The Creationist work at Mount St Helens

[Christian Doc]

As promised in a previous thread, I will try to divide up the multiple thread topics into different threads.


I have previously claimed that eruption at Mount St Helens gave rise to sedimentary rock. I wish to correct myself by saying that it gave rise to multiple layered rock layers.

Steve Austin is the Creationist geologist who has done most of the work on this area and so I will refer you to his work.

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism

Here is a You Tube video presenting some of his work.

[youtube]F5JdYhUzT40[/youtube]
YouTube - Mount St. Helens by Steve Austin

Here is another video that explains the Creationist view on this:

[youtube]fYGR_9-Dpv4[/youtube]
YouTube - Mt St Helen's : Monument to the Flood



The main message I want you to take on board is that massive amount of layer rock can be formed rapidly do to volcanic activity.

Apparently, the same mechanism would be able to account for what we see at the Grand Canyon. This had previously been thought to take millions of years to form but the observed events at Mount St Helens show that this is not necessarily the case.



The relevance to the Global Flood theory accounting for what we see should be clear to most here.

If geological catastrophe can cause massive deposits of layered rocks, such as Mount St Helens and other events, then it is reasonable to assume that the global flood would be able to deposit far more than that.

There will be another thread coming on the proposed mechanism by which a global flood could occur and how that might leave the layered rock that we around us currently.


However, the purpose of this thread is to show you that there is evidence that large amounts of layer rocks can be formed rapidly.



I suspect that some here will not take this on board until it is published in a non-Creationist journal. But this does not affect that the evidence is there.

 

[Gunfingers]

First off i'd like to say good on you for actually looking for evidence to support your view, rather than just making bald assertions like most of the creationists around here do. Having evidence to look at is way more interesting than bible passages and empty philosophy.

That said, you should know that as soon as you post evidence we're gonna go look into why it's wrong. I would recommend that before you post something here you look it up on talkorigins to see if it's something that has already been refuted, as has the claim that the Mt St Helens canyon formed similarly to the grand canyon.

 

[Christian Doc]

Hi Gunfingers,

Thank you for your reply.

Looking at the reply from TalkOrigins.

They separate it into 5 different points but basically they are just saying that the Grand Canyon is bigger and the Colorado river would cause a slower erosion rate.

They are basically conceding that the canyons formed around Mount St Helens were formed rapidly. They are just arguing about the fine details.

The point has not been refuted. They are merely pointing out things that Creationists are aware of - that this is a scaled down model of the Grand Canyon.

However, it is possible to conceive that a far larger version of Mount St Helens could account for the Grand Canyon because we have seen processes working around Mount St Helens that cause canyon formation.


I of course know that this forum will look for why Creationist work is wrong and the largest reference seems to be the Talk Origins website.

However, I do not think that they have refuted the Creationist work here. They are just questioning the extrapolation to the Grand Canyon and the Global flood.

 

[Gunfingers]

No one is claiming that the Mt St Helens canyon did not form quickly, they're simply pointing out that it's quite impossible for the same to have happened in the Grand Canyon. I could make a decent sized canyon in that volcanic ash with a garden hose, because it's a fairly loose material. The Grand Canyon, on the other hand, is very hard, dense rock. There is no parallel.

 

[Christian Doc]

Gunfinger

How have they pointed out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a similar thing to happen at the Grand Canyon?

They have merely pointed out the differences. A larger catastrophe could account for the Grand Canyon. We have seen small canyons being formed rapidly by catastrophe.

Surely large canyons could also be formed rapidly? Yes, a much larger catastrophe would be required in order to carve out the canyon. In order to carve dense rock would require much greater power.


That is the proposal of the global flood as a solution.

 

[freethinker44]

I don't think anyone is saying a global flood or the effects of it are impossible, but that a global flood is a direct contradiction to what we know as fact.

If you believe in a global flood 6000 years ago then you MUST do so in faith. The same methods you are using to suggest a flood was possible are the same methods that prove counter-arguments as fact.

Anything is possible but that doesn't mean it is worth looking into.

 

[David M]

As promised in a previous thread, I will try to divide up the multiple thread topics into different threads.

I have previously claimed that eruption at Mount St Helens gave rise to sedimentary rock. I wish to correct myself by saying that it gave rise to multiple layered rock layers.

And you are still providing no evidence of this claim.

Steve Austin is the Creationist geologist who has done most of the work on this area and so I will refer you to his work.

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism

Here is a You Tube video presenting some of his work.

[youtube]F5JdYhUzT40[/youtube]
YouTube - Mount St. Helens by Steve Austin

You will note that after they state that 600ft of sediment has been deposited they admit that it has been eroded in less than 30 years, that is because that sediment has not turned into rock. There is a difference between sediment and sedimentary rock.

They never claim that what is here is sedimentary rock only that it "is turning into sedimentary rock"

Here is another video that explains the Creationist view on this:

[youtube]fYGR_9-Dpv4[/youtube]
YouTube - Mt St Helen's : Monument to the Flood

He is flat out lying about the layers being viewed as yearly deposits. What he would have been taught is that some layering can be the result of yearly deposition patterns. A good example of this are varves in lake beds, however the layers they show in the video bear no resemblence to lake bed varves. Most layering is not the result of annual deposition.

He's lying about the canyon as well, the only resembance it has to the Grand Canyon is that it is a canyon. The sides of this canyon are not formed from multiple types of rock. The grand canyon has strata of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rock. This canyon does not have incised meanders, which form from slow erosion by water acting upon hard rock.

He is lying about the trees in Yellowstone as well, the logs in Mt. St. Helens do not resemble the fossilised trees in Yellowstone park because the trees in yellowstone include trees rooted in the various strata. That shows that they were growing in one strata, were buried and trees grew in strata above them and were also buried. Rapid deposition of sediment cannot do this.

He's lying about the formation of coal, the conditions required to form coal in hours need temperatures and pressures that are never encountered in nature.

The main message I want you to take on board is that massive amount of layer rock can be formed rapidly do to volcanic activity.

And yet you provide no evidence of this. Mt St Helens shows that large amounts of sediment layers can form rapidly, this is already known.

Apparently, the same mechanism would be able to account for what we see at the Grand Canyon. This had previously been thought to take millions of years to form but the observed events at Mount St Helens show that this is not necessarily the case.

No it wouldn't. Because the geology of the Grand Canyon is completely different. The Grand Canyon has multiple types of rocks that form under different conditions, Mt St Helens has multiple layers if sediment that form under 1 condition.

The Grand Canyon also shows erosion between its layers of the type that requires them to be exposed before being buried.

The relevance to the Global Flood theory accounting for what we see should be clear to most here.

There is no relevance, there is only the most superficial similarity between the geology of the Mt St Helens sediments and the Grand Canyon rocks.

If geological catastrophe can cause massive deposits of layered rocks, such as Mount St Helens and other events, then it is reasonable to assume that the global flood would be able to deposit far more than that.

It would only be reasonable if Mt St Helens showed the formation of massive deposits of sediments that turned into rocks of completely different types that require completely different sediments.

There will be another thread coming on the proposed mechanism by which a global flood could occur and how that might leave the layered rock that we around us currently.

Perhaps in that thread you provide some actual evidence rather than youtube videos.

However, the purpose of this thread is to show you that there is evidence that large amounts of layer rocks can be formed rapidly.

Your post contained no evidence that large amounts of rocks layers of different types can be formed rapidly.

I suspect that some here will not take this on board until it is published in a non-Creationist journal. But this does not affect that the evidence is there.

What is needed is actual evidence, none of whch has been presented in your links at all.

 

[Krok]

As promised in a previous thread, I will try to divide up the multiple thread topics into different threads. I have previously claimed that eruption at Mount St Helens gave rise to sedimentary rock.

You were wrong. It gave rise to sedimentary deposits. Not sedimentary rocks. Huge difference.

I wish to correct myself by saying that it gave rise to multiple layered rock layers.

No, not rocks. Consisting of pumice ash laminae and beds. That’s what Austin states in his little piece.

Steve Austin is the Creationist geologist who has done most of the work on this area and so I will refer you to his work.

Steve Austin is an incredibly misleading person. He even did K/Ar dating on young rocks from Mount St. Helens. Every first year geology student knows you can’t use the K/Ar method on young rocks. Either Austin doesn’t know anything about Geology, or he deliberately misleads people. Don’t trust his “work” either way.

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism
Here is a You Tube video presenting some of his work.
[youtube]F5JdYhUzT40[/youtube]
YouTube - Mount St. Helens by Steve Austin
Here is another video that explains the Creationist view on this:
[youtube]fYGR_9-Dpv4[/youtube]
YouTube - Mt St Helen's : Monument to the Flood

I see he doesn’t publish in scientific journals.

The main message I want you to take on board is that massive amount of layer rock can be formed rapidly do to volcanic activity.

We’ve known that for ages. What do you think happened at Pompeii?

Apparently, the same mechanism would be able to account for what we see at the Grand Canyon.

No, it can’t. The Grand Canyon consists of lithified rocks of different types. The sedimentary layers at Mount Saint Helens are not even rocks yet.

This had previously been thought to take millions of years to form but the observed events at Mount St Helens show that this is not necessarily the case.

Who thought that? No real geologist has ever thought that all rocks take millions of years to form. Look at Pompeii.

The relevance to the Global Flood theory accounting for what we see should be clear to most here.

No, not at all. A global flood would not deposit pumice ash laminae and beds. It would deposit one layer of unsorted sediments all over the world.

If geological catastrophe can cause massive deposits of layered rocks, such as Mount St Helens and other events, then it is reasonable to assume that the global flood would be able to deposit far more than that.

No, one global flood would deposit one layer of unsorted sediments. We’ve seen what is deposited in floods millions of times. You even forgot about the recent Tsunami. That’s the type of sediments that would be deposited by a flood.

There will be another thread coming on the proposed mechanism by which a global flood could occur and how that might leave the layered rock that we around us currently.

I’d love to see that! Just remember, magic is not considered science.

However, the purpose of this thread is to show you that there is evidence that large amounts of layer rocks can be formed rapidly.

The only thing you’ve showed here is that a layer of pumice and ash can formed rapidly. We’ve known it for years. It normally happens at certain types of volcanoes. Lots of those in New Zealand. You’ve also shown that these sediments are not even lithified yet.

I suspect that some here will not take this on board until it is published in a non-Creationist journal. But this does not affect that the evidence is there.

It means that this is not evidence for any kind of global flood at all!

 

[Copernicus]

Is there some reason why God would be required to obey natural laws of science? My understanding of Christian doctrine is that God can perform miracles. Hence, he could create the Grand Canyon instantly. Hence, there is no need to look for scientific evidence to support the idea that the Grand Canyon could have formed by natural processes. Creationism seems to be stuck on the idea that God is incapable of performing--or unwilling to perform--the real miracles that true believers have always said he could perform.

 

[David M]

Is there some reason why God would be required to obey natural laws of science? My understanding of Christian doctrine is that God can perform miracles. Hence, he could create the Grand Canyon instantly. Hence, there is no need to look for scientific evidence to support the idea that the Grand Canyon could have formed by natural processes. Creationism seems to be stuck on the idea that God is incapable of performing--or unwilling to perform--the real miracles that true believers have always said he could perform.

This argument then leads into he question of why God is being deceptive and lying to people.

Yes a omnipotent deity could change all the evidence for a global flood so that the single sediment layer turns into multiple layers of different rock types, including those that never form underwater but that would mean that they were being intentionally deceptive.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The point has not been refuted.

That's because it's never been suggested by anyone who knows anything about the topic.

You can't just pee into the wind and demand that scientific journals disprove the theory that you won't get yourself wet.

Just because some creationist idiot blabbers something about Mt. St. Helens or Vesuvius is not going to turn any heads....

 

[Christian Doc]

David M

Thank you for your replies.

You will note that after they state that 600ft of sediment has been deposited they admit that it has been eroded in less than 30 years, that is because that sediment has not turned into rock. There is a difference between sediment and sedimentary rock.

Can you provide a link for this that the sediment has been eroded away leaving no sediment that could turn into rock?

Thanks. My understanding of rock formation is limited (as I'm sure you can tell) however I thought that over time this sediment would turn into rock with time.

He is flat out lying about the layers being viewed as yearly deposits.

There does seem to be an overuse of the term "lying". I think it was very common to hear geologists talk about layers corresponding to yearly deposits. I know that when I have watched TV documentaries etc - they almost always go down the line of "one layer per year/period of time". It is a simplification but that is what they were teaching on these programmes. This is what he is responding to.

He's lying about the formation of coal

Again, a bold claim to accuse somebody of lying. But you will notice that he has written papers on his theories for the production of coal. I don't want to say anything about it because I don't know enough about the area.

However, I would say that you may wish to choose your terms more .... politely. The term lying is a strong term. Why don't you just say - "He has got it wrong with regards to coal formation"?

It says the same thing but is more civil and respectful.



Krok

He even did K/Ar dating on young rocks from Mount St. Helens. Every first year geology student knows you can’t use the K/Ar method on young rocks.

Er.... surely you can use any dating method on any rock? Sure, the result may not be great but that shouldn't necessarily stop you using the method.

Also, how do you know it is a young rock until you date it? (Yes, I know you may say by the type of rock)

Surely if you KNOW it is a young rock then you KNOW that the dating method should give rise to a young age. Therefore, there is no problem using an accurate dating method - is there?


If you have any problems with the dating of these rocks - why don't you date them accurately? If this has been done already, I would love to know the results.

No, one global flood would deposit one layer of unsorted sediments.

This is where there is a disagreement. You state as fact that a global flood would result in a single layer of unsorted sediment.

However, I think the point of what was going on in what Steve Austin was talking about was rapid deposition of layered sediment with fast moving water resulting in this relative sorting of material giving rise to sedimentary layers.

Hence it is relevant to discussions about possible mechanisms going on at the time of the global flood.



Now, I have also read about the flooding in texas carving out a small canyon.

Canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood: Insight into ancient flood events on Earth and Mars

Does this show rapid erosion of harder rock material?


Remember that I am merely suggesting a mechanism that could have occurred during the global flood and its aftermath.


The Creationist view is that the sedimentary rock we see is due to the global flood and formations like the Grand Canyon formed after this time.

 

[David M]

David M

Thank you for your replies.

Can you provide a link for this that the sediment has been eroded away leaving no sediment that could turn into rock?

Its in the videos you linked to. The erosion they highlight such as where they are pointing to layers and that large canyon shows that sediment has been eroded. Note that I did not say it left no sediment that could turn into rock but that in the last 30 years there has been erosion.

The formation of that canyon certainly was erosion through sediment and not rock as it all happened during the main eruptions, no one can credibly claim that the material had lithified in a few days or weeks.

Thanks. My understanding of rock formation is limited (as I'm sure you can tell) however I thought that over time this sediment would turn into rock with time.

As a simplistic answer yes it will. However it has to be under the right conditions, sediment can be eroded well before it can start turning into rock, as was shown in that video with the canyon that formed.

However the huge problem for Austin's claims is that different types of sediment turn into different types of rock. Sandstone and Chalk for instance start from completely different starting points (chalk being from living creatures), volcanic ash turns into a completetely different type of rock than cooling lava.

There does seem to be an overuse of the term "lying". I think it was very common to hear geologists talk about layers corresponding to yearly deposits.

Then you thought wrong. Take for example Tuff, formed from volcanic ash. No geologist will ever claim that layers in Tuff are annual, the layers indicate seperate ash deposits from eruptions.

Any honest geologist who looked at the sediment geology around Mt St Helens is immediately going to link it to one or more eruption which means its not going to be anything to do with annual layers.

There are cases where geologists do talk about annual layers, but those are always when the mechanism for formation is known to be only annual and such layers can not be formed by catastophic events. Annual layers form under certain very restricted conditions and leave very obvious signs. The vast majority of rock formations that do show layering are not considered annual.

I know that when I have watched TV documentaries etc - they almost always go down the line of "one layer per year/period of time". It is a simplification but that is what they were teaching on these programmes. This is what he is responding to.

They do but only for formations that specifically can form annual layers. You are almost always looking at calm bodies of water for annual layering in sedimentary rock.

Again, a bold claim to accuse somebody of lying. But you will notice that he has written papers on his theories for the production of coal. I don't want to say anything about it because I don't know enough about the area.

Then you should have read the papers on the subject. Artificial coal production is possible but requires heat levels of above 300C, except in geothermally active areas (which leave evidence of their existence) you do not find those temperatures anywhere near the depths that we find coal. The initial research done on the subject confirmed the existing estimates on how long coal would take to form under natural conditions.

However, I would say that you may wish to choose your terms more .... politely. The term lying is a strong term. Why don't you just say - "He has got it wrong with regards to coal formation"?

He's lying because he is linking production of coal and oil under artificial conditions (that are not encountered in nature) to the production of coal and oil under completely different natural conditions. As a geologist who has written on the subject he is therefore either lying or completely incompetent at research. He's lying.

It says the same thing but is more civil and respectful.

He's lying, I have no need to be civil to a liar.

Er.... surely you can use any dating method on any rock? Sure, the result may not be great but that shouldn't necessarily stop you using the method.

No you can't. Dating methods only work on specific types of rock because they rely on physics and the properties of the rock.

For instance you cannot use Ar/Ar radiometric dating on sedimentary rock at all. The process relies on the fact that argon is released from molten rock but not from solid rock. Sedimentary rock such as sandstone is composed of particles of older rocks and does not go through a molten stage, so if you use Ar/Ar dating you will get an average date for all of the igneous rocks that were eroded and then became sediment and later rock.

Surely if you KNOW it is a young rock then you KNOW that the dating method should give rise to a young age. Therefore, there is no problem using an accurate dating method - is there?

No, for radiometric dating there is a lower age boundary below which our technology cannot make any determination of the amount of radioactive decay. If that lower bound is 1 million years for example then any rock you test comes out as 1 million years old or just as undateable.

There is an additional factor for igneous rock, lava and ash is not just new material from the earths mantle, it contains particles of older rock from the crust and vents that does not melt at the temperatures found at the time of eruption. Not all rock melts at the same temperatures. If you just grind the rock up and send it to a lab your dates will be affected by the older inclusions mied in with the younger material.

If you have any problems with the dating of these rocks - why don't you date them accurately? If this has been done already, I would love to know the results.

There has been mountains of research done on dating rock, if the processes are carried out rigourously then different dating methods give the same ages for rocks.

Now, I have also read about the flooding in texas carving out a small canyon.

Canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood: Insight into ancient flood events on Earth and Mars

Does this show rapid erosion of harder rock material?

Yes it does, but it shows it under some very specific conditions, the bedrock under the surface was already fractured which enabled certain mechanisms to occur which speeded erosion. The Grand Canyon does not have these characteristics.

Remember that I am merely suggesting a mechanism that could have occurred during the global flood and its aftermath.

But its a mechanism that requires conditions that do not apply over the whole globe.

The Creationist view is that the sedimentary rock we see is due to the global flood and formations like the Grand Canyon formed after this time.

The biggest problem or this view is that the Grand canyon contains layers of sedimentary and igneous rock that cannot form under water under any circumstance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This argument then leads into he question of why God is being deceptive and lying to people.

God has plenty of people lying for him.

 

[Copernicus]

This argument then leads into he question of why God is being deceptive and lying to people.

Yes, well, so what? That is an interesting question regardless of whether the Grand Canyon was created in an instant or over eons of time.

Yes a omnipotent deity could change all the evidence for a global flood so that the single sediment layer turns into multiple layers of different rock types, including those that never form underwater but that would mean that they were being intentionally deceptive.

On the other hand, if God created a universe in which there were no clear evidence of his supernatural powers, could that not also count as deceptive behavior? I don't see how you can avoid the question of deception merely by arguing that God created everything to make it look like he might not exist. This is especially troubling, because believers seem to think that God actually wants us to believe in his existence. A less deceptive being might be counted on to make his existence less ambiguous, given the value he seems to place on belief in his existence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Doc, would your position be that the majority of sedimentary rock was formed by the Noachic Flood aprox 4,000 years ago?

 

[Autodidact]

As promised in a previous thread, I will try to divide up the multiple thread topics into different threads.

I have previously claimed that eruption at Mount St Helens gave rise to sedimentary rock. I wish to correct myself by saying that it gave rise to multiple layered rock layers.

Thank you. It is rare and praiseworthy to admit a mistake on the internet. Now would you please go back into the thread where you made the claim and correct it? Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

A
The main message I want you to take on board is that massive amount of layer rock can be formed rapidly do to volcanic activity.

Of course it can, who would dispute it?

Apparently, the same mechanism would be able to account for what we see at the Grand Canyon. This had previously been thought to take millions of years to form but the observed events at Mount St Helens show that this is not necessarily the case.

How did you get from a volcano to an eroded canyon?

The relevance to the Global Flood theory accounting for what we see should be clear to most here.

Not to me. Flood != volcano.

If geological catastrophe can cause massive deposits of layered rocks, such as Mount St Helens and other events, then it is reasonable to assume that the global flood would be able to deposit far more than that.

If a volcano can create many rock layers, then a flood can too? Does that really make any sense to you?

However, the purpose of this thread is to show you that there is evidence that large amounts of layer rocks can be formed rapidly.

Yes, by volcanoes. Now just explain how floods result in massive volcanoes erupting all over the world without leaving any trace of volcanic deposits.

I suspect that some here will not take this on board until it is published in a non-Creationist journal. But this does not affect that the evidence is there.

Oh no, I agree that volcanoes create large deposits of volcanic rock. I just don't see what on earth it has to do with a non-existent, physically impossible, mythical flood.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Gunfingers,

Thank you for your reply.

Looking at the reply from TalkOrigins.

They separate it into 5 different points but basically they are just saying that the Grand Canyon is bigger and the Colorado river would cause a slower erosion rate.

They are basically conceding that the canyons formed around Mount St Helens were formed rapidly. They are just arguing about the fine details.

I'm sorry, but the difference between river erosion and volcanic eruption is not a fine detail, it's sort of essential, don't you agree?

It's as though you were arguing that gunshots can cause bullet holes, therefore throwing rose petals resulted in these bullet holes. You've conceded that bullet holes can be caused by something being projected toward you, you're just arguing over fine details. Not.

 

[Autodidact]

Gunfinger

How have they pointed out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a similar thing to happen at the Grand Canyon?

They have merely pointed out the differences. A larger catastrophe could account for the Grand Canyon. We have seen small canyons being formed rapidly by catastrophe.

Surely large canyons could also be formed rapidly? Yes, a much larger catastrophe would be required in order to carve out the canyon. In order to carve dense rock would require much greater power.


That is the proposal of the global flood as a solution.

It's a different kind of rock. In geology, that's kind of important. Kind of what geology is all about--the differences between different kinds of rock.