Recently, I was discussing with a fellow believer some of the things in science and nature that validate many stories and Truths of the Bible which many scoffers regard as ridiculous myths. One such thing was that the Grand Canyon could quite possibly be something that validates the biblical narrative of the Great Flood. Some time later, she mentioned that there was someone who'd asked her for proof of this. Now, I'm not sure how she presented this to him in their conversation, but this is the exact type of thing I'm referring to when I say some things require a collection of knowledge in other matters and processes to be able to be known. Knowing is sometimes—oftentimes—a collection of knowing other related things.
The question he should have asked is: Is there any evidence for a global flood as told of in the Bible?
Let's endeavor to explore and lay this out.
One of the most telling things one would find if there ever was a global flood of sudden occurance would be a significant amount of things—once-living things in particular— smashed and buried, or fossilized, in the rock layers that would've been laid down by water. You'd see this all throughout the earth. The fact that we indeed find this isn't something that anyone can successfully refute. We find things that were once living on the earth, plants and animals, all around the world of ours.
So how can the Grand Canyon serve as evidence to support the story of the Great Flood we read about in Genesis 6:9-9:17?
The conventional "wisdom" is that the Grand Canyon is comprised of layers of rock and topography that took water millions of years to form. Hoever, we can consider the case of Mount Saint Helens in Skamania County, Washington and in particular by studying its catastrophic eruption that occurred on May 18th, 1980. Triggered by a 5.1 Richter scale earthquake deep beneath the mountain there was a lateral blast that completely tore off a side of the mountain. This violent eruption blasted off the north side of this enormous geological landmark at 300mph! The temperatures were well past 600°F and the event had packed 24 megatons of thermal energy. This was a serious event and it completely obliterated centuries-old trees from their rooted position with no effort at all. Any life and land that was in the path of the blast was completely helpless and destroyed on the spot.
What does Mt. Saint Helens and its eruption have to do with the Grand Canyon, and furthermore—the Great Flood of the Bible? The thing that's interesting and to note is that prior to this eruption, or the aftermath of it, really—scientists were beholden to the "fact" that geologic change was a slow process taking tens of thusands of years, if not millions. However, with what happened at Mount Saint Helens and the aftermath effecting the area, we were witnesses to tour planet's surface undergoing a remarkable change and at a rapid pace! What we, and of course educated and formally-trained geologists, saw were phenomena like icebergs being buried in the avalanche material that slid down the mountainside and across the land. The result of this was that the ice melted and almost immediately formed badlands. It was a matter of days, not centuries or millennia.
By mid June the mudflows began to cut canyons 100ft deep into soft sand and mud. What made these canyons highly similar to the Grand Canyon were the perpendicular side canyons that were observed, but just at a much smaller scale. We can say it produced a mini Grand Canyon. It's important to keep in mind that this mini Grand Canyon was produced in only a matter of hours.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens was one of the most significant geological disasters in modern North American history. The event drastically reshaped the surrounding landscape, causing extensive ecological and geomorphological changes in hours, and then more in days, and in the subsequent years even more significant changes would occur.
Let's get a bit technical and speak the language of a geologist to fully get a picture of just how catastrophic this eruption was.
The eruption was triggered by a 5.1-magnitude earthquake, which caused a massive debris avalanche—the largest ever recorded. This sudden decompression led to a violent lateral blast, ejecting superheated gases, ash, and fragmented rock at speeds exceeding 1,000 km/h (620 mph). The blast zone extended 19 miles (30 km) northward, decimating nearly 230 square miles of forest in an instant. This event represents a classic example of a directed blast, a rare and extremely destructive volcanic phenomenon.
The eruption column rose over 80,000 feet (24 km) into the stratosphere, dispersing ash across multiple U.S. states. Ash deposits blanketed regions as far east as North Dakota, affecting air travel, agriculture, and respiratory health. The fine-grained tephra (volcanic ash and rock fragments) also contributed to lahar formation and secondary erosion events.
The sector collapse of the mountain's north flank removed 2.5 cubic km (0.67 cubic miles) of material, drastically reducing Mount St. Helens' summit from 9,677 feet (2,950 m) to 8,363 feet (2,549 m). The avalanche, composed of volcanic rock, glacial ice, and groundwater-saturated debris, traveled over 14 miles (22 km), filling valleys with hummocky deposits and altering river drainage systems.
Following the lateral blast, multiple pyroclastic flows (fast-moving clouds of hot gas and volcanic material) raced down the slopes, reaching temperatures above 700°C (1300°F). These flows obliterated everything in their path and contributed to the formation of the Pumice Plain, a barren landscape of unconsolidated volcanic deposits.
The sudden melting of glaciers and snowfields generated massive lahars (volcanic mudflows), which surged through river valleys at speeds of up to 50 mph (80 km/h). The largest lahars inundated the Toutle River, causing catastrophic flooding and permanently altering sediment transport dynamics in the region. The Columbia River, a major waterway, experienced significant sedimentation, disrupting navigation and hydrology.
The collapse of the north flank exposed the mountain's interior, leaving a horseshoe-shaped crater nearly 2 miles (3.2 km) wide. In the following years, dacitic lava domes began forming within the crater as the volcano continued its post-eruption eruptive cycle.
The landscape continues to evolve due to heavy rainfall, which erodes the loose pyroclastic and lahar deposits.
Biological Succession: The once-devastated area has become an extraordinary natural laboratory for studying primary succession, as life slowly reclaims the volcanic wasteland.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens remains a benchmark event in volcanology, illustrating the devastating interplay between geologic forces and the biosphere.
For those who so arrogantly dismiss the Bible's account of the Great Flood, waving away historical and geological evidence with smug confidence, it's curious how little actual research they seem to have done, and are often left with a look of surpise when presented with what I've just laid out in the paragraphs above. They're totally unprepared and caught off guard by the fact that a Bible-believing Christian is in possession with facts, data, physics and geological science that goes agains their fast-held idea of Christians being moronic myth-believing "science deniers". Before absorbing such postulations regarding the Great Canyon as it related to the Great Flood, they readily scoff at the idea that catastrophic events could have rapidly shaped the Earth's landscape in this way. Well, as some elders say: "when you speak, you show your mind". However, it's clear that they either don't know or are ignoring clear, observable evidence that proves otherwise. Maybe they just don't know how to see.
Not to be redundant or beat a dead horse (the horse is dead, isn't it?) but the eruption of Mount St. Helens, in mere days, produced mudflows that carved through solid rock, creating canyons hundreds of feet deep. Fallen trees accumulated on Spirit Lake, dropping bark to the lake bottom, forming up to three feet of peat in just a couple of years. Some of these trees sank vertically. If you're familiar with the so-called "fossil forests" of Yellowstone, these were a formation that is strikingly similar. Yet we're told that these features must have taken countless millennia to form.
The fact is, and it's been shown, that it doesn't take millions of years to form canyons or stratified layers of sediment. The assumption that rivers slowly erode rock over vast time spans is not based on observation but rather on a blind adherence to outdated uniformitarian thinking. The evidence suggests otherwise. Modern rivers do not generally cut deep into solid rock, yet we see massive canyons all over the Earth. The Great Flood, as described in the Bible, offers a far more plausible explanation—torrential water flows carving through soft, newly deposited sediment, later solidifying into the landscapes we see today. Those who reject this explanation should at least attempt to provide an alternative that is backed by actual observable data rather than ideological assumptions.
If you have ever watched rain carve miniature canyons into mud within minutes, then you've seen the principles at work. At Mount St. Helens, a single mudflow cut Engineer's Canyon 100 feet deep in just one day. LeWitt and Step Canyons, also on Mount St. Helens, were carved into solid rock in just a few years. How, then, can anyone insist that the Grand Canyon must have taken millions of years to form when we have clear evidence that catastrophic processes carve rock far more efficiently than slow erosion ever could?
Consider the evidence of massive lakes upstream of the Grand Canyon. If the canyon had always existed, these lakes would never have formed in the first place. But if they accumulated after Noah's Flood and eventually broke through, carving a path through the newly deposited sediment, we would expect to find surge deposits downstream—and indeed, we do! It's not speculation; it's straightforward, observable science. The idea that deep canyons require millions of years to form is a belief, not an empirical fact.
Likewise, the formation of fossils does not require vast eons. The Creation Museum, for example, displays a fossilized fish caught in the act of eating another fish. I think we can safely say that an event like this clearly didn't unfold over millions of years, or can we? The fish was buried rapidly, just as we would expect from a catastrophic event like the Flood. What other explanations are there?
Similarly, wood can become petrified in mere days, as demonstrated by researchers in Washington state who replicated the process in a lab. Here's a link to a secular article, the actual lab in fact, regarding this process's discovery. Here's another one.
Yet, some still cling to the dogma that petrification requires ages. Why? Because it fits their narrative, not because the evidence supports it.
What are their thoughts on things such as the undeniable case of man-made objects embedded in rock—such as a spark plug, clearly not millions of years old. Should we believe that ancient "ape-men" drove around in chariots powered by internal combustion engines millions of years ago? Or is it more logical to conclude that rock does not require eons to form? The evidence speaks for itself, yet some will continue to reject it, not because of science, but because of their unwillingness to consider the implications.
