Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grand Canyon much older than previously thought
Reuters ^ | Thu Mar 6, 2008 | Will Dunham

Posted on 03/07/2008 12:18:12 PM PST by rosenfan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Grand Canyon, carved out over the eons by rushing river water, began to form 17 million years ago, making it nearly three times older than previously thought, scientists said on Thursday.

The general consensus among geologists had been that the famed natural landmark in Arizona was about 6 million years old.

But now University of New Mexico scientists say it is far older based on their findings using a technique called uranium-lead isotope to date mineral deposits in caves from nine sites in the canyon's walls.

The cave formations provided a record of a dropping water table as the canyon deepened.

The gorge is 277 miles long, 1.1 miles deep at its deepest point and up to 18 miles wide. The Colorado River that runs through it arises in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and flows southwest about 1,400 miles to the Gulf of California.

The scientists found that there is a kind of dual history to the canyon, with the western portion starting to form about 17 million years ago when water from a predecessor to the Colorado River began the slow, inexorable process of eroding the rock, they said.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: 17millionyearsbp; 55millionyearsbp; coloradoriver; geology; grandcanyon; uthhedating
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

I blame the sudden escalation in age of the Grand Canyon on Global Warming.

Without Global Warming, it would have been much younger.


61 posted on 03/07/2008 2:14:41 PM PST by MooseMan (Sarcasm included at no additional charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Look if the Earth is only 6000 years old, than it certainly was designed to look much older. Rather, humans can only measure the apparent age of the Earth.

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.

62 posted on 03/07/2008 2:26:53 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

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.


63 posted on 03/07/2008 2:35:38 PM PST by laterldf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

in the beginning how long was a day?? 1000 years???


64 posted on 03/07/2008 2:47:16 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

in the beginning how long was a day?? 1000 years???


65 posted on 03/07/2008 2:47:32 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan

As some people thought it was only 4000 years old, this is not surprising


66 posted on 03/07/2008 2:49:35 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Never say yer sorry, mister. It's a sign of weakness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

Don’t be a Gosse!


67 posted on 03/07/2008 2:53:41 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (Never say yer sorry, mister. It's a sign of weakness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan; All
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Grand Canyon, carved out over the eons by rushing river water, began to form 17 million years ago, making it nearly three times older than previously thought, scientists (emphasis mine) said on Thursday.

The problem that I have with such glaring miscalculations is that "scientists" evidently don't have evolution-related "facts" down to a science.

68 posted on 03/07/2008 2:59:08 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Don’t be a Gosse!

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.

69 posted on 03/07/2008 3:55:56 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
...then it actually was
70 posted on 03/07/2008 4:21:48 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9

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.


71 posted on 03/07/2008 4:27:32 PM PST by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan

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.


72 posted on 03/07/2008 4:29:25 PM PST by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beowulf9
Well, if carbon dating is that far off it makes you wonder about all these carbon dating results that is used to prove the evolution theories.

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.


73 posted on 03/07/2008 4:31:12 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: laterldf

I had to laugh when I saw that book being sold in the Grand Canyon gift shop one time I was there.


74 posted on 03/07/2008 4:56:08 PM PST by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
The problem that I have with such glaring miscalculations is that "scientists" evidently don't have evolution-related "facts" down to a science.

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.

75 posted on 03/07/2008 5:48:41 PM PST by rosenfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: DesertSapper
Assuming the world is 6,000 years old is probably just as UNscientific as these dolts who just changed their theories on the canyon's age by 11 million years.

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."

76 posted on 03/07/2008 5:56:10 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nachoman
If a bunch of geologists got together and agreed the Grand Canyon was 30 million years old, would that make it true?

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.

77 posted on 03/07/2008 6:30:04 PM PST by rosenfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan

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!


78 posted on 03/07/2008 6:49:14 PM PST by urabus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rosenfan; All
1) The age of the Grand Canyon has virtually nothing to do with evolution.

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.

79 posted on 03/07/2008 7:10:01 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
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.

80 posted on 03/07/2008 8:09:08 PM PST by rosenfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson