactive Member |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024