Geology of Mt St Helens Canyon
Joseph T. Janney
the canyon formed at MT. St Helens after the eruption is "proof
positive" that the Grand Canyon and similar canyons could have been
formed suddenly in the Noachian Flood. Has there been any responsible
geological studies done of the Mt St Helens canyon? Could anybody
provide me with references. Has anyone done a comparative study with
the formation and structure of the Grand Canyon versus the Mt St Helen
Canyon? Any help appreciated.
Joe
Scott Barboza
Didn't we just get through this?? Before I start, let me first say (just
so there is no ambiguity or confusion) that, other than the fact that both
are big holes in the ground, there is NO similarity between the Grand
Canyon and small gorges at Mt. St. Helens. I have seen and observed both
the Grand Canyon and the gorges at Mt. St. Helens personally and my basis
for stating that there is no similarity is the following:
1) scale. Although the gorge at Mt. St. Helens is a few hundred feet
deep, it is really of no comparison to the dimensions of the Grand Canyon
2) time. The volcanic sediments that make up the gorge at Mt St Helens
are primarily derived from two eruptions (one in the late 1800's and the
1980 eruption). Both deposits were laid down over a very short period of
time as opposed to the sediments of the Grand Canyon which were deposited
and lithified over millions (billions if you count the protolith for the
Vishnu Schist) of years before the Colorado River was a gleam in her
mother's eye (so to speak).
3) lithology. The gorge at Mt. St. Helens is composed of volcanic
sediments, not rocks. Sediment weathers MUCH more easily than rock. This
was stated before and is so obvious that it seems almost ridiculus to
state it, but I felt the need here.
4) lithology again. There is a wide variety of rock preseved at the
Grand Canyon, some of it is volcanic, most of it is not. There is no
question that volcanic ash is laid down rapidly. When it is observed in
the rock record it is never interpreted as being the result of slow
deposition of sediments. It is pretty silly to suggest that geologists
haven't noticed that volcanoes put out a lot of ash all at once and, as a
result, interpret large ash layers in the rock record as anything other
than catastrophic.
5) time again. The gorges at Mt. St Helens are a transient feature on
the landscape. The very rapidity of their erosion ensures that. Take a
look at any active volcano that hasn't had a major eruption in the last
100 years and guess what - no gorges. The Grand Canyon was nearly
completely formed over a million years ago (I'll present evidence below) -
the gorges at Mt. St Helens won't see the 22nd century.
In light of these facts, I would be very suprised indeed if there has
been any comparitive study between the gorges at Mt. St Helens and the
Grand Canyon. I'm afraid that any suggestion that they are the same
would (correctly) be laughed out of any funding agency (except one
maintained by some religous organization perhaps). Therefore, although
there have been many _reputable_ studies done of Mt. St. Helens, I doubt
there are any that adress the issue you are raising. What I will do for
you, however, is state some of the evidence for the age of the Grand
Canyon. What is conveniently forgotten in these type of discussions is
that geology is a science, not a belief system. We don't just think that
the Grand Canyon is old because it's deep, there is a LOT of very good
scientific evidence which supports this hypothesis. Herein illustrates
the difference between a science and a belief system - a science
reconciles its hypotheses to observations and a belief system is not based
on observations and thus may ignore them. What are (some of) the
observations? Here you go (most of this information was obtained from
Pages of Stone by Halka Chronic):
1) In the western Grand Canyon there were numerous volcanic eruptions
about 1.2 million years ago which sent lava flows into the canyon itself.
Note that this is an absolute date on these flows - we know within
several thousands of years exactly when this lava solidified. These flows
are now "perched" about 15 meters above the base of the canyon.
Therefore, we KNOW that all but the lowermost 15 meters of the canyon was
formed before about 1.2 million years. The reason the Colorado River has
cut down only 15 meters in the last 1.2 million years is because it has
been inscising into the extremely hard metamorphic and igneous rocks of
the Inner Gorge. Next time one of your creationist friends tell you that
the Grand Canyon was formed by a Noachian Flood, ask them how lava flowed
1.2 million years ago into a canyon that didn't exist until 4000 years
ago.
2) The Colorado River did not empty into the Gulf of California until
rifting began about 5 million years ago. Again, this is an absolute date
obtained from the oldest volcanic rocks associated with the rifting. This
rift gave some of the tributaries a new sea-level outlet and these streams
were strengthened and eventually formed the present day course of the
Colorado River. This river eroded strongly headward cutting the southern
edge of the Colorado Plateau (at the Grand Wash Cliffs) and captured the
Ancestral Colorado River. We know that this capture happened because
portions of many of these streams and tributaries are preserved and we can
obtain the paleo-current direction from the sediment they deposited. We
know when the capture happened because we know when the paleogeography
changed the drainage pattern for the Colorado Plateau (about 5 million
years ago).
Based on these two observations alone (there are many more), it is obvious
that the bulk of the erosion in the Grand Canyon occured over an
approximately 4 million year time span ending a little over 1 million
years ago. This is not a belief system, it is the best hypothesis that is
consistent with the observations. A Noachian Flood is not. As far as
reccomended literature, I think some easy reading stuff should do the
trick. Check out:
Grand Canyon: The Story Behind the Scenery (Beal, 1978)
Geology of the Grand Canyon (Breed & Roat, 1976)
Along the Rim (Loving, 1981)
I'm sure there are much more recent books - check your library. These
were just a couple I had sitting on my shelf.
Scott Barboza
University of Washington
Department of Geological Sciences
Phillip Bigelow
>I have been confronted several times by creationists who claim that
>the canyon formed at MT. St Helens after the eruption is "proof
>positive" that the Grand Canyon and similar canyons could have been
>formed suddenly in the Noachian Flood. Has there been any responsible
>geological studies done of the Mt St Helens canyon?
Yes, but I don't have the refs. handy. Someone here undoubtably has
them. :-)
The canyons in the Mt. St. Helens area that you refer to are cut into
non-indurated pyroclastic debris flows. You can "trench" a small
"canyon" in this stuff by just using your hands. It's like loose soil.
The "Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes" in Alaska has a similar situation
(huge eroded valleys cut through loose pumice and ash, created within a
span of only one year).
On the other hand, the Grand Canyon area is composed of highly indurated
*rock*. The Vishnu(sp) Schist, for example, is exceptionally-hard. Try
using your fingernails to cut down through the Kaibab Fm. You won't have
your fingernails for long!
It's a lot easier for running water to cut down through loose pyroclastic
debris aprons than it is to cut down through solid rock.
Ed Rice
Organization:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 20:55:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Geology of Mt St Helens Canyon
Message-ID: <N.041196.135526.14@noname>
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
X-Newsreader: Quarterdeck Message Center [2.00]
References: <4keto0$n...@news.cais.com>
Lines: 33
On 4/9/96 4:46PM, in message <4keto0$n...@news.cais.com>, Joseph T. Janney
<jja...@ahoynet.com> wrote:
> I have been confronted several times by creationists who claim that
> the canyon formed at MT. St Helens after the eruption is "proof
> positive" that the Grand Canyon and similar canyons could have been
> formed suddenly in the Noachian Flood. Has there been any responsible
> geological studies done of the Mt St Helens canyon? Could anybody
> provide me with references. Has anyone done a comparative study with
> the formation and structure of the Grand Canyon versus the Mt St Helen
> Canyon? Any help appreciated.
>
> Joe
No, because the Grand Canyon is not a volcano and it would be an absolute waste
of intelligent use of time.
There seems to be an awful lot of people being "confronted" by "creationists"
lately who all of a sudden turn to sci.geo.geology to ask ridiculous questions.
My suggestion to you would be to go take a geology course and then go out and
ask creationists the same questions and then listen to how imbecilic the
asnwers sound.
I seriously doubt that anyone believes you or your other aliases have been
confronted by anybody. Your cover is blown. These sly, back-door attempts to
slip creationist "theory" into a scientific newgroups is an abject failure and
and further attempts will just make you look sillier. Now go away, kid, you
bother me.
--
Ed Rice
edr...@deltanet.com
/Fidonet
JoshuaJ2
>There seems to be an awful lot of people being "confronted" by
"creationists"
Two is an awful lot? Wow, I guess I have an awful lot of eyes.
>lately who all of a sudden turn to sci.geo.geology to ask ridiculous
>questions.
Where should we turn to ask these "ridiculous" questions? alt.tapdancing?
>My suggestion to you would be to go take a geology course and then go out
and
>
>ask creationists the same questions and then listen to how imbecilic the
>asnwers sound.
>
Great idea. I can just hear that, "well, that seems to be a good point
you have there, lets postpone this talk while I spend several months
(years?) to learn and understand the geology that pertains directly to
your arguments."
>I seriously doubt that anyone believes you or your other aliases have
been
>confronted by anybody. Your cover is blown. These sly, back-door
attempts
>to
>slip creationist "theory" into a scientific newgroups is an abject
failure
>and
>and further attempts will just make you look sillier. Now go away, kid,
you
>bother me.
How rude! I originally wrote this newsgroup requesting info about the St.
Helens "canyons" and recieved many replies that were very helpful -
especially the ones that reccomended books. I admit though, that when I
saw another person writing about the same thing, I was intrigued. Perhaps
the argument is just gaining popularity among creationists. The
suggestion that jja...@ahoynet.com (Joseph T. Janney) and I are the same
person, bent on spreading creationist propoganda into scientific
newsgroups, is absurd (I *do* hope you were joking).
Honestly, how much knowledge do you think the typical american has
regarding these subjects? Someone who has become to accept evolution and
a multi-billion year old earth as fact simply because simply because it
has been treated as such in the various science classes (granted this is a
logical fallacy). One day, someone takes issue with your belief in these
ideas and presents "evidence" that you have no knowledge of that seems to
refute what you have been taught. Should you ask someone who knows?
According to you, absolutely not. You should rush to your local community
college and enroll in a geology class. Hopefully it won't be too long
before they get to the lessons that deal with the age of the earth and how
we _know_ it to be extremely old.
But then what? The creationist might ask something about biology,
cosmology, astronomy, genetics, physics, paleontology or some other
specialized area of science of which you have limited knowledge. What
then? Spend several decades to become an expert on every field of science
there is, just so you can respond to some stupid creationist's arguments?
It would be wonderful to know all those things, but the idea of being
motivated into decades of intense study (while holding a job at the same
time) just to be able to respond to creationists is absurd.
As for "sly, back-door attempts to slip creationist "theory" into a
scientific newgroups," is there anyone who reads this newsgroup who
doesn't read the responses to the questions? All the responses stated
explicitly that there is no basis at all for the comparison between St.
Helens and other canyons. I thank those who took the time to respond
intelligently.
If anyone really wanted to spread creationist ideas in this newsgroup,
they would ask questions about a science other than geology. That way,
few readers would be able give a comprehensive retort. I might ask for
answers to some arguments I have heard (and have since found out to be not
valid) as to how the universe could be 6000 years old, but I think those
questions could be better answered by the folks at sci.astro ('though
creationism isn't supposed to be discussed on that newsgroup, I felt a
legitimate question about "white holes" would not be out of line).
It's a conspiracy, Ed. We're all aliens. You are being observed.
-Joshua