 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Cruiser Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:17 PM Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology "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 parr..." "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.'" HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY _____________________________________________________________________ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:26 PM These kinds of stupid things happen every time there is a conservative administration. There was a lot of idiocy that went into effect under Regan as well. Plus, the administration gets to fool around with the federal employee's health benefits. Democratic administrations let fed employees buy birth control or get abortions with their health insurance. Abortions are out with the Republicans, and birth control might be iffy. . . SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: skipy Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:41 PM What total & utter bollox!, promise me that I have not just read that shite! Skipy. as old as my bones & a little older than my teeth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:48 PM Actually, the Grand Canyon was created by the Civilian Conservation Corps and was finished on September 21, 1938. There was a small ceremony. Details are hidden away in the National Archives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:54 PM Is it any wonder we still have religious wars? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:03 PM Wait a minute! How could the Grand Canyon have been created by Noah's flood? God didn't even know the American continents existed until Columbus found them just a little over 500 years ago! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: JeremyC Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:04 PM Er, if this is true, please explain this. (and a copy/paste for the lazy)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: JeremyC Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM Doesn't sound like "agnostic on geology" to me, especially considering this is right there in the visitor information for all to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: katlaughing Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:13 PM I know we just had a thread on this in the past month, but I can't find it anywhere and do not remember the name of it. It has even more info on how limited the Park Service is in what they can and cannot say and also about how they've been waiting years for a creationist book they have to sell to be reviewed so that they may not have to sell it anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:57 PM It's just propaganda put out by the Civilian Conservation Corps back in the 1930s. It's really all FDR's fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: John Hardly Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:55 PM It's a little known fact, but the reason it was no big deal when Eval Kneval jumped the Grand Canyon is because his jump was antedeluvian. I had an Auntie Deluvian once. She drank like a leviathon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Cruiser Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:59 PM kat: I searched for that thread also and did not find it. This is a recent update from PEER so it is new information. This is another example of the Bush fallout over science versus religion. I have a relative that is an extremely intelligent Air Force Officer. He pilots one of the large aircraft that refuels jets in flight. He "believes" this information and that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, at the most. He is a fine, brilliant man and can talk on any advanced subject in math or science that you want; except when his religious beliefs are challenged he will not yield. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Bert Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:59 PM Actually the Grand Canyon is a HOLE it is a lack of ground. It is therefore by definition NOTHING and so it cannot have an age. SO THERE!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM Sure is something, that nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: John Hardly Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:19 PM Adam: "God, that's beautiful!!!" God: "Aw, 'twern't nothin'" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM God didn't even know the American continents existed until Columbus found them just a little over 500 years ago! Visitors who examine closely will find that most of the Grand Canyon is done in blue pencil - i.e. it's an after the fact edit. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM Ya see, if God had known about the Americas before Columbus discovered the place, the aboriginal inhabitants would have been wearing gabardine suits and yarmulkes instead of loincloths and feathers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:38 PM So how old is it? I mean, what is the latest educated guess on that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: pdq Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:41 PM It was there when I was a kid, that's for sure. I saw it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:42 PM Which makes it reasonably old? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: John Hardly Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:44 PM "...the aboriginal inhabitants would have been wearing gabardine suits and yarmulkes" That'd make it right hard to throw those boomarang things, wouldn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: pdq Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:51 PM Your yarmulke falls off your head when you throw a boomarang. Probably have to go Reform to join the national boomarang team. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM I have to than John Hardly for teaching me a new word that I should have known long ago - I didn't know that "antediluvian" meant the period before Noah's flood. Makes me wonder why I studied Latin for six years and still stayed so dumb. Thanks, John. So, I thought the Canyon was mainly the result of erosion from lots of floods. Was it tectonic movement instead, or what? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Bunnahabhain Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:04 PM There are a range of scientific estimates of the Canyons age. Either it's about 5 million years old, as indicated by a sedementary sequence to the west of the Colorado Plateau, or it's 17-20 million years old, as that's when the Plateau started uplifting, and so when the river would start cutting down. The river will have changed course in response to the uplift of the plateau, so at some point the main channel will have been in what is now a side canyon, and different course change the age estimate. Trying to sort out what happened is rather like trying do do a crypic crossword, with most of the clues missing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: pdq Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM Joe, You probably took Latin so you could tell if a girl was third declension neuter or whether she could be conjugated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:18 PM Well, it's definitely pre-Kirkian at any rate. The main things that stick in my mind regarding Latin are... "Vene, vidi, vici." "Et tu, Brute?" and... hic haec hoc huis huis huis huic hiuc hiuc hunc hanc hoc ho ha ho hi hae haec horum harum horum hos has haec... Or whatever. I can't quite remember all those different cases now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:20 PM huius, I mean... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:31 PM I didn't learn THAT kind of conjugation until much later... Yeah, I guess I really musta been dumb. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: JennieG Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:31 PM Vene, vidi, vici, visa......I came, I saw, I conquered, I did a little shopping....... Cheers JennieG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:33 PM OK, but how about the Genesis (er, sorry....) of the Grand Canyon? -Joe- |
|
Subject: They won't say? Well, I'll say! From: Bill D Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:36 PM It's OLD, man....that river didn't do that work in a few thousand years. ...and it will be there LONG after all the religious fundamentalists who date things by strange interpretations of old manuscripts have become part of the layers of sediment! And God said, "LET there be blind, ignorant quackery."...and LO! I wonder who...that is, precisely which individual, ordered the park service to put on it's namby-pamby uniform and dance around on heads of pins to placate fools! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:44 PM Well, the Smithsonian has been hit with demands for Political Correctness, especially during Democratic administrations. Sometimes, I wish everybody would just lightern up. But hey, it WAS water erosion that made the canyon, right? Why won't somebody answer my question? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:50 PM I dunno' Joe. Isn't there something in the bible about God building a latrine? Oh wait.....that was Mississippi. Spaw (now awaiting khandu or patty clink) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:01 PM You know, Spaw, for some reason I can never come up with an adequate answer to your posts.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: JohnInKansas Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:09 PM In very rough terms, there has been a river there for a very long time. As the land surface was pushed up, the river ate away the surface so that the river could stay at the level where it was happiest. The height of the rocks on either side of the river may give some indication of how long a time 1.) the land has been rising while 2.) the river has been preventing the land in the river channel from rising, if one knows something of the rate of rise; but it's difficult to determine the rate of rise over long periods in the past. The "age of the rocks" - which is probably the easiest thing to date geologically - has practically nothing to do with how long the formation of the channel required, except that the channel is probably** no older than the youngest rock/soil strata at its edges. ** Insert a few quibbles here. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Ebbie Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:24 PM "antediluvian" Joe Offer, I haven't checked but I think that rather than "diluvian" it is "deluvian" as in "deluge". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: bobad Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM From ante- + Latin dluvium, flood; see diluvial. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Alice Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM I remember our latin text had things like Hic parvus porcum venit ad forum. Mary habuit agnus album. ... or something like that, if my memory of 1967 is correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM "Here comes the parcival pig to the forum?" "Mary lives with a book-collecting agnostic?" You can see it's been awhile... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:42 PM I'm sorry, I did not read the whole thread so this may be an idea already offered-- can we buy up all the copies of the book they have to sell, so it will be GONE? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:45 PM Hey, Susan, if you want to spend your money that way....be my guest! (grin) I wouldn't worry much about that book. It's unlikely to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Slag Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:39 AM It is amazing to me how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are so abused. They are both considered broad ideological brushes and are really practically worthless, except to fan flames. I consider myself a fairly conservative Christian. I come up against the 6000 year crowd and can only shake my head. They think Bishop Usser had devine inspiration when he came up with a date something like April 20th 4002 BC for the creation of the Earth, based mainly on the genealogical information in the Bible. No where in the Bible is there a claim for a start time nor is there a chapter titled "How I Did It, by God!" The 6000 year old crowd feels the need to help God out of His chronological predicament. They ignore the scriptural caveat "one day (of God's) is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day". They insist on limiting God by their own finite and faulty factulties of reason. To deny the obvious geological and fossil record is the same as accusing God of being deceitful! More to the point, the last time I was at the canyon the ranger explained that plate tectonics have been lifting what was once a vast shallow inland sea in middle northern America for about 20 million years and that the Colorado and Little Colorado and tributaries have been eroding the ancient ocean bed for about that long. Exposed sedimentary rock goes below the fossil record in some places and said rock is about 2 billion years old. No photograph or painting can do justice to the Canyon. Being there and experiencing it in person is the only way to appreciate it for what it is. It IS awe inspiring. If you ever get the chance, go and see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: BanjoRay Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:40 AM In 1995 I took a 12 day trip down the Colorado river in a paddle raft. The best 12 days of my life bar none! Civil engineers could have built it given 6000 years, but nature? Forget it! Cheers Ray |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: JeremyC Date: 13 Jan 07 - 09:22 AM What the hell. Like I posted above, they state the age of the Grand Canyon RIGHT on their WEBSITE. It took me roughly three seconds to find it. Yes, the administration sucks, and yes, creationism is bad, but why are you uncritically accepting PEER's statement? A moment on Google is enough to prove them wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: artbrooks Date: 13 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM JoeO: the Park Service web site says Drainage systems have cut deeply through the rock, forming numerous steep-walled canyons. and It is considered one of the finest examples of arid-land erosion in the world. The Canyon, incised by the Colorado River, is immense, averaging 4,000 feet deep for its entire 277 miles. Like JeremyC says, listen to/read what the Park is saying, not to what one book sold there says. The bookstore, BTW, is run by the Grand Canyon Association, a private organization. They also sell books about anthropomorphic coyotes and javalenas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: danensis Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:49 PM Perhaps God created some very old rocks just to upset the geologists? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Bunnahabhain Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM The Grand Canyon is one of a handful of examples known to any geologist in the World, along with Hawaii(shield volcanos) Edinburgh City centre (Plugs, sills, Crag and tail) and a few others. They're the archtypal examples of various processes, and so get used for teaching. If you want someone to regocnise the traces of something, after it's been buried, eroded, faulted, intruded, and generally messed about with for x million years, you show them what an intact one looks like first. Does it show I'm a Geology student? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM (Thanks, bobad) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Bill D Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM "Perhaps God created some very old rocks just to upset the geologists?" ...just thinking about that makes me giggle. Would he have created them a long time ago, or just 6000 years ago...*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say From: Cruiser Date: 13 Jan 07 - 02:12 PM JeremyC, Yes, the age of the Canyon is stated on the website and the NPS office and in many books. The NPS or others cannot just delete that information from the website or amend it in books because it is science-based, peer reviewed material that can only be modified by contrary science-based evidence that passes peer review. Please click on the other links within the original PEER link I provided it the initial post to this thread. The PEER letter is there and here are some excerpts for the letter: {Quote} "In the view of PEER, the practices at Grand Canyon NP with respect to the book Grand Canyon: A Different View and creationism are clearly at variance with the statutory and policy mandates underpinning your agency. We would request that you review this case and – 1. Remove the book from sale at park bookstores and museums; 2. Provide training to the interpretive staff at Grand Canyon NP regarding how to answer questions from the public concerning the geologic age of the Canyon and related matters; and 3. Approve an updated version of the long-stalled pamphlet "National Park Service Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion" for distribution to agency interpretive staff. Continued delay by NPS in forthrightly addressing this issue only undermines the credibility of your agency in its policies and pronouncements with respect to its educational mission and dedication to promoting excellence in science." {End Quote} _____________________________________________________________________ |
