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

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]

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]

^ 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]

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

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)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by akakscase:

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.

---

Sorry, but the 'biblical sense' is strictly an interpretation on your part. Second, why not use the 'correct' time scale?

quote:

---

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.

---

No kidding! Now is that in the biblical time scale or the secular time scale?

quote:

---

If you are going to attack someones timescale don't use your own to attack them, use theirs.

---

Riiight! So why don't you use mine?

quote:

---

Otherwise it's like trying to say "An apple isn't an apple, because the orange said so."

---

No, I'm saying that an apple is not an apple because it is not an apple.

quote:

---

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.

---

You have another major, unsupported assumption here: that the rate of erosion was constant over that period of time. One might call your perpspective 'uniformitarianism,' if one didn't know better. If I said something like this you would jump all over me for making assumptions. Right?

quote:

---

Let me explain something to you. According to the bible, even the mountains of Ararat were covered with water.

---

And, in this case, the bible is wrong. Besides, where did you come up with mountains? I thought there weren't any according to some of your fellow creationists. You need to get your story straight.

quote:

---

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.

---

Sounds like you are making my points for me. There is no comparison, so why do you (all) keep comparing MSH to the Flood?

quote:

---

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.

---

So, you are saying that coral reefs grew to hundreds of feet thick on a year?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, you would have a mudflow. No canyon. This is getting kind of surreal here. Radioactive waves from the sun???? You mean the rocks were sunburned?

quote:

---

after 4400 years you end up with a mostly solid rock with many different layers.

---

Riiiight! All nicely sorted as well.

quote:

---

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.

---

You mean we don't see erosion of caused by glaciers, streams or waves? News to me.

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
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.

---

Really? Can you give us a reference on this? Perhaps a quotation?

quote:

---

It is completely made up.

---

Is this what you say or what your textbooks say?

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong. The early columns were simply relative time scales. It was noticed that the fossil assemblages changed with time and that beds could be correlated by index fossils. Then new areas could be compared with the classical columns. No circular reasoning at all. You have been reading too many creationist websites and I can guarantee you that I have NEVER conversed with a creationist who even understands what circular reasoning is. No exceptions.

quote:

---

These are also the same people who thought that sicknesses were caused by bad blood.

---

Riiiight! Just like christians of the day, eh?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yep, the same ones that bled George Washington, I guess. By the way how do you get evolution back to the time of Washington, and who was promoting it at the time?

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually, most people turn away from creationism. We could take a poll and see... Besides, evolution doesn't really care about the bible in the least. Hate to rain on your paranoia parade, but evolutionists are not out to disprove the bible.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not surprised.[This message has been edited by edge, 09-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
...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.

---

Things pretty slow up there, eh?

quote:

---

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.

---

How many formations did you encounter? Seems to me that if you just dug into soil you have shown nothing. You simply got your layers of soil back. Do you have documentation or did you conveniently forget your camera?

quote:

---

...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.

---

Riiight! How many limestone beds? Sandstones? Shales? How many unconformities? Any Mesozoic rocks? I don't hear these things as being in your description.

quote:

---

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?

---

I think all us evolutionists would say no. You have been deceived as to our theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
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?

​

---

JM: Now, far be it from me to claim that this whole thing is made up, but I would love to see formica being deposited in real time (lol). I doubt you saw these layers as ypu describe them. However, I am perfectly willing to accept your alternative theory that Noah drove an F-150 truck over the earth many many times during the flood and had a fetish for formica cabinets. You know, the people who visit this site aren't as dumb as you make out. NExt time, troll somewhere else.CheersJoe Meert

"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."
--Given this is the case, you are welcome to leave the forum, now that we've realized your intentions here do not at any point or time intersect a scientific dispute.
--[Edit] - Moving along in contradictory assortations and seemingly false attempts at gathering scientific evidence against the ToE does not further your progress in gaining credibility here either.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-16-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-16-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by akakscase:
...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.

---

Things pretty slow up there, eh?[/quote]You know.... I don't want to be a jerk, but I have dug a few hole in my life and this one is BIG!!!!! I have serious doubts as to the veracity of this tale. I mean, this is an area larger than the footprint of my house and twice and deep, including the roof.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

And what's even more interesting, he would have had to have carved out a huge chunk of permafrost (about 18" down) - that either requires high explosives, special hot water hoses, or really heavy equipment. Ask any of the pipeline diggers. This guy makes it sound like he and his buds did it with hand tools. Riiiiight.