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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
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.

---

**********************************It's really very simple...just go out there with a swiss army knife (spoon included) and a lot of LSD, crack, hallucinogen of choice...take the drugs and start digging and examine what you dig up ...I'm surprised he did not find the holy handgranade of antioch

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I'm surprised he did not find the holy handgranade of antioch

---

Nah... cause they found that in the Mt. Saint Helens mudflows next to Jesus' class ring -- the gem of which was C14 dated to precisely December 25, 0004. (Strangely the rest of the radio-carbon dates gave wildly inconsistent dates in the millions and hundreds of millions of years.)------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how he and his buds dug up 70,000 cu ft of permafrost with a swiss army knife...And if anyone's really bored, it'd be interesting to calculate how much gas was used up by a F-105 pickup truck back over a 50x50 ft section of mud 28,000 times...[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 09-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
And if anyone's really bored, it'd be interesting to calculate how much gas was used up by a F-105 pickup truck back over a 50x50 ft section of mud 28,000 times...

---

I'm guessing my F-150 would burn somewhere around 300-400 gallons.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[B]I'm still waiting for an explanation on how he and his buds dug up 70,000 cu ft of permafrost with a swiss army knife... [/QUOTE]Well, to be fair, permafrost is discontinuous in the area around Delta. And, as you know, every Alaskan has a backhoe in their garage. The point remains that this is not a trivial task.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[B]I'm still waiting for an explanation on how he and his buds dug up 70,000 cu ft of permafrost with a swiss army knife... [/QUOTE]Well, to be fair, permafrost is discontinuous in the area around Delta. And, as you know, every Alaskan has a backhoe in their garage. The point remains that this is not a trivial task. [/B][/QUOTE]JM: True, but is there a lot of 'fermica' mining there?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I'm still waiting for an explanation on how he and his buds dug up 70,000 cu ft of permafrost with a swiss army knife...

---

​

Well, to be fair, permafrost is discontinuous in the area around Delta. And, as you know, every Alaskan has a backhoe in their garage. The point remains that this is not a trivial task.

---

True. However, he mentioned muskeg nearby. IIRC, muskeg only forms on tundra (correct me if I'm wrong), primarily due to the lousy drainage caused by the ground being frozen solid x-meters down. I'm aware that most of Alaska below the north slope is in the discontinuous zone. I wonder if he is?[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 09-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: True, but is there a lot of 'fermica' mining there?

---

Of course. It's renewable you know. All you need is a 4x4 pick up and drive it over the tundra a few hundred times. Voila' a new fermica deposit!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

True. However, he mentioned muskeg nearby. IIRC, muskeg only forms on tundra (correct me if I'm wrong), primarily due to the lousy drainage caused by the ground being frozen solid x-meters down. ...

---

Not sure. I imagine that any poorly drained area could have muskeg, and I think Delta is pretty flat. All I know for sure is that permafrost is a real bxxxh to dig. Then when you're done, you've got a mess...

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Then when you're done, you've got a mess...

---

Nuttin' you couldn't clean up with a few buddies and a keg of beer(or two)------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The Mt St Helen's strata and canyon arguemnts come essentially from the mud flows caused by volcanism. Very good model for the flood.

---

​

Excuse me, but are you saying that mudflows deposited the geological column?

---

Just a bump. Now that we are done discussing permafrost and pick-up truck lithification (at least I hope we are), I am really interested in TB's answer to this question. Please tell us why you would compare this proximal, stratovolcanic environment to the entire geological record. I know, I know, this is just a bunch of unimportant details, but humor me.

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.

It appears that akakscase has revealed the fraud by evolutionists and trench diggers. Obviously, if the Colorado River can gouge out its deep, narrow canyon whilst the surrounding sediments are solidifying then the sme process can be don on a smaller scale. so, why do these trench diggers want to shore up the sides of trenches to preent cave-ins? The ground is usually drier and more stable than post-flood sediments. They excavate at a slower rate than the receding Noachian flood waters. All the physics show that modern trench digging would be less prone to collapse of side walls than the post-flood Grand Canyon formation. so obviously the trench diggers are being fraudulent, must be to con more money out of the deluded customer.Well done akakscase. Why don't you go and expose those fraudulent trench diggers? Do the job yourself, a 6 foot deep trench should be sufficient, and show that it won't cave in. Report back on how things went.

[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]

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.