The same geology used to understand the timescales for the formation and change in Mt. St. Helens is used to understand the formation of the Gulf of Mexico, etc.
The geological age of Mt. St. Helens is about 40,000 years. The same techniques give ages of 1/2 million years or a few million years for other volcanoes in the Cascades.
The landscape around Mt. St. Helens was transformed in a few hours, but that area was smaller than the Chicxulub crater which is much smaller than the Gulf of Mexico. This is not evidence for a global transformation on a short time scale. Where is the geology that shows a rapid transformation?
But how do you (or they) know that the timescale (the 40,000 years) that they say Mt. St. Helens is; is accurate? They don't know that; because they have no way of testing how "old" magma is.
They make assumption using something like carbon 14 dating after it's erupted and cooled; but how much does the process of molting rock change the elemental composition of that rock? They can't answer that.
Does it accelerate the rate of carbon 14 decay? We know the rate of carbon 14 decay is not consistent across all circumstances. We know this because they've carbon 14 dated live animal samples that the dating says are millions of years old. Well no one believes a clam has a lifespan of a million or more years.
So the fossil layers on the North American plate. (I think there is 4 of them?) We can see in some place like the Grand Canyon that the strata are laid down in even layers. That would not be the case if there were millions or even thousands of years of erosion between the layers.
So seeing how we know the Mt. St Helens current landscape was laid down in a couple of hours; why would one assume the Grand Canyon was laid down / "cut out" in millions of years?
Again, modern evidence (the example being volcanic eruptions) says X; but they look at something like the Grand Canyon and dissociate that from what they see in the modern world.
And that conclusion is based on a particular world view. That's not based on what they know of what would even be considered "recent" history.
There was a global warming "spike" that happened in about 1000 AD. We know this from Medieval records. They were growing vineyards in Scotland. The records talk about ice caps melting and the ocean rising. There are ancient maps that accurately chart the coast of Antartica. Now how's that possible if Antartica has been covered with ice for millions of years?
Blips in the history that don't match the conventional narrative.
Same goes for "out of place" fossils.
It's like 9/11. The government says "here's what happened"; yet you watch the footage and it's pretty clear their narrative doesn't match what you're looking at.
Good Point! 
