How old is the Grand Canyon

[Jim]

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

 

 

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

 

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment

 

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

 

 

 

[EWolfe]

The idiocy of this is only exceeded by the audacity of the claim.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

What's the big controversy? Everyone knows it's only 6,000 years old, just like the rest of the world!

[Cobra_Commander]

"Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan"

[tvashtarkatena]

Last time I was there there was tons of information in the visitor center giving the age of each geological layer.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Tons of secular MIS-information, you mean. The Parks Service is a filthy den of anti-religious liberal bigots in league with the homosexual agenda and the Hillary '08 campaign. They want everyone in America to eat tofu and have mandatory gay sex in the Yellowstone visitors' center bathrooms!

[stinkyclimber]

I don't doubt that theo-con Bush appointees have pulled a lot of this kind of shit. But I always wonder who leaks these kinds of stories and how true they are.

 

I checked out the NPS site on Grand Canyon. See the FAQs section of the website :

 

How old is the Canyon?

 

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young.

 

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

 

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada.

 

Of course, it doesn't mean that Bush and the majority of Americans think the world is only 6000 years old. This billions of years thing is clearly a goddless, tax-and-spend liberal myth.

[bstach]

"Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan"

 

"Science is the new religion". Discuss.

 

e.g. "Theory" of evolution taught as fact, despite significant gaps in the fossil record and supporting evidence.

[JayB]

Is this the oxymoronic statement thread? Here's a few:

 

"Promiscuity is the new chastity."

"Starvation is the new gluttony."

"Corruption is the new integrity."

 

 

[NealH]

. . . the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces . . .

 

Why can't they just tell the real truth? The Grand Canyon was clearly created by Paul Bunyan dragging his axe behind him.

 

[counterfeitfake]

Science is our attempt to understand the universe. When done correctly there isn't right and wrong science, there is just less complete and more complete science. If evolution is being taught as a fact, someone is badly missing the point.

 

Science and religion should be orthogonal to one another. Science is by definition about what we can prove with evidence, and religion is by definition about what we cannot prove and must believe without evidence.

[Seahawks]

Funny thing here is everyone thinks they know how old it is but reality is nobody does becuase nobody was there. Any age given is only a theory. Bottom line is no one knows.

[Cobra_Commander]

but some people have a better idea than others.

[underworld]

no, it looks like they have it pretty nailed down.... 2000000000 years old. now, is that 1 significant digit or 10?

[counterfeitfake]

Funny thing here is everyone thinks they know how old it is but reality is nobody does becuase nobody was there. Any age given is only a theory. Bottom line is no one knows.

 

I might object to the admins giving out disparaging nicknames in principle, but in practice I don't really see anything wrong with it.

[olyclimber]

Well, JESUS was there. Somebody should call him up and ask him how old the damn hole in the ground is. Or maybe Santa knows. Just send a letter to the North Pole.

[Seahawks]

but some people have a better idea than others.

 

Based on what?? That thier beliefs are more inline with yours?

All theories. No one really knows. That is the truth.

[olyclimber]

Thats an interesting theory Seahawk. But how do you KNOW no one knows? You fell on your own sword.

[Crux]

Science is our attempt to understand the universe. When done correctly there isn't right and wrong science, there is just less complete and more complete science. If evolution is being taught as a fact, someone is badly missing the point.

 

Science and religion should be orthogonal to one another. Science is by definition about what we can prove with evidence, and religion is by definition about what we cannot prove and must believe without evidence.

 

Noting counterfeit about this fake -- you are the real thing: No science. No religion. Just fake.

[Crux]

"Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan"

 

"Science is the new religion". Discuss.

 

e.g. "Theory" of evolution taught as fact, despite significant gaps in the fossil record and supporting evidence.

 

 

True that, Evolution is taught as though it were a fact. Sort of like Gravity and all that other theoretical shit.

 

BTW, I nominate bsatch for cretin of the year award. Discuss.

[counterfeitfake]

Science is our attempt to understand the universe. When done correctly there isn't right and wrong science, there is just less complete and more complete science. If evolution is being taught as a fact, someone is badly missing the point.

 

Science and religion should be orthogonal to one another. Science is by definition about what we can prove with evidence, and religion is by definition about what we cannot prove and must believe without evidence.

 

Noting counterfeit about this fake -- you are the real thing: No science. No religion. Just fake.

 

What... what? Your incoherence baffles me.

 

If you have an argument with what I said, state it. I DARE you to make sense.

[foraker]

Funny thing here is everyone thinks they know how old it is but reality is nobody does becuase nobody was there. Any age given is only a theory. Bottom line is no one knows.

 

Stating that everything we know is wrong isn't really a scientific argument, it's an assertion. The assertion that you've made is basically a cop out because it keeps you from having to educate yourself and understand something complex (not that radioactive dating is as complex as, say, string theory). No one is available now to verify if Jesus existed so Jesus is only a theory, right?

[Crux]

As real is to fake, so are genuine definitions to you -- speaking in orthogonal terms... My fucking g0d-damn almighty! I said it! I said "orthogonal" just like a real fake!

 

(Regarding science and religion, please see Stephen Jay Gould for edification.)

[sexual_chocolate]

Science and religion should be orthogonal to one another. Science is by definition about what we can prove with evidence, and religion is by definition about what we cannot prove and must believe without evidence.

 

 

-Why must we "believe" anything without evidence?

 

[Crux]

Unbelievable.