How old is Grand Canyon? No Comment!

I have no problem with the grand canyon being 10,000 years old. But when a geologist produces an earth sample that shows it to be 10x older, i tend to believe it.

The earth cooling? That would be a very very bad thing my friend.

And now my favorite Ghandi quote in regards to the age of the Canyon:

"We human beings are capable of convincing ourselves of something thats not true after the accumulated evidence would convince any reasonable person that it's wrong"

Just what do the American version of the Taliban teach you guys? Evolutionary theory has never claimed one species changes into another. Evolutionary theory describes how species adapt to changing conditions. And yes you see it all around you, humans do it all the time to crops and animals. We chose what traits we want, large ears of corn vs small, large turkey breasts vs smaller ones, cows that produce more milk etc. by breeding plants and animals with the traits we want together and discarding those we don't. The only difference is that it happens in nature in response to environmental conditions as opposed to human meddling. Evolution happens all around us...can you say drug resistant viruses?

While I fully support anyone's choice to believe in Creationism and will defend that right if asked to, I also understand that it is a matter of faith, and not of science. The topic of this thread deals with science being displaced by faith. Galileo was jailed as a heretic because he stated that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which was contrary to Church teachings at the time. It was not until the 1980s that the Vatican finally admitted that they had wronged him. Yes, folks the Earth does indeed revolve around the Sun and now Galileo's soul is free from purgatory. The Vatican has also embraced the findings of Evolutionary scientists. There is nothing to say that God's hand didn't invent Evolution if you wish to believe that. Stating that Evolution doesn't happen however, would be a faith based claim and not a scientific one. There is plenty of proof of evolution, which is why the Vatican wisely agreed. Choosing to bury your head in the sand, and ignore the world around you, is still a viable choice. But it is a choice based on faith, and not on science. There is plenty of evidence, from various scientific methods, which document the age of the Grand Canyon in all its glory. To simply dismiss that is a shame, but to deny the right of others to learn, is unjust.


If you would like to find out about scientific proof of relatively recent Human Evolution take a look at this Thread here on ATS: Recent Proof of Human Evolution.

If you would like some science education on what heats the Earths core you can learn more at this link: Probing Question: What heats the Earths core?




[edit on 2-1-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Terapin]

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Terapin]

Creationist and early earth believers, do not have to prove anything like sciences does with scientific research.

All they have to do is use God and faith to prove that anything is possible.

That is why people with a littler bit of more open mind do not trust their conclusions.

The grand canyon was made by the will of God and that is prof enough.

Acording to some, The Grand Canyon was dug by Paul Bunyan and his blue Ox, Babe.
American Tales

Or was it Pecos Bill when he rode a Tornado How Rodeos got started

They are equaly as valid and everyone can choose to believe what they wish. The regulations of the National Park Service however make it clear that all educational sources must follow established scientific guidelines. That would rule out both the Creationist view, and poor ol' Paul and Pecos.

Can you back that up with some facts please?

He proably can, and will, and so will i.

Take a look see at this: talkorigins.org...

Read it. Please. Then answer back. Your welcome to present evidence too, but i would like you to make a rebuttal of mine before you do so.

This would be good reading too: talkorigins.org...

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Source

Why do so many Christians assume that what is stated in verse 2 happened immediately after what happened in verse 1? There could have been millions of years between those two verses. Yet so many Christians not only believe in a young earth, but they push this belief as an absolute. Young earth or old earth beliefs have noting to do with the Biblical message of salvation. This is ridiculous!

Well this is certainly silly...

Anyone with half a brain will admit that very few people actually believe the Grand Canyon, muchless the world, is 6000 years old. The proof is right there in front of them. If they choose to believe otherwise, so be it.

So a few scientifically challenged idiot hold a different view from the reality of the situation let them, to say they are in the minority would be to overstate the case.

What's happened to all our tolerance for unconventional viewpoints all of the sudden? Or is our toleration only when we agree with the minority viewpoint? Hmmm...? Not that I agree mind you, but seriously, a viewpoint so out of whack will, IMHO, do little or no damage. The reason for Americas lack of young scientists or wanna be scientists, is not whacked out fringers, but IQ challenged school boards who allow science classes to be electives rather than requirements.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by seagull]

It's even more ridiculous to have a censorship policy because of a few fringe groups, where now the whole shall remain stupid and not be given any information.


Planet of chimps here we come...got nanas?!

While I certainly understand and share the frustration of many on these boards when hard science is scoffed at to a certain degree by those of faith, I'm once again suprised and put off by the level of condescention and arrogance by those who would state that hard science has all the answers, and should not be questioned simply because it's science.

So to those who are complaining about this situation, I ask, how old is the Grand Canyon?

Because we all know science is infallible, so we should be able to radiologically date the grand canyon, right?

So why is it when we do so, using three different but supposedly reliable radiological methods, Pottassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, and Samarium-Neodymium dating, do we get three vastly different ages for the grand canyon?

Now I'm not advocating the censorship of hard scientific data, nor am I promoting the idea that creationists are right and the grand canyon is only 6,000 years old, but let's drop the condescention and calling of anyone who doesn't buy into the official scientific findings of the day as stupid or ignorant. That's not a very intellectual nor productive way to engage in a debate or discussion.

Solution: Compare fossilized records, agree and move on.

www.kaibab.org...

This isn't Nazi Germany nor are the park rangers the gestapo. Are we going to burn books next? I think mass insanity is more of a major problem than dating some rocks. I'd like to know who is teaching people to take the Bible literally and making it void to interpretations. Science has provided us with many answers, or we might be still freezing our butts huddled around a dung fueled campfire and having no clue about much of anything.

This all reminds me of the song American Dreaming.

________

Btw: fallible means liable to be erroneous or false like human ideas, and thus science "is not" infallible but it's close as we can reproduce experiments with accuracy.



[edit on 19-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

well im absolutely dumfounded and well not suprised but never thought this would come under creationism debate.


mmm lets see then, how old is the grand canyon??? well its simple as the grand canyon is only a very very very deep river?? simple?? should be I thought...

How old is the colarado river?? thats all the grand canyon is... the colarado river over eon and eon cutting into and wearing away the limestone beneath it, if you go back to when the grand canyon was in its infancy you would have found a river (the colarado) doing its thing snaking over the land until a waterfall appeared, maybe just 2-3 feet lower than the surrounding river, you would notice then as you followed this river from the waterfall that all points past this waterfall were lower on the river too, the waterfall marks the boundary where the Collarado river first met the malleable limestone after harder rocks, so it slowly dissolved and was washed away until you have the amazing canyon as you do today.

Well as for the earth being only 6000 years old, well thats strange as over 2 billion of the earths history has been revealed in the rocks as the river cuts deeper and deeper into the earth, thats about at least 1/3 of the earths history.. though I suppose god put it there to test my faith???

The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years). The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone which was laid down as sand dunes in a desert and several parts of the Supai Group.

Source WikiPedia

regards

Elf

All science should be questioned and challenged, that's what good science does...it raises fullly as many questions as it answers.

This sort of thing, the push to ban telling how old the Grand Canyon is and other equally silly things, are the work of a fringe minority, which unfortunately seem to have an all too large a roll withing policy making decisions, but only for the moment.

The larger problem is the dumbing down of our public education system. Which seems to want to concentrate on esteem issues rather than education. As a result...we've got a bunch of kids who think they're the bee's knees (indigo children, anyone?), but all too many of whom cannot compete at any sort of high scholastic level, or maybe the proper word would be achieve.