Posted on 05/26/2015 12:11:42 PM PDT by fishtank
Remembering Mount St. Helens 35 Years Later
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The volcanos main 1980 eruption filled in an entire valley with hundreds of feet of sediment. Another smaller eruption event deposited more material on top of that, and then a third deposition occurred in 1982. Later, a catastrophic flood of snowmelt water and muddy debris tore a gash through those fresh deposits, revealing sharp and flat contacts between each earlier deposit. It also showed that fast-flowing currents can lay down multiple layers thinner than a finger width.
Mount St. Helens revealed to the world that both thick and thin layering can happen fast. Millions of years are not needed to form sedimentary rock or stratigraphic layering.
Sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick formed within hours during the eruption itself, and then hardened into rock soon after the water drained from them. Could other layered sedimentary rocks in Earths crust have formed rapidly?
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
ICR article image.
No.
Could other layered sedimentary rocks in Earths crust have formed rapidly?
Probably not.
A nasty clean-up chore.
mother erf burped. grains made it to my window of my car in Denver.
And they (warmists) assert that they can accurately measure C02 within an ice core sample.
Uh-huh.../s
At least this article admits its errors in a good ol fashioned 'scientific' way (open debate, transparency, w/o ridicule) in THEIR field...
Nice! (the animated graphic)
Are there different kinds of animal remains in each layer with more primitive types at the bottom?
This;
"The mountain also provided a clear reason to distrust radioisotope dating. Geologist Steve Austin sampled new rock from atop the mountain that formed in 1986. If the K-Ar radioisotope method really works, then it should have revealed the rocks true age of only ten years. Instead, three rock ages ranged from 340,000 to 2,800,000 years.1 What other rocks from around the world have been dated incorrectly by following those same questionable age-dating protocols?"
.. is an interesting paragraph
I think Mt St Helens was God's last message to the earth daters regarding how it came to be.
If such a volcano went off today, we'd have dozens of high quality videos posted to YouTube within minutes of eruption and there would be a number of live cams to log onto.
It's a free country.
Thanks, Joe - haven’t seen that piece of film in a while. I was in Tacoma when she blew, it was spooky to say the least.
Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geological time scale.[3] Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating.
By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.
Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.
Contents
1 Fundamentals of radiometric dating
1.1 Radioactive decay
1.2 Accuracy of radiometric dating
1.3 Closure temperature
1.4 The age equation
2 Modern dating methods
2.1 Uranium-lead dating method
2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method
2.3 Potassium-argon dating method
2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method
2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method
2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
2.7 Fission track dating method
2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
2.9 Luminescence dating methods
2.10 Other methods
3 Dating with short-lived extinct radionuclides
3.1 The 129I 129Xe chronometer
3.2 The 26Al 26Mg chronometer
4 See also
5 References
“Geologist Steve Austin sampled new rock from atop the mountain that formed in 1986. If the K-Ar radioisotope method really works, then it should have revealed the rocks true age of only ten years.”
Because Austin admits that his separations were impure, how can he, Swenson and other YECs justify their claims that these dacite samples were a fair test of the validity of the K-Ar method? Why did Austin waste precious time and money analyzing samples that were known to contain mineral and glass impurities? As a geologist, Austin should have known that minerals, especially zoned minerals, take more time to crystallize than quenched disorder glass. How could he expect the relatively large and sometimes zoned minerals to be as young as the glass?!!
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
In 1997, I stood outside the johnson ridge observation point,
and touched what once was one of the many tall Douglas
fir trees, baked, and toppled, and half buried in ash,
four miles across the valley, from the disquieting silent
maw of Mt. St. Helens.
No birds, no bugs, nothing, except that eerie silence,
BOHICA!
Four miles, and that maw was big enough to fill a
50 inch tv screen at ten feet distance!
A mile to my left, there was a small semicircle of a
hillside, where baked trees still stood upright, in a sea of gtey.
Old earth, new earth, nuts!
When this blew, it was not a good day, nor a good way,
for those who were here, and are no more!
1. Potassium isotopes are not accurate in rock less than 100,000 years old due to the relatively long half life.
2. Sampling protocol includes measurement of background argon levels.
3. Steve Austen is notorious for misstating sampling protocol and has tried C14 dating on coal millions of years old while knowing that the limit on C14 dating is 50,000 years at the outside.
4. Layering of volcanic ash is a special case and in no way similar to limestones, mudstones, sandstones, salt(which has the tendency to rise above the layer of its initial deposition), granite, metamorphic rock in total, etc.
I did, however, come away with this;
"Considering that the dacite probably erupted in 1986 AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers. Therefore, it's not surprising that some of Austin's dates, such as the result for the amphiboles, etc., 'fraction,' have large +/- uncertainties. "
Which seems to say ... "Well of COURSE we couldn't give you a correct answer ... you didn't tell us anythiong about it" ...
Which is, I think, the point of an anonymous sample
Again ... I won't take the time to read so much technical material
I drove through Yakima 3 months after the boom. There was still 3” of ash sitting like snow on fence posts.
And yes, lots of stuff on earth probably was deposited very quickly (catastrophism). Most of it though did take billions of years. I'm in the earth sciences and also believe in creation. Just not the 6,000 year old creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.