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

Question

~This question was posted in the Religion and Spirituality section. Being the nice guy I am (and because of my thirst for knowledge) I decided to take the points hit myself and ask it where it should be in the first place. Pardon the "evolutionists" part, I do know that this has nothing to do with evolution.~

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?

Hell, if you want, you can post the answer here and then post it there

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AotefcrOCl_qDanARHkAwzPsy6IX?qid=20070529111012AANAWrB&show=7#profile-info-AA10426555

4 points for you!

Rock on David M!!!

Answer 1

Firstly - evolution has absolutely nothing to do with this question at all!!!!!

I live on a volcanic island - I can pick out at least ten different lava flows that have produced different types of rock, ash or pumice within a matter of a few hundred years!! This particular island has over several million years also subsided slightly and risen again several times so there are marine deposits as well - all within the space of two million years!

The science is simple -the different types of lava can be thrown out in the same eruptive period of a year or two. Lots of gas causes pumice and several other types of eruptive material. The same basic rock erupted at different temperatures forms slightly different rock. Fast or slow cooling also forms totally different types of rock. Again all within a short space of time.

Stalactites and stalagmites are usually formed from flow-stone and do take time. However you seem to be referring to other minerals which can form very quickly into stalactites. Indeed with some minerals it can happen so fast you can almost watch it!

Things become fossilised in the medium around them and that medium decrees how fast they fossilise.

There is no conundrum here. Either you were very badly taught or you failed to grasp what was being taught.

Again this is nothing to do with evolution - it is everyday science and happening all around you!!!

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

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 4

Those who study evolution don't need to explain it. The layering that resulted from the Mt. St. Helens eruption is for geologists to explain in consultation with fluid dynamics experts.

It is not difficult to see how different densities of gasous flows resulted in particles separating into various strata.

As for the carbon decay, the relevant sample size is determined by the number of carbon atoms we have measured decaying, and the change in the decay rate -- not the time duration of the observation. In this case, yes, 100 years is a sufficient period of time over which to sample reliable data.

Answer 5

You gotta figure the whole earth has not been privy to such a huge eruption constantly. It's a local phenomenon. Don't these guys ever give up with their pseudo science ?

Answer 6

The index of Creationist Claims is the first place to go when a creationist opens their mouth...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD502.html