And why are you assuming that 1 of the mountains was pre-flood and 2 were post flood? Is it possible that all three were preflood? A preflood mountaing may not have been as much rock and may have eroded faster.
"And this is what happens when you shoehorn a fact into your preconceptions. With your preconception, you say that Mt. St. Helens is a mountain. The Appalachians are mountains. Therefore, A can explain B."
No, I didn't say A can explain B. I said A demonstrated C which previously thought to take millions of years could occur in a short time frame. Therefore might it be possible that whatever you are looking at D, that makes you think B is very old, might also have occured much faster.
Understand, I'm not saying anything about Mt. St. Helens directly explains the Appalachians. But if science was so totally and commpletekly wrong, embarrasingly wrong about how quickly some of the things Mt. St. Helens accomplished. Might it be that you are wrong about the appalachians?
But the Flood is used to explain how all those depositional formations formed such as the Catskill Delta. If the mountains and their subsequent depositional formations are pre-Flood, then the Flood can't explain those. You can't have it both ways.
A preflood mountaing may not have been as much rock and may have eroded faster.
Congratulations. That is the most novel young earth theory I've seen to date.
Understand, I'm not saying anything about Mt. St. Helens directly explains the Appalachians. But if science was so totally and commpletekly wrong, embarrasingly wrong about how quickly some of the things Mt. St. Helens accomplished. Might it be that you are wrong about the appalachians?
That is the logic that liberals use in politics. Because A happened, that means B and C can be suspect without having to do the hard work of demonstrating that they are suspect. Geology as a science is a few hundred years old. There are many possible geological events that we have never witnessed (and I hope that with most of them that the human race doesn't witness them anytime soon).
Seeing the event and the end result of a geological process gives you the entire book, not just the occasional paragraph. So the hummocky hills that formed from Mt. St. Helen's collapse all off a sudden explained hummocky hills around Mt. Shasta. Before you had just the paragraphs but no clear relation. Now you do.
However, what is not in doubt is the grand sweep of the geological column and the countless cycles that sweep represents. No Flood and no young earth model can begin to explain even that fundamental aspect of geology - let alone work on the details of the various formations in that column.