Posted on 03/07/2008 12:18:12 PM PST by rosenfan
I blame the sudden escalation in age of the Grand Canyon on Global Warming.
Without Global Warming, it would have been much younger.
If you want to make a philosophical case about how no deity would every create something to look older than it actually is, go ahead, it should be pretty entertaining.
Just finished reading “Over the edge: Death in the Grand Canyon” by Ghiglieri & Myers. It’s a fascinating account and listing of the known deaths (up to 2001) in, on, above, and around the rim. It mentions sthe Thelma and Louise effect after the movie came out.
More people have died from aircraft crashes than all other methods combined. The one thing that the authors did stress was the tremendous shaping of the canyons the flash floods have caused.
Lew, in Ks.
in the beginning how long was a day?? 1000 years???
in the beginning how long was a day?? 1000 years???
As some people thought it was only 4000 years old, this is not surprising
Don’t be a Gosse!
The problem that I have with such glaring miscalculations is that "scientists" evidently don't have evolution-related "facts" down to a science.
Before you mentioned him, I did not know who he was. Thus if you think I'm imitating him you are mistaken. Or do you think I should look up who he was and what he stood for and then pattern my life to be sufficiently dissimilar from his to not offend your sensibilities?
Perhaps, you could explain the philosophical basis for the assumption that no deity would ever create something to appear older then it actually does yourself? Maybe this will help me be less "Gosse-like" for whatever value there is in such a thing. Oh please boy of the Ostrich, enlighten this lil ol bear.
They used uranium-lead isotope not carbon dating. But there is nothing in the article that says they found flaws with any previous dating methods. It says they found new sources of material to test and they tested out older than previous samples.
Whenever there is an article like this posted folks jump up and say the creationists (defined as those believing the “days” of Genesis are 24 hr. each) are taking Genesis literally. Uh..no they aren’t. They are defining the term “day” as 24 hours and taking their definition literally.
The difference? Well, the term day can mean more than just 24 hrs. and from the Bible itself it’s clear that 24 hrs. is not meant here. Those “days” began after “In the beginning” during which time the heavens (everything beyond earth like stars) and earth are created. That leaves quite a bit time between “In the beginning” and “Let light come to be”. How much time may be of interest to scientists of today but there is no way whatsoever to determine it fron the account. And it is no importance to the length of the “days” that follow.
The “Earth Was Created 6,000 Years Ago” Creationists are defending a single meaning of a word and those attacking their position with big guns could blow it away with few breaths if they understood what was really being argued.
Beating on the other side may be fun but it doesn’t make them wrong.
Carbon dating is not used in evolutionary studies. It is limited to about 50,000 years ago, and to things that once were alive.
This article is dealing with another form of radiometric dating.
Here is a link to a very good article that will surely help you to understand the various radiometric dating techniques that are used:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
I had to laugh when I saw that book being sold in the Grand Canyon gift shop one time I was there.
1) The age of the Grand Canyon has virtually nothing to do with evolution.
2) Why are you putting the profession of these geologists in quotes? Do you have some reason to believe that they aren't real scientists?
3) You seem to have a problem with everything in science not being a "fact" that's set in stone. I refer you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method
Science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
There is absolutely nothing sacred in science, which is as it should be. This is a strength, not a weakness.
You are confusing the age of the canyon with the age of the rocks in the canyon, probably on purpose.
When it was carved has nothing to do with the age of the earth or the age of the rocks.
It's like revising the estimated time period when the glaciers carved Yosemite Park.
If you don't understand science, just eat the popcorn but refrain from calling the scientists "dolts."
Of course not, no more so than a bunch of priests getting together and agreeing that the universe was 6,000 years old would make it true.
On the other hand, if the geologists could present convincing evidence in peer-challenged scientific journals that the Grand Canyon was 30 million years old, why wouldn't you believe it?
Likewise, if the priests can present convincing evidence in peer-challenged scientific journals that the universe is only 6,000 years old, I'd be happy to believe that.
Mind you, they'd have to present far more evidence, since this would contradict virtually everything we know about physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc.
since the Earth is nearly 5 billion y.o., 17 million is no surprise... it took most of that 5b yrs just to lay down all of the mile deep rock strata! I agree with all the others who say you gotta go there to really see it, and to really really see it you have to hike to the bottom, believe me, it is well worth it!
The revised age of the Grand Canyon undoubtedly greatly throws off not only scientist's understanding of the timeline evolution of animals that have lived there, which includes the dating of fossils discovered there, but also their understanding of how the environment must have influenced the animals.
The fossils discovered in the Grand Canyon are far older than the canyon itself. Pushing the date at which the river started digging into the rock strata by 11 million years does not affect their dating in any way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.