How old is the Grand Canyon

[sexual_chocolate]

SC... some people see everything around them as proof of god (or a god)

 

you believe (without seeing it), i imagine...that there was some big bang or some other scientific explaination for the creation of what is around them.

 

others, while they might believe there is some scientific explainiation for the creation of all that is around them - also believe there is a higher power (god) that had a hand in it all too.

 

it's all a choice in what you consider to be "proof"

 

 

i suppose i could call a self-eating watermelon a snaffle-hound too, but that really wouldn't make much sense without a rectal thermometer.

[counterfeitfake]

is this possible, certainly just look at Mt. Saint Helens mini Grand canyon. Point is no one knows, just guesses. every theory is possible.

 

Over 200 isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural "lava dams" blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah . Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least 13 distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the 13 dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contain within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time-frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age time-scale of the Pleistocene Epoch.

 

Credit your sources you plagiarising fuckwit.

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB has the right tack: ridicule you without getting sucked into a pointless, and ultimately fruitless, 'debate'.

 

reason over ridicule.

 

i think ridicule is only ever needed when one doesn't have a firm grasp of one's own understanding.

[underworld]

JayB has the right tack: ridicule you without getting sucked into a pointless, and ultimately fruitless, 'debate'.

 

reason over ridicule.

 

i think ridicule is only ever needed when one doesn't have a firm grasp of one's own understanding.

 

...says the ridicule'er

[counterfeitfake]

LOL ever read the big bang theory or do you just take parts you want??? Big bang theory doesn't say there was something here before. Since your so smart you tell me where the matter came from??? It magically appeared??? Come on are you that stupid you can't open your eyes. Blinded by your text books. Talk about faith in something that is so stupid.

 

Wrong, science is agnostic about what existed before the big bang. Current science can't even explain what happened immediately following the big bang. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[Cobra_Commander]

I'd like to know, in the history of the internet, how many opinions have been changed.

[E-rock]

is this possible, certainly just look at Mt. Saint Helens mini Grand canyon. Point is no one knows, just guesses. every theory is possible.

 

Over 200 isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural "lava dams" blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah . Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least 13 distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the 13 dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contain within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time-frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age time-scale of the Pleistocene Epoch.

 

Do you even know WHAT these paragraphs, which you cut-and-pasted from the internet, are about? It apppears as though you're trying to present this information as an alternative theory of the Grand Canyon's age, which it is not. This body of research, which happens to have been generated by FRIENDS of mine from the University of Utah, among others, only argues that lava-daming episodes in the Grand Canyon, based on Ar-Ar ages of basalts, and cosmogenic dating of dam-burst deposits were shorter-lived, and more catostrophic, than was originally described in older models based on K-Ar dating and faulty geomorphologic assumptions.

 

This body of research says nothing about the overall age of the Grand Canyon EXCEPT that it had to have existed at the beginning of the Pleistocene (~1.8 Ma) in a state similar to its modern appearance (i.e. it was already a big, deep canyon). Indeed this fact had to be ASSUMED for this research to have even been pursued.

 

 

P.S. the volcanic crater on Mt. St. Helens is not analogous to a mini Grand Canyon because it was created by an EXPLOSION, duh.

Edited January 12, 2007 by E-rock

[counterfeitfake]

i don't think "science" is simply an attempt to "model" the "world", using numerical and conceptual language; it's also the simple act of observation, and noting patterns and such, and noting how one observable event leads to another etc etc, very pre-lingual. i think the capacity for this in its most rudimentary level is an inborn capacity, notable in our animal brethren also. with our ability to abstract through the use of symbols, and develop a conceptual web at times entirely divorced from "observable" verification, i think "science" then can reach dangerously close to the very attributes of "religion" that it at times purports to revile.

 

plus there's always the possibility that one will, in a naive and blind-faith manner, cling to "science" in an infantile manner, simply touting one's faith without a deep understanding of what "science" really is. this prejudice is easily noted in our society, and certainly here on this bb?

 

There's an obvious dichotomy between the tenets of religions, and the actions of those who profess to believe in those religions. Sometimes the two can be very divergent.

 

So too with science and it's followers.

[E-rock]

Also, one does not "believe" in science. Good science (which is often foregone in the struggle for funding) requires a LACK of conviction or belief.

 

 

[Dr_Flush_Amazing]

 

It would take a lot of poop to fill up the grand canyon.

 

 

[counterfeitfake]

I'd like to know, in the history of the internet, how many opinions have been changed.

 

In the history of humans, how many opinions have been changed? I think it happens occasionally. But the internet seems to make it much easier to be rude and dismissive to another's point of view.

[tvashtarkatena]

You're all right, more or less, about what science is. Three aspects that are missing here so far are a) the dynamic nature of b) the human element embodied within and c) the predictive requirement of the practice of science.

 

Science in inherently dynamic, in that early theories tend to spring from the abstract (arcane mathematics, philosophy) or from unexplained observation. Early theories can appear to be religious in nature, and are sometimes heavily influenced by actual religion, because they have not been tested, are nearly always a partial explanation, and are often so outrageous as to be difficult for society to accept. As a theory progresses, however, it is either discarded or accepted as it passes more and more tests of its validity.

 

Science is also a human endeavor. Some research gets funded, some doesn't. Some researchers are persecuted, some aren't. Knowledge is lost in social upheavels and rediscovered.

 

Finally, it is not enough for a theory to be verified repeatably through experimentation; the theory must also make testable predictions. No theory is ever really 'complete', but some theories make better predictions and survive rigorous testing better than others.

 

Evolution is one of the most sound, tested theories we have today, and it's also a great example to illustrate these points. When it first came to Darwin, he waited many years to write it up, in part because, with his low key personality, he dreaded the controversy and publicity it was certain to generate, rather than for any sound, scientific reason. He was also concerned that, while his theory fit observation and made excellent predictions, he had no idea what internal mechanisms were at work in determining an organism's characteristics (nor would anyone until the discovery of DNA). Well, his theory has, so far, stood the test of time, including the accretion of the whole new field of genetics. We have observed evolution in countless species large and small, and predicted the outcome of evolving populations over and over. Combined with genetics, evolution comes as near as any theory to providing a complete explanation of a basic natural phenomenon. It does not answer 'why', of course. That's for the philosopher in all of us to decide.

[Seahawks]

is this possible, certainly just look at Mt. Saint Helens mini Grand canyon. Point is no one knows, just guesses. every theory is possible.

 

Over 200 isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural "lava dams" blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah . Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least 13 distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the 13 dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contain within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time-frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age time-scale of the Pleistocene Epoch.

 

Do you even know these paragraphs, which you cut-and-pasted from the internet, are about? It apppears as though you're trying to present this information as an alternative theory of the Grand Canyon's age, which it is not. This body of research, which happens to have been generated by FRIENDS of mine from the University of Utah, among others, only argues that lava-daming episodes in the Grand Canyon, based on Ar-Ar ages of basalts, and cosmogenic dating of dam-burst deposits were shorter-lived, and more catostrophic, than was originally described in older models based on K-Ar dating and faulty geomorphologic assumptions.

 

This body of research says nothing about the overall age of the Grand Canyon EXCEPT that it had to have existed at the beginning of the Pleistocene (~1.8 Ma) in a state similar to its modern appearance (i.e. it was already a big, deep canyon). Indeed this fact had to be ASSUMED for this research to have even been pursued.

 

 

P.S. the volcanic crater on Mt. St. Helens is not analogous to a mini Grand Canyon because it was created by an EXPLOSION, duh.

 

Since you need it spelled out to you, topic was how old it was. And since everyone thinks that layer represent millions of year, there are other theories. You can't prove yours and you can't prove mine. You want to call me a dumbshit and and I want to call dumbass. Point is nothing can be proved. Like I said previously let just hope your cocky ass is right. But don't try to tell me that it is absolute becuase that is bullshit and the best debaters in the world can't prove this shit. You have your faith in something and I beleive something else.

 

Laughable part is that you say you have friend who wrote this, lol whoa guess we will beleive you becuase of that. Your a fucking lier. It was written by SCOTT H. RUGG and STEVEN A. AUSTIN. Are they your friends?? no,, suck ass.

 

 

Several important geologic features, which have been previously overlooked, give strong indication that the Pleistocene lava dams of the western Grand Canyon formed rapidly and were destroyed catastrophically within several tens to hundreds of years after formation. We believe that the entire span of time from the formation of the first dam to the destruction of the last dam could have transpired over a time-frame of less than 2000 years. We consider our time estimate to be generous, leaving open the probability that the total time-frame could have been considerably less.

It is undisputed, by even uniformitarian geologists, that the several single flow lava dams formed in a length of time as little as several hours to days. The larger multiple flow dams (consisting of 3 to over 40 flows) are commonly stacked one atop the other with no signs of significant erosion. Although it is clear that in many instances interflow erosion has occurred, we have shown that the presence of interflow gravels actually indicates catastrophic flooding, rapid erosion, and deposition, and, therefore, does not require us to accommodate hundreds to thousands of years for these erosional features. Catastrophic flooding is clearly represented by the coarse cross-bedded gravel on top of Gray Ledge remnants.

The most convincing evidence that the dams where short-lived structures is the presence of relatively small isolated depositionally-intact aggraded delta deposits within tributary drainages of the eastern and central Grand Canyon. The fact that these relatively uneroded deposits occur within the most active erosive areas, and the absence of lake deposits on the least erosive areas (Tonto Platform and protected side canyons), reveals that the larger lava-dam lakes were not in existence long enough to allow for complete sediment infilling. The small quantity of delta deposits that are present could have accumulated easily in less than one hundred years.

Hamblin [6] believes that 13 separate lava dams once blocked the inner gorge. The relative age of the 7 older dams were determined by only two overlap relationships. This allows for the possibility that several of these dams may have coexisted as a complex mega-dam structure . The presence of tephra deposits within several dam remnants is hard evidence that several of the dams coexisted.

K-Ar dates for many of the lava dams are out of sequence from that determined by juxtaposition. These essentially "impossible" dates show the difficulty in assessing the sequence of the dam remnants, and reveals the possibility that many of the correlations proposed by Hamblin may be in error. Furthermore, a sample of Toroweap Dam retrieved and dated in this study yielded dates of 3.1, 3.4 and 20.7 Ma, which are significantly older then the date (1.8 Ma) of the oldest dam (Prospect) determined in Hamblin’s study. Either Hamblin’s dates should be much older or the samples of Toroweap dam contain excess argon. In any case, the K-Ar dates obtained in this and Hamblin studies reveal the inherent problems of this dating method, casting doubt on the standard interpretation of 1.8 Ma for the Pleistocene Epoch.

The presence of lava-dam remnants near the present level of the Colorado River reveals that the canyon has undergone only negligible deepening since the time the dams originally formed. Furthermore, the normal flow of the Colorado River has not appreciably widened the inner gorge. Under a uniformitarian interpretation, this means that the Grand Canyon has not undergone appreciable erosion at least for the 1.8 million year period of the Pleistocene. A better interpretation [1] would be that the Grand Canyon is a relic flood-formed feature, and, likewise, that the lava dams were short-lived, catastrophically formed and eroded features.

[counterfeitfake]

Well said. Good science attempts to remove human biases from the picture, but it's unavoidably a human effort just like everything else we do. So good science is hard.

[tvashtarkatena]

You want to call me a dumbshit and and I want to call dumbass.

 

Wow. You've proven that scientists sometimes disagree. Revolutionary.

 

Is "DUMBASS" a help line?

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB has the right tack: ridicule you without getting sucked into a pointless, and ultimately fruitless, 'debate'.

 

reason over ridicule.

 

i think ridicule is only ever needed when one doesn't have a firm grasp of one's own understanding.

 

...says the ridicule'er

 

you're right, my apologies.

 

In other words, sans ridicule, i think you made the word "proof" meaningless by ascribing it to situations where the variables in the equation had no quantifiable locus, beyond rhetoric.

[E-rock]

is this possible, certainly just look at Mt. Saint Helens mini Grand canyon. Point is no one knows, just guesses. every theory is possible.

 

Over 200 isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural "lava dams" blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah . Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least 13 distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the 13 dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contain within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time-frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age time-scale of the Pleistocene Epoch.

 

Do you even know these paragraphs, which you cut-and-pasted from the internet, are about? It apppears as though you're trying to present this information as an alternative theory of the Grand Canyon's age, which it is not. This body of research, which happens to have been generated by FRIENDS of mine from the University of Utah, among others, only argues that lava-daming episodes in the Grand Canyon, based on Ar-Ar ages of basalts, and cosmogenic dating of dam-burst deposits were shorter-lived, and more catostrophic, than was originally described in older models based on K-Ar dating and faulty geomorphologic assumptions.

 

This body of research says nothing about the overall age of the Grand Canyon EXCEPT that it had to have existed at the beginning of the Pleistocene (~1.8 Ma) in a state similar to its modern appearance (i.e. it was already a big, deep canyon). Indeed this fact had to be ASSUMED for this research to have even been pursued.

 

 

P.S. the volcanic crater on Mt. St. Helens is not analogous to a mini Grand Canyon because it was created by an EXPLOSION, duh.

 

Since you need it spelled out to you, topic was how old it was. And since everyone thinks that layer represent millions of year, there are other theories. You can't prove yours and you can't prove mine. You want to call me a dumbshit and and I want to call dumbass. Point is nothing can be proved. Like I said previously let just hope your cocky ass is right. But don't try to tell me that it is absolute becuase that is bullshit and the best debaters in the world can't prove this shit. You have your faith in something and I beleive something else.

 

Laughable part is that you say you have friend who wrote this, lol whoa guess we will beleive you becuase of that. Your a fucking lier. It was written by SCOTT H. RUGG and STEVEN A. AUSTIN. Are they your friends?? no,, suck ass.

 

Are you 15 years old? You just demonstrated that you don't understand what your linked article is about, ONCE AGAIN.

 

Seahawks, what I said, "This body of research, which happens to have been generated by FRIENDS of mine from the University of Utah, among others" holds 100% true. To wit, my friends:

 

Fenton, Cassandra, R. J Poreda, Barbara Nash, Robert Webb, and T. E. Cerling, 2004, Geochemical discrimination of five Pleistocene lava-dam outburst-flood deposits, Grand Canyon. Journal of Geology, 112, 91–110.

 

Fenton, C. R., R. H. Webb, P. A. Pearthree, T. E. Cerling, R. J. Poreda, and B. P. Nash, 2004, Cosmogenic 3He dating of western Grand Canyon basalts: implications for Quaternary incision of the Colorado River. In: Young, R.A., and Spamer, E.E., eds., The Colorado River: Origin and Evolution, Grand Canyon Association Monograph 12, 147–152.

 

Fenton, Cassandra M., Cerling, Thure E., Nash, Barbara P., Webb, Robert, and Poreda, Robert J., 2001, Cosmogenic 3He ages and geochemical discrimination of lava dam outburst-flood deposits in western Grand Canyon, Arizona. In: House, P. K. et al., Ancient Floods, Modern Hazards: Principles and Applications of Paleoflood Hydrology. American Geophysical Union,191-215.

 

Your link is merely to a paper written by some highly-payed "creation scientists" who pirated the the work of others and attempted to place a more jesus-friendly interpretation on the results.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2007 by E-rock

[counterfeitfake]

ridicule, ridiculer, ridiculest...

 

 

 

i'm the ridiculist.

[counterfeitfake]

check out my icon!

[Crux]

Seagawk flopping like a halibut on deck. Somebody please, with a baseball bat.

[sexual_chocolate]

oh my god, i have hair growing on my penile shaft!

[tvashtarkatena]

E Rock, first of all, welcome back. Second of all, and by now I'm sure you're on to this, you're seriously debating the absolute dumbest partial birth abortion survivor on the planet on one of the infinity of subjects about which he knows nothing. And that is a scientific fact.

[E-rock]

oh my god, i have hair growing on my penile shaft!

 

You're attempted pickup did not go unoticed, though you already admitted previously that you don't have hair on the shaft, so I'm not gonna stick around to find out the hard way.

[tvashtarkatena]

Seagawk flopping like a halibut on deck. Somebody please, with a baseball bat.

 

Oh, we've tried. Seagal!

[sexual_chocolate]

did you know the bonobos initiate sex on the average of once every 1.5 hours?