How do evolutionists explain the rapid formation of layers of the earth at Mt. St. Helens?

Question

We were taught in public school that it took thousands or millions of years for rock layers to form. We were also taught that it took thousands to millions of years to form stalactites. I saw a stalactite that formed on a bridge (draw bridge that was stuck in the up position after a barge hit it) in a matter of weeks. How do they explain hats and other articles of clothing becoming fossilized in less that 100 years?

If the earth is billions of years old is the relatively small amount of data (only 100 years worth) on carbon decay a statistically valid sample size?

Answer 1

They can't. Nor can they explain the evidence of a sudden and catastrophic disaster as displayed in the Grand Canyon. Nor can they explain the sudden formation of massive non-sedimentary geological land masses found at the bottom of our oceans. Nor can they explain the rapid petrification of trees and animals found on Mt. St. Helens or other volcanoes. Nor can they explain the cause to the Big Bang Theory.

Someday they will also learn that the carbon-dating process is in of itself a "dated" process and wholly inaccurate and should instead rely on geo-thermodynamics instead.

Instead of providing scientific proof for their outlandish claims, as already demonstrated, you will only receive a bunch of critical name-calling, propositions to become further educated, and various sundry of other juvenile gibberish and rhetoric.

Good luck.

Answer 2

What really pisses me off is your attitude that the hundreds of thousands of geologists in the world are stupid. You are an utter nitwit, as your question so clearly demonstrates.

No, nowhere in geology does it say that all rock layers took X years to form. Does lying make you feel good?? Many layers form relatively quickly, following a storm or a volcanic eruption. Btw, Mt St Helens is a VOLCANO. Similarly, 'stalactites' and fossils form in a variety of different chemical and physical conditions.

Carbon dating has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth is demonstrated by a variety of different radiometric methods, eg. uranium-lead and potassium-argon and a dozen others, all of which have different LOGARITHMIC decay curves, yet always produce the same age for the same rock. There is your mathematical proof. Think about it.

Better yet, take an hour out of your life to actually open a book and get some clue about what you are talking about.

Answer 3

The best hope of the evolutionist is to rely on an almost unimaginable time scale. Carbon dating can not be much use to them since it is inaccurate beyond a few thousand years and is easily polluted, but radiometric dating seems to hold better promise. While it is true that radioactive elements decay at a predictable rate, one simply CAN NOT KNOW whether the "daughter" elements present in a rock sample were present during formation or are merely the result of the decay process. In other words, how do we know whether or not a sample had ONLY parent materials when it formed. We can get an indication that this MAY have been the case if the "daughter" elements are present in an exact ratio (1/2, 1/4, 1/8) etc. since it is unlikely that a rock would form with a perfect ratio; this would seem to be the result of passing through a half life aging process. If the samples are not in a perfect ratio, it is fair to dismiss any age proposed by this method on that sample.

Even if the elements are present in a perfect ratio, this is still not absolute proof, but rather may be taken as EVIDENCE of age. This does NOT mean, though, that one can dismiss the idea of God creating the sample that way, so like it or not, we are still left with a choice which will be determined by our philosophical bias. Those who believe in God will admit to the possibility, and those that do not will cry foul.

While I am well aware that there is an ongoing debate about whether or not the variation observable within species leads to new species, I am also aware that geology and biology are two different fields. When one studies evolution, however, they are overlapping magesteria, so one is useful in understanding the other. Don't let people tell you it's not so.

I say have faith.

Answer 4

Hey...I wonder about the competency of your teachers if that's what you were told. First of all, yes, it did take a very long time for layers of sedimentary rock to develop from the bottoms of the oceans that covered most of the earth.
Layers of pyroclastic rock developed quite rapidly , at least when compared to sedimentary rocks,from ash put into the atmosphere, lava flow from active volcano's located in most of the earths regions. The minerals found in these layers are varied, and represent the elements from which the lava was formed. It will take to much space to answer this question in detail, but if you search the net with the question of "formation of rock layers on the earth", you will get a plethora of sites that will give you a more detailed answer. This is a great question. To answer the last segment of your question, carbon dating can accurately date material back to 10's of millions of years. Search the net. You'll be surprised at the accurate data available. Did you go to a christan school?

Answer 5

What happened at Mt St Helens was a massive granite explosion in which many millions of tons of earth went into the air at once. They had to land somewhere.

Sedimentation takes many thousands of years. Riverbeds move earth slowly into the sea where it forms deep layers under millions of tons of pressure. This pressure turns them into rocks. The layers at Mt St H aren't rock in the same way. Lava forms rock because it's molten, then it cools.

Hats don't fossilize. What you witnessed is calcification, caused by calcium carbonate, a highly soluble chemical that hardens like plaster when the water is removed. Chip away at the limestone coating and there will still be a hat underneath. Read a good book on geology. It sounds like you'll enjoy it.

Rocks aren't dated using carbon dating because it couldn't possibly date anything back that far. Rocks date by measuring the decay rate of uranium-lead isotopes. This method can date things older than the earth, if necessary (for instance an extra-terrestrial meteorite).

Evolution is a biological process that has nothing to do with geology. Hope this helped.

Answer 6

answer to layers question. Because it is a volcano and layers of magma come up and solidify and another layer comes up below up and solidifies as it is a geologically active area, but regardless, That is Geology not Evolution...please learn more about sciences if you want to question them.

Stalactites..no you didn't you saw an icicle. There would be no mineral water source to create stalactite on a mechanized bridge.

I have never, ever heard any hint of of fossilized clothes let alone actual reports..so i reject the idea that there are fossilized clothes

Carbon decay is based on the long term observation on the decay rate of carbon being a constant

Answer 7

Fossilization is the replacement of formerly-living tissue with calcareous salts, and can take place at widely differing rates depending on the environment. The rate of fossilization has no necessary correlation with the age of the fossil; in the case of a T. rex fossil, say 80 million years old, the process may have taken a century -- or millenia. Radioactive dating can use carbon only for substances less than about 50,000 years old; older samples are dated by use of other radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, and potassium, which can provide accurate dates back to the earth's creation some 4.5 billion years ago. As for evolution, it has been established science for a century and is now a proven fact; proof details available on request.

Answer 8

Stalactites form at different rates depending on the materials they're formed out of. This is an old, failed, tired creationist argument. It's not even an argument against evolution, as evolution only deals with living things, being part of biology. Stalactites are not alive, you know. You are trying to argue geology, not biology.

Also, carbon is not NEARLY the only element used for radiometric dating (considering it can't be used to date anything older than about 50,000 years, it's actually used quite rarely when it comes to dating the really old stuff). In fact, most things are not considered conclusively dated unless they've been dated with at least about a half DOZEN dating methods, all of which use different 'scales' but will point to about the same age (one can only be so precise when dealing with things many millions of years old).

Answer 9

If you were taught that it took thousands or millions of years for a stalactite to form, you didn't go to a very good school. As to the layers of earth at Mt. St. Helens, volcanic activity lays down layers of earth. I'd think that would be obvious.

Answer 10

Are you asking about how carbon dating works, or why we know it does, or are you asking about rock formation.
Rocks can be formed instantly. Just look at what happens when volcanos erupt. Lava solidifies into dacites etc., Volcanic ash compacts to tuff.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglossary/VolRocks.html
http://volcano.und.edu/vwintl/vwintl.html
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/msh/


Another type of rock is called Tufa, it is from lime waters. It is like the calcium scale that you get in tea kettles.
http://www.tufa.bc.ca/tufa_history.htm

So obviously your teachers got some things across poorly. Likely they were simplifying what they were trying to teach your class.

Now fossilization is a strange and very general term at the best of time and gets rendered almost meaningless by Ken Ham or Dr. Morris. The way they define it last weeks moldy leftovers in the back of a fridge could be fossils.
You can look up what fossils really are on your own.

About carbon dating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_dating
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
http://www.sciencecourseware.org/VirtualDating/files/1.0_ClocksInRocks.html
http://comp.uark.edu/~davewall/James%20Martin's%20report.htm
http://www.fsteiger.com/radioact.html

I am sorry if you had crappy teachers, but that is what happens when religious organizations control school boards.

Answer 11

Do you care to provide links to any of this so that we know what the hell you are referring to.

Rock layers can form quickly with volcanic activity. They only form slowly with sedimentary rock. And the way a real stalactite forms requires calcium to be picked up as water goes through layers of rock above it. That can ONLY happen underground not on a bridge.

I don't have room to explain Carbon 14 dating to you, but it is only used on things that were once alive and it is only valid to 50,000 years. Any nonsense you hear about it dating something older than that is a lie told by someone that doesn't understand the test.