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

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:

---

Yesterday, just for the heck of it,I watched a creationist video about the grand canyon. They claimed that almost every feature in the grand canyon shows that it was formed rapidly in a series of catastrohpies. They gave Mt. Saint Helen's as an example of how well-layered strata can be formed rapidly, and they claimed that the appearence of the grand canyon fits far better into the creationist's 'theory' than the modern geologists's theory. Were the creationists lying?

---

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?MooseEdited to correct "arguement" spelling------------------
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]

At both links, as of 8:45 pm, 9/15/2002, I see the message:
"This page is not available"I await the creationist interpretation.MooseAdded by edit: Now, under closer inspection, I have found a photo. It appears to be an advertisement, trying to sell blue jeans. Whoops, I've refreshed the page, and now the photo is promoting Yahoo! Personals.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-15-2002]

First, a note to TB - See the modifications I edited into the top of message 16 - Adminnemooseus
-----
Now -

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. 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.

---

Edge brought in the turbidite flow deposits in from another topic. They have nothing to do with Mt. St. Helens. What typical turbidite sequence is, is alternating layers of sandstone and shale. The sandstone layers were deposited in a quick event, the turbidity flow. The shales are a result of the deposition of fine particles, in the time between the turbidity flows. Unless you wish to discard basic laws of physics, the fine particles require a large amount of time to settle out of the water.I must assume that your classification of basalts as being "soft things" was a glitch, that you really didn't mean to say.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

akakscase, in message 42:

quote:

---

the geologic collum as you see in text books does not appear anywhere on earth.

---

Gene, in message 44:

quote:

---

The geologic record is not to be expected to found in one place, it is generated by correlating rock units around the world.

---

You're both right. The most basic geologic column, that so often in text books, is a most generalized time line, outlining the divisions and durations of the most fundimental units of geologic history. Other variations of this time line can also be found; They divide things with much more detail.As you get deeper into the study of geology, you will encounter other geologic columns, more specific to a more restricted area, but still quite generalized.Untimately, you can have a geologic column that is specific to one precise location. These might be divided into extreme detail. Maybe the column might focus in on a few inch thickness of rock, or even less.Regardless of the scale and degree of detail, the geologic column (book form) is just an on paper generalization of the real world.akakscase again:

quote:

---

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.

---

The are abundant examples of rivers cutting through ground much higher that their source elevation. Perhaps fault action helped open a path for the river. Or perhaps the path of the river was already established, and it continued to cut down, as the land tectonicly rose. The Grand Canyon is probably an illustration of the results of both of these effects (and others).MooseAdded by edit: It's probably obvious that I was so cranked up to do a posting, that I skimmed Gene's #44 pretty fast. I must commend him of the quality of his message. Mine is largely inferior and redundant.[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-01-2002]

akakscase said:

quote:

---

...the trained eye which mine is (Masters in Geology, UAF, specializing in natural resource exploration).

---

Wow, we've finally found someone to fill in for Steve McQueen!MooseEdit: Oops, make that David McQueen - Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-01-2002]

I was wondering if UAF might be something other that U Fairbanks, Alaska.The writing syle seem strange, coming from someone with a legit Masters in anything.Maybe I can sic TC on him.Hey TC, there an honorary PhD, from Whatsamatta U, in it for you, if you can take care of this guy.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-02-2002]

quote:

---

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.

---

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. It gives time divisions and durations. It really gives no information on geology (the rocks) in itself.That said, Morton indeed does supply many geologic sections ("geologic columns", heavy on the "quotes") that are piles containing representatives of all the periods. These are all different sections ("columns"), made up of different rocks.There is (of course) no such thing as a "universal" section. Maybe such a "universal" section, the same all over the world, would be what we would expect to see, if we had a nice, uncomplicated, young earth. But the real earth is old and complicated.Moose