Slashdot Mirror
Grand Canyon Is "Frankenstein" of Geologic Formations
sciencehabit writes "It's a debate that has vexed scientists for decades: Is the Grand Canyon young or old, geologically speaking? Both, a new study declares. A group of scientists reports that the famed formation is a hybrid of five different gorges of various ages--two of three middle segments formed between 70 million and 50 million years ago and between 25 million and 15 million years ago, but the two end segments were carved in the past 5 million to 6 million years--and the Colorado River only tied them into a single continuous canyon 5 million or 6 million years ago."
I refuse to believe in "erosion" as they teach in schools. Sure you can see water moves small clumps of dirt and rocks, but to jump from observing anthills being washed away to huge canyons and moving continents is absurd.
WHERE IS THE MISSING LINK? Surely there would be mountains with small streams caving in on themselves this very minute. It should be happening all the time. Not even on the daily news, because it should be normal, the erosionists claim. Like, whoops, another mountain just caved in and became a canyon.
There should be rivers moving cities out of the way and leaving canyons to hell in their path. The truth is, all we ever see are small floods, AND THE WATER ALWAYS RECEDES, AND DOES NOT LEAVE A HUGE CANYON.
Erosion is not science. You cannot observe it. All you can do is assume. Even William Phipps Blake, the guy who came up with this "theory" recanted on his death bed. Said he made it all up for money.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.
A formation is a layer of sediment that has been compacted into rock. There's more to the formal definition, but that will suffice for now.
The Grand Canyon cuts through dozens of formations, but cannot, itself, be a formation.
So much for "news for nerds."
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
For those who don't know, you can cruise through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River via Street (River) view... but who the hell is the guy in the sunglasses?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=grand+canyon&hl=en&ll=36.180562,-113.116608&spn=0.215596,0.885086&sll=-34.880632,138.660651&sspn=0.030277,0.055318&t=h&hnear=Grand+Canyon&z=11&layer=c&cbll=36.180623,-113.116661&panoid=3hhY7tdbII1RSBq3fRGQ6A&cbp=12,41.4,,0,-2.93
No, just another Waterfall variant.
Well I *have* read the book and actually Viktor Frankenstein was *not* a doctor. He's an undergraduate *student* of natural philosophy who gets sidetracked into occult studies. He only became a doctor in the movies, which give the whole affair an anti-science spin, probably to cash in on peoples discomfort with anatomical research. The book is much less clear on exactly how Frankenstein constructs his monster, but it implies alchemy or other discredited pseudoscience is involved.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It doesn't really imply that. It does say that Frankenstein spent many years of his life devoted to occult studies in his desire to gain control over life and death - but also that he rejected that field after coming to the conclusion that it was all a load of worthless nonsense, and that he greatly regretted the time spent persuing what was not only a dead end but one that, in hindsight, should have been obvious as such. As soon as he realises that he turns towards medicine, recognising that even though this field makes far less grand promises it is able to make good on them. The book doesn't say exactly how he did it, but suggests that it was through entirely physical means - in particular it states that Frankenstein deliberately picked out the most oversized corpses and organs to work with, because the delicate surgical techniques would have posed much more difficulty had he been working with smaller components. That's why the monster created was so large and powerful.
Within a couple of weeks creationists are going to start pointing to this finding as evidence that scientists are never to be trusted. If they keep changing their mind on things, how do we know they are right now? If scientists can't give a clear answer, the creationists will argue, we must turn to the one eyewitness account we have of all history - the bible. Which is infallable, of course.