Re: [BULK] - Re: Mt. St. Helens and catastrophism

From: <>
Date: Thu Aug 18 2005 - 09:34:18 EDT

Thanks, Don. I'm sure you are right that this is why no one has bothered to
write such a rebuttal. However, it would sure be nice if someone did put
together some good photographs that compare the Mt. St. Helens formations
to the real Grand Canyon and other superficially similar formations. Then,
the many and fundamental differences could be outlined and illustrated
clearly. This would help me in preparing an alternative discussion of a
particular chapter in a popular homeschooling textbook for 7th grade earth


                      "Don Winterstein"
                      <dfwinterstein@ms To: "asa" <>, <>
            > cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: [BULK] - Re: Mt. St. Helens and catastrophism
                      08/18/05 03:52 AM

Unless he had Glenn Morton's level of motivation to fight YECs, why would a
qualified geologist bother rebutting such arguments in detail?

Stratification as a rule is a secondary indicator of rock age: Layering by
itself simply indicates that different materials were deposited at
different times and (almost always) that upper layers formed later than
lower layers. It cannot say anything precise about how much later. If
samples are available only from a small area, it would take detailed
analyses of layer constituents (e.g. index fossils) to get a quantitative
idea of layer age. Fossils in the recently formed St. Helens strata are
certain to be all of contemporary organisms, and hence analyses of them
would correctly indicate that all the layers formed over a short time

Strata in volcanic rock are by themselves wholly irrelevant to a case
either for or against YE. (I'm curious as to why anyone should have
thought they were relevant!) Geology does not argue (except in special
cases unrelated to volcanics--e.g. varved shales) that stratification by
itself is relevant for determining the age of a rock or the time required
to form it.

You need more than this?!


 ----- Original Message -----
 Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:35 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

Received on Thu Aug 18 09:34:54 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 18 2005 - 09:34:54 EDT