Re: Mt. St. Helens and catastrophism

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 17:08:40 EDT

To me it is so simple. Unconsolidated rocks i.e. loosish ash erode rapidly
in a sort of Badlands way.Consolidated rocks as in the Grand Canyon erode
slowly .

Try turning a garden hose on a pile of sand and see the effect and then on
any brickwork on the house.

I have the wonderful tract Voice of the Volcano which makes all kinds of
false statements eg "most geologists think take a long time " referring to
canyons. and then say that geologists "interpret geology through a framework
of belief in long ages of slow and gradual processes" which is a falsehood
and doesn't do justice to the consensus that erosion can be rapid or slow
depending on the amount of water and the hardness of the rock. Even Lyell
said that in 1830

The booklet then falsely states that the "millions of years ... sedimentary
build-up around them (i.e. polystrate fossils) " overlooking the fact that
these type of sediments were laid quickly . The best lie on that is to be
found on p85 of Ackerman's It's a young world after all, with a polystrate
fossil passing through the Cretaceous and the Tertiary and Quaternary, some
100my + of time. This must be one of the most blatant lies in all YEC
literature, which is quite an achievement! These so-called polystrates are
only found in coarse sands etc which are deposited rapidly.A friend Fred
Broadhurst of Manchester Univ worked out that in the coal measures
(Pennsylvanian) a thin band of coal on average would take 80,000 years to
form but the intervening beds of sand were very quick, and you can have
local deposition of feet in a day. Glenn mention some in the Mississippi
river like that and can give details.

I hope this is a start

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <douglas.hayworth@perbio.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:35 PM
Subject: Mt. St. Helens and catastrophism

> Have any qualified geologists written a good rebuttal of the popular YEC
> argument for catastrophism that is based on deposition of stratified rock
> and formation canyons that occured in the Mt. St. Helens eruption? I think
> the original creationist analysis was by Steve Austin (the six million
> dollar man?), and I am seeing it cited frequently in YEC literature.
>
> If a published detailed rebuttal does exist, I'd really like to know about
> it. I'd like to find both a detailed "high-level" analysis version and a
> simplified "layperson" version of such a rebuttal. I quite sure that
> however stratified the eruption flows and deposits appear in Austin's
> photographs, detailed inspection of the layers would easily demonstrate
> that they are manifestly different that stratification that occurred by
> normal processes over millions of years. It's just that I haven't been to
> the site and I don't have the qualifications to describe those
> differences.
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
>
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 17 17:48:08 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 17 2005 - 17:48:09 EDT