Mount St. Helens eruption as evidence for recent creation?


(Martin Mayberry) #1

However when mount saint Helen’s Erupted in 1980 a very great canyon was formed in one day because of it according to you-tube. so it is my understanding that if a Huge canyon like that can form in one day then the Grand canyon could form quickly also by a catastrophic happening that the great flood would definitely be and NOT take the millions of years to form as evolutionist so claim!


Biblical Literalism
(Mervin Bitikofer) #2

Indeed, there are many things that can and do happen quickly. That doesn’t mean everything did, or that catastrophism can successfully explain all the geological features to be seen in the canyon.

Did you mean to address me with this? Or was it meant for somebody else? This thread has been about Biblical literalism, but there probably are threads you could check out about geology.


(George Brooks) #3

@martin

Back in 1978, my physics professor made it clear that something the size of Grand Canyon could be made, filled and made again in the course of earth’s history.

The age of the Grand Canyon is not based on how DEEP it is … but on dating the various sedimentary levels that the depth of the Grand Canyon EXPOSES…


(Martin Mayberry) #4

However the layers were there right after the canyon at Mount Saint Helen’s was formed in just one day in the very same way! tome when I watched it, it was a mind blowing rebuke of gradual evolution over time. that is what they was showing!


#5

No. The layers at Mt. St. Helens are NOTHING like what ones sees at the Grand Canyon.

Sometimes we fall into equivocations—and think that two things are the same—simply because our language applies the same word for both: canyon. That is why geologists use far more precise language. If you read the peer-reviewed literature on the Mt. St. Helens “instantly created canyon” and the Grand Canyon, you will find very different technical terms are used. That’s because canyon is an extremely broad, non-scientific term. Geologists use very detailed, specialized vocabulary to describe the many differences. @Martin_Mayberry, if you were to take a third year geology course for undergrad majors, you would master enough of that terminology as well as examine the evidence first-hand to where you would never make the mistake of thinking the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens blast field are at all alike. The evidence on the sites is very different and the processes were very very different.

Indeed, the best “cure” even for the non-geologists who thinks them similar is to actually visit the two sites. For example, even in my helicopter tours of both geologic features, the differences were striking and undeniable.

How so? What does Mt. St. Helens have to do with gradual biological evolution?

Yes, the ecosystems are very different. And some types of biological evolution take place very very slowly and some evolution takes place relatively rapidly. (See the excellent nylonase-evolution article here at Biologos for a classic example. As I understand it, it started with a frame-shift mutation and all of the evolution observed took place in the years since the first nylon was invented by people, and the Japanese nylon factory started spewing nylon fibers into a nearby pond where the flavobacteria were present. The bacteria gradually developed the ability to digest the nylon fibers, a new food source. To do so, natural selection “took advantage” of the mutations, somewhat like the ways in which bacteria develop resistance to new antibiotic drugs. Indeed, evolution takes place so rapidly that scientists must annually scramble to develop the newest flu shot formulation.)

Of course, the popular notion that biological evolution is always a very very gradual process is something which non-scientists assume and scientists dealing with the evidence know better.

Likewise, geological change runs the gamut. Some involve very slow processes (e.g. a mountain range that once looked like the relatively young Rocky Mountains in the west eroded to become what we see in the east today, a much older Appalachian Mountains showing advanced wearing down; e.g. some mountain ranges of long ago are almost completely worn down into flat plains.) Some geologic changes take place in hours (e.g. the collapse of natural earth dams where water reservoirs flood areas quickly) to seconds, as with the Mt. St. Helens explosion. No geologist would fail to recognize the volcanic lava and ash dispersed near the volcano and fail to recognize that it took place very rapidly—and the same geologist would also notice that the evidence is very different at the Grand Canyon! In fact, having seen the differences with my own eyes, in the air and on the ground, I can certainly agree.

Something I regularly see and recognize from my days of long ago as a Young Earth Creationist “creation science” advocate is the misunderstanding of uniformitarian processes. YECs are told by their leaders that “Geologists assume uniformitarianism which says everything happened gradually and that, therefore, catastrophic events don’t happen.” That is a total fallacy (if not a deliberate lie preying on gullible, science-uninformed audiences) based on ideas among some geologists about 200 years ago, before modern geology had even emerged as a discipline driven by the scientific method. I challenge anyone to actually read a geology textbook and notice that scientists are quite aware that geologic events take place at a wide range of “paces”, both rapid and gradual.

For that matter, anybody living in parts of the United States which experience cold winters can witness year by year geologic changes due to water freezing and expanding in rock crevices. (Ever drive through an area with rock slide warnings? Each winter causes more damage and dislodging of rock-faces.) Similarly, a lot of craggy soils see annual fracturing of shale and slate layers, for example, which keep on facturing. I’ve witnessed this in my own lifetime, winter-by-winter. These are geologic changes and, over time, they certain mount up. One can observe geologic change examples at about every “pace” imaginable.

What uniformitarianism actually means is that we can expect the universe to show order and consistency. We can assume that a given chemical reaction today will produce particular results under particular conditions and that next Tuesday and next year and a hundred years from now that chemical reaction will still occur in the same way. We can also assume that European and Chinese chemists will observe the same reactions as scientists in the Americas. That uniformitarianism. Likewise, we can assume that if the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second here on earth, an astronaut on the moon or orbiting Neptune will discover it likewise (taking into account adjustments under Einstein’s equations, of course.)

Ironically, some Young Earth Creationists deny various aspects of uniformitarianism (denying “Evidence collected in the present is the key to the past”) yet someone like Jason Lisle claims that the fact that the universe is characterized by order and consistency makes it logical and understandable —and therefore constitutes “the ultimate proof of God”! This kind of self-contradiction has, unfortunately, become all too common in “creation science” literature. You can’t have it both ways. Either the universe is orderly, consistent, and can be understood by observers OR it is constantly changing its “science” and the laws of physics to where we can’t trust any of the evidence we gather. I’ve directly challenged Jason Lisle, Tas Walker, Ken Ham, Georgia Purdom, and the late Henry Morris and Duane Gish on this very problem—and they all side-stepped theirs contradiction and refused to even engage it. In fact, with many of them, it was as if they had never paused to consider this problem. (This too is extremely common among “creation science” and ID entrepreneurs.)

@Martin, I hope you will take the time to compare the geologies of Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon and consult the textbooks. See the evidence for yourself. You will soon discover that whoever told you that all geologic processes are slow and gradual was either uninformed or being extremely dishonest. They also misused scientific terminology if they confused geologic change and biological evolution. What they should have told you is that both types of changes over time includes both slow processes and rapid processes.

I strongly empathize with your predicament because I too once trusted my anti-evolution and “creation science” heroes to tell me the truth about such science topics. Unfortunately, I naively assumed that because they shared my doctrinal beliefs and faith in Christ, I could trust them to honestly explain the science of God’s created world as well. That assumption was very illogical on my part. Sadly, it took me many years and a lot of frustration before I learned the truth for myself.

To claim that Mt. St. Helens is “evidence for recent creation” is a very bizarre claim indeed. Besides, volcanic eruptions have been taking place for a very long time and will continue to erupt. So how can any given eruption per se tell us that the universe was created? The claim defies even common sense. Considering how long volcanic eruptions have been observed by humans, geologists are not all that surprised by their existence and their violence!


(Martin Mayberry) #6

I watch the videos and the were not making i up,they showed pictures and how the layers were formed and the layers looked exactly like the grand canyon does only not as wide {they compared the two together}! I know if you watch the video that will make you question evolution over time, but since I have God who has the power to speak and BAM it instantly happens, that the grand canyon could happen because of a cataclysmic event is NOT shocking to me,that just points to the great Flood that the bible speaks of and that is what they alluded to! i know that idea messes with your idea of a LOOONG evolution over time time! But, so be it!


(Phil) #7

Martin, if you get a chance, go see St. Helens and the Grand Canyon. Both are amazing places, and will fill you with the awe of creation. However, they are totally different. At the moment, I am outside of Bend Bend Natl Park, and it too fills you will awe and amazement with volcanic intrusions and 2000 foot limestone uplifts with an narrow canyon cut through by a small river as it the limestone gradually lifted. Look at these wonders and contemplate how they formed, and how they reflect the nature and glory of God.


(Martin Mayberry) #8

thank you very much,if I get the chance in my life I may just take you upon that if i am able and have the time.God is good!


(Martin Mayberry) #9

the nylonase bacteria were still bacteria even after that ate the nylon, they did not change into anything else! that is the same way for anti biotic resistant bacteria they remained bacteria! and changed to nothing else! No evolution occurred!


(system) #10

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.