Questions about Mt. St. Helens

[juvenissun]

I see a meandering canyon, and the process of meandering is rather well understood. So what is the question, and how is the flood hypothesis that you likely propose better at answering it than conventional geology?

One of the problem is that I don't think it would take a lot of time to make this incised meander.

 

[juvenissun]

The hard rocks of various types in the Grand Canyon are very different from the unconsolidated tephra that makes of the "layers" around St. Helens. There was some layering as the result of the pyroclastic flow, this causes layers of different sizes of the same type of rock. I have been to St. Helens twice since the eruption and the tephra is so unconsolidated you can dig into it with your bare hands. I don't think would get far with that on the Coconino sandstones, Redwall limestones or Hermit Shale or any of the other rock layers of the Grand Canyon. Much of the "layering" that is seen around St. Helens arose from either the lahar or diverted water cutting through poorly consolidated tephra from previous eruptions over the last 30,000 years or so.

Here is a link to a webpage on St. Helens stratigraphy and tephra
Mt. St. Helens stratigraphy

The attached pictures are some I downloaded from the web and not my own but they do show the lahar layering and it is easy to see how different these layers are from those in the Grand Canyon.

The problem is not on how long does it take to build up the rock layers, but is on how fast could the water erode out the canyon, no matter what is the rock made of.

Do you think the erosion of the valley at Mt. St. Helens proceeded as a gradual peeling of the sediment downward from the top layer? I don't think so. Erosion does not go that way. There might be a similarity between the erosional process between the Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, regardless the rock material. (Think: why does the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon has a much steeper slope? The schist is not that harder than sandstone.)

 

[Rick_Warrn]

So, the pyroclastic flow deposited the layers within few hours. One of my question is were they sedimentary layer, or just volcanic particles? And what about the canyons that were formed near the toutle river? How did that happen? Thank you answering these questions, I am not sure so I ask. Thanks =)

The formation of rocks over time can be seen as layers.

Everyone knows this.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The problem is not on how long does it take to build up the rock layers, but is on how fast could the water erode out the canyon, no matter what is the rock made of.

Do you think the erosion of the valley at Mt. St. Helens proceeded as a gradual peeling of the sediment downward from the top layer? I don't think so. Erosion does not go that way. There might be a similarity between the erosional process between the Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, regardless the rock material.

Except that in the Grand Canyon is was actually eroding rock and not unconsolidate material so soft that you can dig it up with your bare hands (I have done it) so I think that at least the kinetics will be many orders of magnitude different.

(Think: why does the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon has a much steeper slope? The schist is not that harder than sandstone.)

Sandstones have a wide range hardness so I am not sure if you are correct and the Zoraster Granites are very hard rocks. But you should think. The Grand Canyon is clearly an equilbrium drainage basin. Side canyons that have not been blocked by lava flows or landslides enter at the level of the main canyon. As such it took time to form. It could not have been formed in a single global flood 4,500 years ago. Do you think that some of the layers of the Colorado Plateau were deposited by the flood of Noah? If so which ones?

 

[Sophophile]

We know that God, Himself handled the orogenic profile of this earth.

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

And mother nature kept her grubby hands off.

Hi AV1611VET

Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi AV1611VET

Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?

Cheers
S.

I don't believe the Colorado River eroded the Grand Canyon.

I believe the Grand Canyon was either caused by the Flood, or by the pulling apart of the continents shortly afterward.

IOW, the Grand Canyon came first, then the Colorado River.

 

[Sophophile]

Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?

I don't believe the Colorado River eroded the Grand Canyon.

I believe the Grand Canyon was either caused by the Flood, or by the pulling apart of the continents shortly afterward.

IOW, the Grand Canyon came first, then the Colorado River.

Thanks AV1611VET, but you didn't answer the question.

Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?

S.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks AV1611VET, but you didn't answer the question.

Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?

S.

I have no idea.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Think: why does the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon has a much steeper slope? The schist is not that harder than sandstone.

Because the upper parts of the canyon were exposed long before the lower parts and thus have been subject to erosion for much longer? What do I win?

 

[mark kennedy]

So, the pyroclastic flow deposited the layers within few hours. One of my question is were they sedimentary layer, or just volcanic particles? And what about the canyons that were formed near the toutle river? How did that happen? Thank you answering these questions, I am not sure so I ask. Thanks =)

I don't have a lot of interest in geology but I found this when I was considering my approach to the subject of origins:

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test​

.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?"

The fact is that when it comes to this kind of testing I don't trust the results. My question has always been, 'what sets the radiometric clock back to zero years'. I never really pursued the subject because, frankly, it didn't interest me. I was more into genetics and fossils, there are at least some tangible evidence to consider.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't have a lot of interest in geology but I found this when I was considering my approach to the subject of origins:

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test
​

.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?"

The fact is that when it comes to this kind of testing I don't trust the results. My question has always been, 'what sets the radiometric clock back to zero years'. I never really pursued the subject because, frankly, it didn't interest me. I was more into genetics and fossils, there are at least some tangible evidence to consider.

Sorry Mark but Steve Austin aka Stewart Nevins is a proven liar.
A Visit to the ICR: Part 1

He knows how to get "false ischrons" to convince those who don't know better that radioactive dating is unreliable. He did this with Grand Canyon Lava flows
A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

and he either blundered or was deliberately deceptive in his dating of the St. Helens Lavas as geologist Kevin Henke explains here
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

 

[Sophophile]

Would you say that the Colorado River today, as it slowly erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon, is subservient to God's plans, and carrying out its part in fulfilment of them?

I have no idea.

Goodness AV1611VET, you get hung-up on the simplest things.

This is Basic Theology 101. Did you not ever sing "He's Got The Whole World In His Hands" as a child? Psalms 65, 135 and 147, among many other verses, teach us that God is in control of nature.

If you don't know basic theology, why do you presume to lecture us on more weighty matters of origins?

The fact is, the Colorado River is subservient to God's plans and acting in fulfilment of them even as it erodes the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

Therefore, your claim "We know that God, Himself handled the orogenic profile of this earth ... And mother nature kept her grubby hands off." is a false dichotomy. Just because God is in control does not mean He can't make use of natural forces, like rivers, in furthering His will.

Therefore, Psalm 90 is not a Biblical argument against the slow formation of the Grand Canyon by natural forces.

Cheers
S.

 

[juvenissun]

Except that in the Grand Canyon is was actually eroding rock and not unconsolidate material so soft that you can dig it up with your bare hands (I have done it) so I think that at least the kinetics will be many orders of magnitude different.


Sandstones have a wide range hardness so I am not sure if you are correct and the Zoraster Granites are very hard rocks. But you should think. The Grand Canyon is clearly an equilbrium drainage basin. Side canyons that have not been blocked by lava flows or landslides enter at the level of the main canyon. As such it took time to form. It could not have been formed in a single global flood 4,500 years ago. Do you think that some of the layers of the Colorado Plateau were deposited by the flood of Noah? If so which ones?

You did not see what I said. The power of erosion by water is similar to that of ice. The hardness of material is not an important factor. It is the cohesiveness of the material. In this sense, a fractured rock formation (does not matter what kind of rock) can be as easily eroded as (to a scale) unconsolidated pyroclastic material.

In you mind, is the Noah's Flood like a storm with huge force of turbulent flow? That is not true. In many, if not all, places, the water level must just rise quietly (imagine a volcanic eruption along a midoceanic ridge, nobody would even notice it). We interpret the time required for limestone deposit based on the current seawater chemistry. We should know the water chemistry during the Noah's Flood must be very very different. A quick deposition of limestone is not chemically impossible (such as the carbonate deposit in a hydrothermal environment).

 

[AV1611VET]

Therefore, Psalm 90 is not a Biblical argument against the slow formation of the Grand Canyon by natural forces.

If God is in control of nature as you have shown, then please don't try and convince me that He sent the Colorado River to forge the Grand Canyon.

Once again, and let's make this plain as day:

The Grand Canyon came first, then the Colorado River.

The very Documentation that shows God in control of nature also shows God in control of time; and if you think the Colorado River had time to forge the Grand Canyon at God's command, then you must think it hyper-forged it, eh?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Once again, and let's make this plain as day:

The Grand Canyon came first, then the Colorado River.

Complete and utter blather.

The very Documentation that shows God in control of nature also shows God in control of time; and if you think the Colorado River had time to forge the Grand Canyon at God's command, then you must think it hyper-forged it, eh?

"hyper forged" With millions of years to work with, who needs "hyper-forging"?

 

[juvenissun]

Because the upper parts of the canyon were exposed long before the lower parts and thus have been subject to erosion for much longer? What do I win?

If so, the slope should be the same and continuous all the way down to the river.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If so, the slope should be the same and continuous all the way down to the river.

So, what you're sayig is that an area subject to more erosion from wind will look the same as an area subject to less erosion?

 

[grace24]

This subject is too hard for me. I will just learn it from you guys. But I do know for one thing: If Mt. St. Helens canyons did not occur without having meandering at the bottom, which it doesn't, the evolutionists would come to conclude that these canyons were form rapidly, because no meandering. However, if this had not happen they would have concluded otherwise because they already knew the canyons were form rapidly. See....They shift the goalpost.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This subject is too hard for me. I will just learn it from you guys. But I do know for one thing: If Mt. St. Helens canyons did not occur without having meandering at the bottom, which it doesn't, the evolutionists would come to conclude that these canyons were form rapidly, because no meandering. However, if this had not happen they would have concluded otherwise because they already knew the canyons were form rapidly. See....They shift the goalpost.

Evolutionists? Evolution has nothing to do with this subject. It is geology. You can find a lot of refutations of YEC nonsense about the flood on the OEC website Answers in Creation
Creation Science
To justify your complaint about shifting goalpost you would have to find an actual example of a canyon that is known to have formed rapidly with lots of meanders.

 

[grace24]

Evolutionists? Evolution has nothing to do with this subject. It is geology. You can find a lot of refutations of YEC nonsense about the flood on the OEC website Answers in Creation

To justify your complaint about shifting goalpost you would have to find an actual example of a canyon that is known to have formed rapidly with lots of meanders.

Didn't evolutionists uses the lack of meandering at the bottom of the Mt. St. Helens canyons against rapid erosion? They knew exactly that it formed rapidly, because there isn't any meandering but just flat bottom. They accepted that those canyons formed rapidly compare to the Grand Canyon - that takes longer time they say. But the lack of meandering can be argue against rapid erosion ONLY when they knew those canyons were formed rapidly already. Had it not been the case, they would have concluded that it takes long periods of time, just like anybody today can make the same claim. If I go see the canyons on Mt. St. Helens today, heck, I would make the same uniformatarian assumption. And might have conclude something it like this: "The canyons formed slowly and it may even have had meandering". See where I'm going?