Epic Idiot - Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
  Home  Table of Contents  Creation and Evolution  Humor  Mission Statement  Contact
 
Intelligent Design - It's Just Evolution in Disguise

This Day In History


Rate This
Article
[click here]


Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]


 

 

 

Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe

This video is available from the Institute for Creation Research
The main speaker is  Steve Austin Ph.D.
Review Copyright 2005 epicidiot.com

Does the evidence from the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens provide evidence for a young earth?


See reviews of other videos
featuring Dr. Steve Austin
Is Radioisotope Dating Accurate?

Radioisotopes & the Age of The Earth


 

See Also
  • Critique of the information in this article by Lance Wilson
  • Additional review of this video by Lance Wilson

The first portion of the video is a very interesting presentation of the events surrounding the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption.  If you like catastrophic geology, you'll find this very interesting.

Dr. Austin says that one could look at how deep the layers at Mt. St. Helens are and might assume that they had been deposited over a large geologic time period.  While true, they might at first glance, but a scientific investigation would easily show this to not be the case.  Geologists use radiometric dating and other techniques to determine the ages of layers, not just their depth.


Read the results of Dr. Austin's
Dating of the St. Helens Lava Samples


He then goes on to say that using this method for Yellowstone would misdate the layers.  Again, this is true.  But since this is not how the dating is done, this statement is meaningless.  Lava layers are dated by radioactive decay, not by depth.  What if we dated the layers by color or smell?  We would probably also get the wrong results.  But that’s not how it’s done, so what’s your point?

The dating of Yellowstone’s layers may be incorrect, but to imply that they were dated based on their depths is misleading.  Dr. Austin is a geologist.  He should know that not only is this misleading, it’s nonsense.

He mentions that the growth rings from different layers of Yellowstone show that the trees lived together.  What is not mentioned is that the signature series of tree rings used to make this conclusion only spans about five years and are therefore considered too short to be reliable.  Conspicuously not mentioned was that the ring study also showed that the trees from the different layers died in different years.  Had the trees of the various layers been killed by a single catastrophic event, as claimed by Dr. Austin, then they would have been killed in the SAME year.  Ironically, the study that he claims supports his theory, if true, actually disproves it – At least when all the information is presented.

 

His final conclusion that the Kentucky coal deposits were caused by Noah’s flood, leaves a lot to be desired.  He based this conclusion on the speculation that the coal beds were caused by flooding.  While this may be true, where’s the evidence to support that the flooding occurred in Kentucky during the time of Biblical Noah?  Where’s the evidence that the Kentucky flood was part of a flood that encompassed the entire Earth or even was near as deep as the flood described in the Bible?  Without some corroborating evidence, this is just wild speculation.  He might as well speculate that the coal deposits were the result of energy blasts from alien space ships.

Dr. Austin makes some good observations that should cause questions to be asked about the formation of Specimen Creek in the Yellowstone Petrified Forest and in fact many geologists are doing just that.  There is even further evidence not cited by Dr. Austin to support his view that the  fossil trees at Specimen Creek were not petrified were they grew, but were transported there from another location.

However, his final conclusions that Specimen Creek happened in a short period of time or as a result of Noah’s flood seem to be based on misrepresenting the facts and pure speculation.

 

Note: It's not the goal of this site to give negative reviews, but it is the goal of this site is to get to the truth.  If a source presents false or misleading information, then it is our obligation to point it out.  Everyone, including EpicIdiot, makes mistakes.  But there's a big difference between an honest mistake and intentionally misleading.  If a source appears to be intentionally presenting misleading information, then you should take everything they say with a grain of salt.  Besides, if you have a strong case for your point of view, why not present the information in a straightforward and accurate manner?  Resorting to misleading tactics shouldn't be necessary.

Are these innocent mistakes or intentionally misleading?  You decide.

See also

Dating of Geologic Layers

 

Viewer Feedback

2005-11-27 Anonymous wrote
Boring, Bogus
please put in some information!

epicidiot reply
Please specify the Bogus parts.  I will then attempt to either correct or clarify.  To quote another great mind, "please put in some information"
But sincerely, I do appreciate your comments and I will re-review this video and see if I can improve this article.


2005-12-12 corky (Young Earth Creationist) wrote
Boring


2006-01-10 bob parker (Young Earth Creationist) wrote
Boring, Bogus, Biased to Creation/ID


2006-01-18 Anonymous (Other (what does it matter :p)) wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced
Pretty interesting. I would like to see more info on what the book claims. All in all it seems like another pile of YEC nonsense.


2006-04-01 T iffany Hester, wrote
I really like it. It was very interesting. I have always what it would be like to go through something like that. I guess it would be very tragic. But I also want some information on it so I can present it to my class at school because we are lerning all about volcanoes and I want to find out ALL anout it cause it seems so interesting.
Display my e-mail address. [Ctdolphin11@aol.com]

Thank you.


2006-04-03 Anonymous, Theistic Evolutionist, wrote
So So, Factual, Biased to Creation/ID
You need not to bash and then not support of display the other side of the story. That article is like saying that the newspaper is not misleading. The article should be wrote with an open mind not a stub nose "this is correct becuase this is what I believe" come on.


2006-06-30 Atheistic Evolutionist wrote
Boring, Factual, Biased to Evolution
lest boring for younger people


2006-08-20 Theistic Evolutionist wrote
Interesting, Factual, Fair and Balanced


2006-08-22 amalia, Young Earth Creationist wrote
So So, Bogus, Biased to Creation/ID


2007-01-11 kelly, Atheistic Evolutionist, wrote
Boring, Bogus
buy not writing anything.

Add your Comments
Submit a Rebuttal
Submit an Article on another topic

 


 

 


Want YOUR Opinion Known?

What did you think about this article?

I consider myself a:
Young Earth Creationist
Old Earth Creationist
Theistic Evolutionist
Atheistic Evolutionist
No Opinion
Other 
 

This Article was:
Boring
So so
Interesting
No Opinion
 
This Article was:
Bogus
Factual
I'm not sure of the accuracy
No Opinion
 
This Article was:
Biased to Creation/ID
Biased to Evolution
Fair and Balanced
No Opinion
 

How would You improve this article?
What topics would you like to see added?
What did you NOT like about this article
Other Comments


Show my comments on the page

Your Name (optional) 
Your Email (optional) 
Note: Your Email address will NOT be displayed.
If you want your Email displayed, put it in the comments.

Enter the Code   


Updated 04/03/2006 copyright 2005 EpicIdiot.com Contact Info
Hosted by Yahoo! Web Hosting