Questions about Mt. St. Helens

[grace24]

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 =)

 

[Sophophile]

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 =)

Hi grace24

Both things are true: The eruption deposited sedimentary layers made of volcanic particles. However, these layers are easily distinguished from sedimentary rocks formed at the bottom of the sea etc.

The Toutle River canyons formed partly because the river had been flowing some time before the eruption, partly because the volcanic ash from the eruption is much softer than rock and easy for the river to cut through (which means the canyon walls slope gently and are not vertical), and partly because the river flows quite steeply and has plenty of erosional power.

With these circumstances its not surprising the canyons formed fairly quickly, considering they are very small canyons.

What would have been surprising is if enormous canyons formed quickly in solid rock, with near vertical walls, with a river flowing down only a very gentle slope - like the Grand Canyon.

Cheers
S.

 

[hisgrace26]

Hi grace24

Both things are true: The eruption deposited sedimentary layers made of volcanic particles. However, these layers are easily distinguished from sedimentary rocks formed at the bottom of the sea etc.

The Toutle River canyons formed partly because the river had been flowing some time before the eruption, partly because the volcanic ash from the eruption is much softer than rock and easy for the river to cut through (which means the canyon walls slope gently and are not vertical), and partly because the river flows quite steeply and has plenty of erosional power.

With these circumstances its not surprising the canyons formed fairly quickly, considering they are very small canyons.

What would have been surprising is if enormous canyons formed quickly in solid rock, with near vertical walls, with a river flowing down only a very gentle slope - like the Grand Canyon.

Cheers
S.

OK thank you for the first answer. I don't know the rest of your answers, but I can understand when you said it is no surprising that Mt. St. Helens formed quickly compare to the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon, too, are well consolidate now, same as Mt. S.t Helens, but it may not have been since the formation.

 

[hisgrace26]

There is an article that was published in Nature back in the 80s regarding how sediments can settle quickly, and then later a person came and repeat the same process.

 

[Sophophile]

OK thank you for the first answer. I don't know the rest of your answers, but I can understand when you said it is no surprising that Mt. St. Helens formed quickly compare to the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon, too, are well consolidate now, same as Mt. S.t Helens, but it may not have been since the formation.

Hi superman

It's just common sense the Grand Canyon was well-consolidated rock when it was formed.

Soft, unconsolidated sand or mud could not form near-vertical cliffs like those in this picture:

Grand Canyon Skywalk

Cheers
S.

 

[Sophophile]

There is an article that was published in Nature back in the 80s regarding how sediments can settle quickly, and then later a person came and repeat the same process.

I'm sure many kinds of sediment can settle quickly. The Mt St Helens ash produced hundreds of feet of sediment in just weeks.

And, also, some can only settle very slowly, like the tiny coccoliths that make up limestone.

Cheers
S.

 

[hisgrace26]

Hi superman

It's just common sense the Grand Canyon was well-consolidated rock when it was formed.

Soft, unconsolidated sand or mud could not form near-vertical cliffs like those in this picture:

Grand Canyon Skywalk

Cheers
S.

Sorry, I'm not good at this but I'll take a shot at it. There are obviously slump at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon. This shows that they were unconsolidated first during the time of formation. I can't post image or link yet, but if you look it up you can see it.

The CO river flowing through the Grand Canyon, the same feature occur after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, 2 canyons have water stream flowing through - Step Canyon and Loowit Canyon. Today anybody can make the same claim that the water stream carved the canyons - which can be misleading. But the eruption of Mt. St. Helens shows that's not what happened. The stream water flow downhill.

 

[hisgrace26]

Does it matter if they were sediment layers or lava particles being layered?

 

[USincognito]

Sorry, I'm not good at this but I'll take a shot at it. There are obviously slump at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon. This shows that they were unconsolidated first during the time of formation. I can't post image or link yet, but if you look it up you can see it.

What? The bottom of the Grand Canyon is metamorphic rock. Not sedimentary and the last time it was unconsolidated was 1.5 billion years ago.

 

[jwu]

Sorry, I'm not good at this but I'll take a shot at it. There are obviously slump at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon. This shows that they were unconsolidated first during the time of formation. I can't post image or link yet, but if you look it up you can see it.

What you're seeing there is debris caused by erosion. Had it been unconsolidated at the time of formation, then the vertical cliffs could not have formed.
Besides, the lower parts of the grand canyon are cut into metamorphic rock. There is no such thing as unconsolidated granite.

Here you can see that the colorado river has already cut through a layer of basalt, a layer of quartzite and is currently cutting into the granite Vishnu Schist.

The CO river flowing through the Grand Canyon, the same feature occur after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, 2 canyons have water stream flowing through - Step Canyon and Loowit Canyon. Today anybody can make the same claim that the water stream carved the canyons - which can be misleading. But the eruption of Mt. St. Helens shows that's not what happened. The stream water flow downhill.

These are not comparable in any way. The Mt. St. Helens canyons do not even remotely exhibit the trademark meandering of the Grand Canyon, which too is a certain indicator of slow formation instead of cataclysmic drainage:

 

[juvenissun]

You must think this loop takes long time (how long?) to be made. Do you see problems with that idea (something on this image is hard to explain)? Don't feel bad if you don't. It take a serious study on geology to see the question. But, the point is: don't listen to others who pretended to know. Nothing is as simply as it apparently sounds. Think about it on yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must think this loop takes long time (how long?) to be made. Do you see problems with that idea (something on this image is hard to explain)? Don't feel bad if you don't. It take a serious study on geology to see the question. But, the point is: don't listen to others who pretended to know. Nothing is as simply as it apparently sounds. Think about it on yourself.

Water traveling upward?

 

[jwu]

You must think this loop takes long time (how long?) to be made. Do you see problems with that idea (something on this image is hard to explain)? Don't feel bad if you don't. It take a serious study on geology to see the question. But, the point is: don't listen to others who pretended to know. Nothing is as simply as it apparently sounds. Think about it on yourself.

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?

 

[USincognito]

You must think this loop takes long time (how long?) to be made. Do you see problems with that idea (something on this image is hard to explain)? Don't feel bad if you don't. It take a serious study on geology to see the question. But, the point is: don't listen to others who pretended to know. Nothing is as simply as it apparently sounds. Think about it on yourself.

I don't know what planet you got your "degree" or "certification" or "photocopied response to something you clipped out of a comic book", but even a layman would see such structures in the Grand Canyon and realize they weren't the result of The Flood, but the result of processes that took a very, very long time.

By the way, where did you get your degree in geology?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

OK thank you for the first answer. I don't know the rest of your answers, but I can understand when you said it is no surprising that Mt. St. Helens formed quickly compare to the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon, too, are well consolidate now, same as Mt. S.t Helens, but it may not have been since the formation.

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.

 

[hisgrace26]

If there were large cracks they can make meandering. I don't see the logic how the river can guided itself up and then down and then side way to make meandering? But what I think is that the river started to flow into the canyon afterward, the canyon was already there, the river enters in later.

 

[hisgrace26]

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.

So these types of rocks, such as metamorphic rocks and limestone that are at the every bottom of the Grand Canyon are harder and longer to formed. But still, don't you think it has got to be soft at one time? It doesn't takes a long time to get hard. The angular unconformity is a slope and could have formed during the flood. So there is no problem.

 

[Gracchus]

If there were large cracks they can make meandering. I don't see the logic how the river can guided itself up and then down and then side way to make meandering? But what I think is that the river started to flow into the canyon afterward, the canyon was already there, the river enters in later.

Where are the cracks? The river always flowed downward though not steeply. Such riparian flow over flat land produces meanders. See for instance the lower reaches of the Mississippi.
As the Kaibab Plateau formed, the river cut down through it faster than the land rose.
If you are interested, we can go through the various rock formations in the canyon from bottom to top and see what the geologists have deduced about its formation and how they arrived at their conclusions. Because the canyon exposes so many formations, it has been studied very extensively and much is known of its geological history.
I would only be willing to do this, if you are going to read and respond.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So these types of rocks, such as metamorphic rocks and limestone that are at the every bottom of the Grand Canyon are harder and longer to formed.

There are about 5 thousand feet of rocks that are far harder and took much longer to deposit and form. The geology of the canyon is quite complex. The Zorastor Granites and Vishnu schists at the bottom of the canyon are very hard rock. Igneous rocks like granite are only "soft" before they solidify and metamorphic rocks like Schists are hard after metamorphosis is completed. There is a very simplified overview of the grandcanyon rock layers here.
Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can find a picture of the Vishnu Schists and Zoraster granites here
Zoroaster Granite - fravahr.org

This is a totally different situation from relative thin layers of unconsolidated tephra sorted primarily by particle size as seen at St. Helens.

But still, don't you think it has got to be soft at one time? It doesn't takes a long time to get hard.

Boy does that call for a snide remark! However I'll assume you are referring to rocks. The problems are two. Complete lithification does take time and for things like limestone the deposition itself takes a lot of time. And of course the Vishnu Schists had to first be deposited and them metamorphized. Second if the rocks are soft they will not support steep cliffs like those seen in the Grand Canyon and once they are hard enough to support steep cliffs it does take a lot of time to carve those cliffs.

The angular unconformity is a slope and could have formed during the flood. So there is no problem.

The angular unconformity is not the result of flood depositiion.
Untitled Document

Angular Unconformity, Grand Canyon, Arizona. Angular unconformities are ones in which the
overlying and underlying rocks dip at different angles. We can therefore infer that the underlying rocks
were tilted and eroded before the younger rocks were deposited. In the Grand Canyon, the Cambrian
Tapeats Sandstone is nearly flat-lying, and overlies tilted Proterozoic sedimentary rock.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are about 5 thousand feet of rocks that are far harder and took much longer to deposit and form.

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.