The eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980, is certain to be remembered as one of the most significant geologic events in the United States of the 20th century. The explosion, on May 18, was initiated by an earthquake and rockslide involving one-half cubic mile of rock. As the summit and north slope slid off the volcano that morning, pressure was released inside the volcano - where super hot liquid water immediately flashed to steam. The northward-directed steam explosion released energy equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, which toppled 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. In Spirit lake, north of the volcano, an enormous water wave, initiated by one-eighth cubic mile of rockslide debris, stripped trees from slopes as high as 850 feet above the pre-eruption water level. The total energy output, on May 18, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.
Mudflows, from Mount St. Helens, were responsible for the most significant erosion. A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage. As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little āGrand Canyon of the Toutle Riverā is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere.
The landslide generated waves on Spirit Lake stripped the forests from the slopes adjacent to the lake and created an enormous log mat, made up of millions of prone floating trunks that occupy about two square miles of the lake surface. These logs float freely as the wind blows them, and the decreasing size of the log mat indicates that the trees are gradually sinking to the lake floor. Careful observation of the floating log mat indicates that many trees float in upright position, with a root ball submerging the root end of the trunk, while the opposite end floats out of the water. Hundreds of upright floated and deposited logs have been grounded in shallow water along the shore of the lake.
> These trees, if buried in sediment, would appear to have been a forest which grew in place over hundreds of years, which is the standard geological interpretation for the upright petrified āforestsā at Yellowstone National Park.
Also, the trees sink at different times causing the root ball to deposit in different sediment layers. One model hold these were different forests at different ages when in fact they are from the same catastrophic event.
Some of the aspects of the eruption explains the makings of the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon was not created over millions of years, but over a few days.
Oh of course, post it in another language instead of using your own words to explain your comment. There is no current scientific theories that even remotely supports your outlandish claim!
Look at the canyons created in the aftermath of this catastrophe at Mt. St. Helens. It was laid down in days and carved out in hours not millions of years. Grand Canyon could never have been carved out by the little river there now and could not have started at itās headwaters since the canyon is higher in elevevation than the land upstream from it. Rivers do not normally flow uphill. I had to be similar to the observed conditions that carved the canyon at the Toutle River
Well that is a theory that is not proven and not accepted by years of geological surveying. MT St. Helens happened in our lifetimes and comparing the Grand Canyon is entire different circumstance of events over millions of years. Iāve not read anywhere that remotely proves your theory of what happened at Mt St. Helens is the same theory that formed the Grand Canyon in a matter of days. Next we will be entertaining the possibility that it was caused by an alien nuclear explosion because I guess that is possible too.
While this thread is not about the Grand Canyon, Iām not really sure how anyone could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the Grand Canyon was created over a few days.
There is evidence of thousands of years of erosion as well as fossil remains of aquatic plant and animal life throughout the entirety of the canyon.
The millions of years model for the Grand Canyon is only speculation. The Toutle River Canyon was observed.
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation.Wikipedia
Since the formation of the Grand Canyon over millions of years has not been observed and the formation of the canyon at Mt. St. Helens has been observed from deposition of the thousands of layers in the beginning to carving out the 140 feet deep canyon, only one model can be proved scientific.
The layers one observes in the Grand Canyon are deposits that cover the North America continent and beyond. They were laid down by water. Those are discovered facts. There is no dispute of that research. The headwater of the Colorado River at the upstream end of the GC is higher than the topography a few miles up stream. Water can not flow uphill.,
Marine fossils are found within all the layers of the GC and even on top of the Earthās tallest mountains. To form a fossil, it must be buried rapidly as one would expect in a flood. How could the soft tissue, blood cells and vessels found inside fossils survive 65 million years?
This is where we are going to disagree. Itās not speculation. The original premise to what you are asserting is that the Grand Canyon was formed in days, and that is demonstrably false. Trying to compare two different events and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to argue to prove a theory, not proven by science nor accepted as scientific fact is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. I will stick with what is most logical in terms of the science already available. As I said before, no current scientific explanations are available that supports your assertion as being true.
ALL forensic science is speculation since it can not be observed. Do you understand?
Millions of years is not logical once one understands the geography/hydrology of the formation. Water can not flow uphill. Right? If layers were laid down over long ages, erosion would be evident. It is not. Right? Fossils must be buried rapidly else the organism or imprint would be rotted, eaten or washed away. Correct? Explain these known scientific facts based on your assumption.
Yeah that is a moral relativistic argument if I ever heard of one. By the logic you are applying here all science not withstanding forensics is all speculation and therefore any explanation including unproven ones can be applied here. Cite a credible source that actually supports your theory as being fact otherwise you are just trying to have a pissing contest here. I already cited an article here that explains in scientific terms how the Grand Canyon came to be, if you disagree with what is widely accepted by the scientific community by way of consensus, then may I suggest you write your dissertation, publish it for peer review by putting your own credentials on the subject matter in this sphere of disciplined academia to see how your theory holds up?
You either misunderstood me or you are being deliberately ignorant of the facts.
Science is knowledge, not a grouping of facts or speculations. Two scientists of equal training and experience can look at the same data or object and draw different conclusions based on their world view. So the conclusions of āa scientistā is his opinion based on his world view to explain the evidences found. The GC formation in MYA is mearly a hypothesis in the scientific method.
As far as presenting other scientific papers and theories, they have been presented above, so since this is only a pissing contest for you and not a serious debate on your part to learn something new, I surrender.
For the millions of years age of the Earth (or canyon) certain evidences should be expected. So far to date, none of the expected evidences for that model have been falsified.
