Mt St Helen's

Note from Adminnemooseus - This topic is taking over the area of the now closed "Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic!".
-----The sudden creation of "geologic layers" during the eruption of Mt St Helen's is often used as evidence to cast doubt on geologic dateing by creationists. Mount St. HelensEvidence for Genesis! | Answers in Genesis
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchThis topic is intended to review this idea.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-01-2003]

quote:

---

Dr. Austin is Chairman of the Geology Department in the ICR Graduate School.

---

Did he get his degree in geology?I find it extremely difficult to believe that a trained geologist would ever think to equate the erosion of relatively fresh volcanic deposits with solid rock.Maybe I'm missing something...

quote:

---

Maybe I'm missing something...

---

And maybe Dr. Austin is missing something. But if you have a specific point made at eithe of those sites that you con't like, perhaps you can pull a quote out and comment on it.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-01-2003]

From S.A. Austin, 1986 (Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research)

quote:

---

RAPIDLY FORMED STRATIFICATION

​

Up to 400 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from primary air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water. Perhaps the most surprising accumulations are the pyroclastic flow deposits amassed from ground-hugging, fluidized, turbulent slurries of fine volcanic debris, which moved at high velocities off the flank of the volcano as the eruption plume of debris over the volcano collapsed. These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. Conventionally, sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations, or annual changes, as the layers accumulated very slowly. Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes. Such features have been formed quickly underwater in laboratory sedimentation tanks, and it should not surprise us to see that they have formed in a natural catastrophe.

---

Austin states that sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations Is he suggesting that all sedimentary laminae are the result of climatic conditions — e.g., varves? We know this is not true. Laminae are the result of several different processes, such as chemical, compositional, and hydrologic variations, which are not necessarily associated with the seasons. Additionally, no one has ever stated that ALL laminae are the result of slow deposition/accumulation. Austin needs to be more specific about the sedimentary rocks containing the laminae he is referring to; especially if he is going to compare them to volcanic laminae.Also, I don’t think anyone would dispute the fact that volcanic activity can deposit significant amounts of stratified material in a short period of time (e.g., Herculaneum was buried under 50 — 60 feet of lava, mud, and ash within a 24 hour period). As for the volcanic laminae, Austin fails to describe what forms them, fails to describe the rocks they are found in, what their geographical location is, etc. I can only guess that they are the result of air-fall ash that may have formed from variations in wind currents, eruptive pulses(?), or other variables occurring at the time.I suspect his mentioning seasonal variations is simply a way of forcing upon the reader a mental picture of very slow deposition and accumulation when that is not necessarily the case. However, by failing to mention the marked difference between lake-, stream-, or ocean-formed laminae and volcanic laminae, and their genetic implications, the layperson would not know he is comparing apples to oranges. And, being that he has a Ph.D. in geology, it smacks of intentional deceit.

quote:

---

I suspect his mentioning seasonal variations is simply a way of forcing upon the reader a mental picture of very slow deposition and accumulation when that is not necessarily the case. However, by failing to mention the marked difference between lake-, stream-, or ocean-formed laminae and volcanic laminae, and their genetic implications, the layperson would not know he is comparing apples to oranges. And, being that he has a Ph.D. in geology, it smacks of intentional deceit.

---

What is more, Austin has been known to profess that the deposits of MSH are what drove him from mainstream geology to YEC geology. However, someone named Stuart Nevins was writing creationist tracts long before MSH, and Austin will not deny that Nevins was a pen name for himself. (See TO article by Karen Bartlett). I think we can assume that 'deceit' is an accurate description of Austin's behavior. What makes it all the more galling to me is that his degree is from an institution which also granted me a degree some years earlier. The alias is probably a good explanation why he was able to obtain a PhD.

I know of another Creationist fellow taking geology classes at my own alma mater.I have to wonder if they actually do believe in an old earth, but life is grand in the creationist circles (heck, they are practically gods themselves and not accountable for their mistakes) so they pretend to be YECs. Or are they really YECs pretending to be OE geologists while in school, all the while ignoring the mountains of evidence (ha! no pun intended)right before their very eyes?In the words of a colleague, if there really is all this evidence for Creation, why do they need to misrepresent mainstream research?Onto Austin again:

quote:

---

Rapid Erosion

​

Photographic documentation assembled by ICR scientists demonstrates that very pronounced rills and gullies had formed at the margins of seam explosion pits before May 23 - less than five days after the pumice was deposited. The rills and gullies resemble badlands topography, which geologists have usually assumed required many hundreds or even thousands of years to form.

---

Well, seeing as the pumice, and/or other volcanic deposits, were not welded in any way, except perhaps locally, I don’t see why these unconsolidated sediments shouldn’t develop rills and gullies, especially with the amount of rain in that part of the country. Also, I don’t believe many geologists assume rills and gullies take many hundreds or even thousands of years to form. I mean, shoot, they proved it themselves! All you need is a slope, rainfall, unconsolidated seds or soft rock (such as shale), no protective cap rock or binding vegetation, and you have rills and gullies in a matter of days to a few months or years. The softer the seds/rock and/or higher rainfall amounts, as was the case at Mt. Saint Helens, will result in rapid rill/gully formation. Of course clay content and other chemical variables can affect erosion, but really, this is not rocket science.

quote:

---

A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage. As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere.

---

He really doesn't say much here. What exactly did the mudflow erode? Were they recent sediments associated with the volcanic event or country rock? There were several large debris avalanches in the North Fork Toutle River Valley, so it's possible that the mudflow eroded unconsolidated sediments, which would not require long periods of time, especially in a river valley with plenty of water. I also don't understand what he means by a "new dendritic pattern." Seems to me if the erosion happened within the North Fork Toutle River Valley, how is this new? Is he referring to the scale - that within the valley itself, a new drainage pattern emerged? That makes much more sense. Too many vague statements.Also, I noticed Austin (they all do it, actually) feels the need to delude the audience into believing that all [non-YEC] geologists interpret everything they see using the "long-time scale." As if they are incapable of imagining catastrophic processes or interpreting them correctly, which is pure bull.

quote:

---

Upright Deposited Logs

​

The Spirit Lake upright deposited stumps, therefore, have considerable implications for interpreting "petrified forests" in the stratigraphic record.

---

Except he forgets or refrains from discussing those implications or just how one would go about comparing petrified forests to trees in a lake. Has he seen other petrified forests associated with lake sediments/deposits? What would the timeline be for completely replacing a lakeful of organic material with silica? What is the process for getting all that silica in the lake? Being the good geologist, he should have at least touched on his model in some way... does he have a model? Or is this just fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants speculation?

quote:

---

The volcano, therefore, challenges our way of thinking about how the earth works, how it changes, and the time scale we are accustomed to attaching to its formations.

---

Seems to me, it's only a challenge for Creationists since the geologic community has been able to explain these processes for quite some time.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-02-2003]

Wake me up when they find layer upon layer of complete preserved ecosystems within the Mt St Helens 'Strata'.

A coral reef would be nice as well.And a coal measure or two for completeness.

"Seems to me, it's only a challenge for Creationists since the geologic community has been able to explain these processes for quite some time."
--No really, when you have millions of years, who cares?-------------------

I don't understand your post. Could you clarify a bit?

quote:

---

"Seems to me, it's only a challenge for Creationists since the geologic community has been able to explain these processes for quite some time."

​

--No really, when you have millions of years, who cares?

---

Yes, that is exactly why it is a problem for YECs. They don't have millions of years, so they have a challenge. The mainstream actually has no problem with the geological features of MSH.

"Yes, that is exactly why it is a problem for YECs. They don't have millions of years, so they have a challenge. The mainstream actually has no problem with the geological features of MSH."
--Exactly. Sucks to be me, oh well.-------------------

Has anyone else read that ICR paid Austin's college expenses?

So? What does it matter. Lots of different organizations pay people tuition etc.

"Has anyone else read that ICR paid Austin's college expenses? "
--No, but I would speculate that they paid his expenses for going to the ICR grad school:Not Found | School of Biblical Apologetics------------------