Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Grand Canyon Is "Frankenstein" of Geologic Formations

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the but-it's-no-megavolcano dept.

Earth 132

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."

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Grand Canyon Is Old (-1, Offtopic)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 months ago | (#46077625)

Erosion is a myth (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077761)

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.

Re:Erosion is a myth (-1, Offtopic)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 6 months ago | (#46077801)

+1 funny

Re:Erosion is a myth (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078123)

Yeah around here that shit passes for "funny". Because everyone here is an insecure douchebag, always longing to prove how inoffensive and easygoing and modern and sensitive and clever they are. So this super mildmannered neutered form of humor is considered some kind of achievement. Each humors the other so he can be humored like a child in turn. Now you know why the idiotic, repetitive, annoying, predictable, unoriginal memes keep getting modded up. Yeah dude, sharks with lasers attached to their heads, man that's definitely hilarious even after YEARS of seeing it, sure man, that's great! Quick, mod it up to +5 Funny! Mod down the guys who don't share these insecurities and recognize it as stupid, let's definitely never listen to them or ask questions like "what if they do have a point?"! Oh man I almost feel part of something now!

Re:Erosion is a myth (4, Funny)

rhodium_mir (2876919) | about 6 months ago | (#46078365)

In essence the Grand Canyon is a Beowulf cluster of canyons.

Oborgitory (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#46079425)

They were each assimilated.

Re:Erosion is a myth (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078583)

You got period pain, little man?

Re:Erosion is a myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078715)

555 goon sir

Re:Erosion is a myth (-1, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#46079221)

Hey asshole. I didn't read what you wrote. If you want me to take the time to read it, invest the 20 seconds it takes to log in.

Re:Erosion is a myth (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080391)

This.

Re:Erosion is a myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078229)

Well said good sir. I don't consider this post to be "funny" but rather "insightful".

Re:Erosion is a myth (1)

ouachiski (835136) | about 6 months ago | (#46078351)

Watch it, I went to school in Louisiana and if this is sarcasm I will be upset.

Re:Erosion is a myth (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46079397)

If Canons eroded from solid ground -- Then WHY IS THERE STILL SOLID GROUND?

Re:Erosion is a myth (1)

blackjackshellac (849713) | about 6 months ago | (#46080703)

Obviously. Jesus dug the canyon with help from His dinosaur friends. In a weekend. Without a shovel. Obviously. Praise.

Re:The Grand Canyon Is Old (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078097)

Niggers! Hee hee. Jigaboos! Hahaha. Porchmonkeys! LOL. Coons! Yeah. Worthless vile yard apes! Ooooh baby. Biglipped bluegummed uncivilized tribal violent useless stinking pieces of amphiban shit! You said it.

Great big fat gorilla lookin bastards. BASTARDS! Seriously most of them got no father. Its true!

So their the first people on earth by thousands of years. Thats a great big head start! That means they should be MORE advanced not less, if "not inferior" is right. Figure that one out.

Oh if you're friends with one or two black guys that you cherrypicked that doesn't mean you know a fucking shit about what most real jigs are all about. Theyre an amazingly violent breed. Mostly against each other. But definitely not exclusively. Being a thug is what they care about because that's cool so it must be done or something. You can't reason with them. But they are our equal and I thought I would remind you. Sure!

Frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077647)

psot

Definitely not the first post! (-1)

resistant (221968) | about 6 months ago | (#46077681)

I tried to dream up a clever bon mot to utter about this scientific curiosity, but all that came out of this effort was a stupid joke about poor old Earth having peculiar skin problems across the geological ages. I'm sowwy. I weally am. -_-

That's not what Frankenstein means (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077711)

You have no idea what Frankenstein means, do you? Try reading it sometime. Here's a hint: start by reading the subtitle.

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077753)

I think it's you that doesn't understand the allusion, douche.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077811)

Wrong. YOU are the one name calling. Have you actually READ the book? 'Frankenstein' is the doctor... not the monster.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (4, Informative)

hey! (33014) | about 6 months ago | (#46078031)

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.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46078523)

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.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#46079247)

"It doesn't really imply that"

You don't really understand the English language. The OP inferred it, ergo it was implied (intentionally, or not)

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

khallow (566160) | about 6 months ago | (#46079617)

You can infer things that aren't implied. The previous poster explained why he thought the inference wasn't based on an implication.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#46079657)

But can you stop being a moron? Apologies: you aren't smart enough to answer the question: You're not.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#46080663)

"It doesn't really imply that"

You don't really understand the English language. The OP inferred it, ergo it was implied (intentionally, or not)

I think I have a pretty solid handle on the English language.

"hey!" wrote "The book is much less clear on exactly how Frankenstein constructs his monster, but it implies alchemy or other discredited pseudoscience is involved", emphasis mine.

"SuricouRaven" wrote "It doesn't really imply that", and then went on to explain that Frankenstein abandoned the pseudoscience and employed medical science to create his monster.

Please try to read the posts you're responding to before calling people stupid.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

Argos (173864) | about 6 months ago | (#46079179)

True! The Frankestain monster is, actually (:-)), a zombie.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

cusco (717999) | about 6 months ago | (#46079957)

Not really, a zombie is an undead human (well, a real zombie never actually died, just sustained extreme brain damage from being poisoned, paralyzed and from oxygen deprivation while buried alive), Frankenstein's monster was created from a collection of dead body parts. I think there's some more nits over here to pick . . .

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080519)

That's the movies. In voodoo, a zombie is simply a person without a soul (for whatever reason).

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080249)

It's pronounced "Fronkensteen".

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

Argos (173864) | about 6 months ago | (#46079167)

Old joke: the monster and the doctor were relatives?

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#46079231)

Technically you are correct, however just like a hacker is someone who breaks into computers circa 2014 (still not true) Frankenstein has been the name of his monster for far longer. It turns out that if you get enough morons together they will gather together and carry torches if you point out how phenomenally under-educated and ludicrous they are.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080607)

See as how Frankenstein wasn't a doctor, the OP is the one who is "phenomenally under-educated." So, technically he isn't correct. Besides, the point is not whether Frankenstein is the man or the monster. The name is used colloquially to mean something made from disparate parts.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46081739)

Victor Frankenstein's name consists of two parts. His first name, and his surname. Logically, his creation should also have the surname of Frankenstein. Since his creation is not given a first name, his surname is all we have. Hence, the monster's name is Frankenstein.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46079907)

Was the creature actually the monster? Seems he was the far more humane and intelligent of the two.

I claim Frankenstein was the monster, but his creation is the one called it.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080257)

He is a student in the book. What does that have to do with it?

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080343)

Yes, I have read the book, but apparently you haven't. Frankenstein is a student in the book, not a doctor. Regardless, the word Frankenstein has become synonymous with someone cobbled together with disparaging parts.

Re: That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080381)

Sorry, "something" not "someone."

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077817)

According to your faulty allusion, because it is a conglomeration of articles on different subjects posted at different times, Slashdot is Frankenstein, idiot.

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

gerardrj (207690) | about 6 months ago | (#46077857)

No, Slashdot is Frankenstein's monster.

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077905)

Slashdot abandoned by its creator, runs amok. Won't somebody stop Slashdot before it kills again. News at 11.

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#46079251)

Bad example. Frankenstein caused far less damage.

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078791)

they mean that the canyon is a professor(or doctor, forgot).

the actual monster patched up from bodies is called igor or some shit like that.

Re:That's not what Frankenstein means (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46080419)

What? In the book, Frankenstein is neither a professor nor a doctor. He is a medical student. The monster in the book is NOT named "Igor." Igor was a person in one of the Universal Frankenstein movies, who manipulated the monster for his own ends.

Timeline is all wrong. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077715)

The reason the "scientists" are having problem is because THE AUTHORITY puts it at somewhere less than 6,000 years old.

Re:Timeline is all wrong. (1)

stillpixel (1575443) | about 6 months ago | (#46077737)

yes yes yes.. it was all created in a "great flood".....

Re:Timeline is all wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077791)

Which authority was that?

Re:Timeline is all wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078613)

Satan, obviously.

In other news... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077723)

Wyoming's Devil's Tower formation will now be referred to as the "Ron Jeremy" of geologic formations.

That is all.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078651)

Fat, ugly, poor hygiene?

Re:In other news... (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 6 months ago | (#46080611)

And appeared in the motion picture, "Close Encounters of the Perv Kind".

So is this .... (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46077735)

... another instance of Agile development?

Re:So is this .... (4, Funny)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46077907)

No, just another Waterfall variant.

Re:So is this .... (1)

asylumx (881307) | about 6 months ago | (#46081573)

You beat me to it!

The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (5, Informative)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 6 months ago | (#46077827)

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."

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (2)

gerardrj (207690) | about 6 months ago | (#46077839)

There is much wrong with this article.
Geeks today aren't what they used to be.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (5, Funny)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46077919)

Geeks today aren't what they used to be.

The user quality has certainly eroded, as has everything else around here.

Even the grits have deteriorated.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 6 months ago | (#46078299)

Geeks today aren't what they used to be.

The user quality has certainly eroded, as has everything else around here.

Even the grits have deteriorated.

Once petrified, erosion was inevitable.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46079429)

Erodal September.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (1)

imikem (767509) | about 6 months ago | (#46079785)

So has Natalie Portman. I'd still hit that though.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (1)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 6 months ago | (#46078209)

There is much wrong with this article.

Yeah. Starting with the fact that it's written at about a sixth-grade reading level.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077939)

What would you categorize it as then? I just googled, and it seems that "geologic structure" has a narrow technical definition as well.

If you can't come up with anything better (and dodges aren't better), "geologic formations" is good enough for laymen.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (3, Informative)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 6 months ago | (#46078155)

If you can't come up with anything better (and dodges aren't better), "geologic formations" is good enough for laymen.

When I see the phrase "good enough for laymen" on slashdot, I know that /. has gone a LONG way downhill.

I think the word that Timothy was looking for is "feature."

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 6 months ago | (#46078275)

A valley. Just an impressively large one.

Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (4, Insightful)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 6 months ago | (#46078597)

I'm all for precision in language, but in day-to-day speech a 'formation' is just something that is formed, and the grand canyon is indeed a formation even if it is not a 'geologic formation' proper. It's a bit like if mechanics decided to formally call washers 'round things' and then got particularly upset when a ball bearing was casually referrered to as a 'round thing' as well.

Frankenstein was the doctor (3, Informative)

gerardrj (207690) | about 6 months ago | (#46077837)

Not the cobbled together monster!

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 6 months ago | (#46077867)

Not the cobbled together monster!

I thought Frankenstein was an Edgar Winters Group song.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

hubie (108345) | about 6 months ago | (#46078007)

Ba-ba ba ba b-ba ba baaaaa, ba-ba ba bo-ba!

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 6 months ago | (#46079261)

Finally, someone says something intelligent in this thread! KUDOS!

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077869)

True, but Americans don't know how to read.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077901)

Some of us just don't give a shit about small nuances such as this. We get the gist and...move on.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077921)

Americans, good. Terrorists, bad. Is that the gist of your world, motherfucker?

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077949)

Do your knuckles ever hurt?

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077961)

Americans, consequential. Lamers taking potshots at Americans but who are too embarrassed to identify their own country, not consequential.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077989)

It's because we don't like to brag.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 6 months ago | (#46077963)

Having moved on, is the doctor named something else, and the monster now named Frankenstein?

Nothing has changed, except that we can tell who read the book, who is old enough to have watched talkies instead, and who is young enough to talk about things they heard about but have no first hand knowledge of.

Let's all move on and let the idiots self identify. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon is either a self aware amalgamation with difficulty speaking, a cutting edge doctor, or Peter Boyle.

Case else, I would expect Slashdot to run "Gene Wilder found in desert" as the headline.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077997)

Considering the title of TFA is The Grand Canyon as Frankenstein the trouble seems to be that Science Magazine is a tabloid.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46077937)

We know how, there are just not very many who bother. On the "knowing how" metric we're one of the top in the world. Only a few bored backwaters with nothing to do beat us, like Armenia or Iceland.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077953)

Is plenty to do in Armenia, insensitive clod.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#46078401)

Was that before William Hartnell

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46079049)

"It's a common misconception, held by all truly stupid people."

Nerd points for getting the reference without using a search engine.

Re:Frankenstein was the doctor (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46079471)

Frankenstein's Monster is, in a way, his child. Victor Frankenstein begat Monster Frankenstein. Now you can dial the pedantry either up or down a notch.

Google River View (5, Interesting)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 6 months ago | (#46077855)

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 [google.com]

Re:Google River View (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078085)

They call him the Water Walker. :)

Re:Google River View (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 6 months ago | (#46078183)

Nevermind the guy in the sunglasses. How long can the guy in the grey hat hold his breath?

Re:Google River View (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 6 months ago | (#46078569)

Or if you've got the gumption you can row a raft down the river itself like I did 2 years ago. Pictures are nice but they can't really give you the true scope of it all. There's absolutely nothing like being there.

Re:Google River View (2)

cusco (717999) | about 6 months ago | (#46080037)

Sigh. Of course you're right, but life is too short to do all the really cool things we want to do. Worst of all, there are now too fucking many people to do a lot of it the way we want to. Did you know that the only way to hike the Inca Trail now is to go with one of two groups (one of 40 and the other of 70 people) allowed per day? When I did it there were 4 of us that got off the train, and we didn't see anyone else for the next three days until we got to the ruin. Well, hopefully I'll be hiking the Apurimac Valley from Cusibamba to Pacaritambo next year, while there are still only farmers who walk that trail. Five years from now there will probably be tour groups.

Re:Google River View (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078593)

This image should give you a clue about what's going on.

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

It becomes quickly clear that the boat in the middle of the image is being obscured with a badly pasted image of water, but the guy in the back of the boat is sticking up above the auto-pasted area.

Re:Google River View (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 6 months ago | (#46079557)

What's with the exclamation point if you turn to the right?

informa2tive Nigganigga (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46077945)

and I pirobably OpenBSD guys. They where it belongs,

Grand Canyon is full of GAYNIGGERS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078043)

Soon the holy GAYNIGGERS will rise up and obliterate the evil female creatures, freeing all men of the world to live in peace and harmony.

Frankenstein The Modern Prometheus will be banned forever as subversive female literature. Then no man will ever have to read it ever again.

gn4a (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078265)

posts. Due to the yes, I work for

mod 0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46078317)

are there? Oh, and that the floor = 36400 FreeBSD Y0u can. No, Usenet is roughly Shouts To the conglomerate in the the BSD license,

Cosmetic procedures. (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 6 months ago | (#46078339)

These gorges are not fooling anyone. They can add parts that are only 5 million years old, but they still look old as dirt.

Prediction: (5, Funny)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46078531)

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.

Re:Prediction: (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 6 months ago | (#46079985)

Modded as funny, but sadly this is very insightful of how creationists think. They value consistency over everything. Therefore in their minds the constant message of "God Did It" is much firmer ground over the ever-changing explanations of science. The fact that these ever-changing explanations come as the result of new data or that the changes are often minor don't matter. The mere fact that science changes makes it unreliable and the fact that religion stays the same* makes it the one to count on.

* Of course, they completely ignore that religion too changes over time. They do this the same way they do everything else: By saying "religion stays the same" and then ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Re:Prediction: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46081785)

The problem is too many geologists resemble Baptist preachers in their adherence to what they believe is the truth, and lose the skepticism that should mark any good scientist. For example, there is much to be said for the theory that the Colorado River is simply following the path of least resistance through an area where an ancient sea had drained. The canyons were cut by eroding water as the sea disappeared.

may have drained north in the past (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 6 months ago | (#46080437)

I've heard that idea offered by geologists. Especially before the Colorado Plateau road. Like Coding Classes, Nature likes to reuse old structures if it can.

A lot of religious people... (1)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | about 6 months ago | (#46081019)

...say the Grand Canyon was formed last Tuesday, or something like that. Carved out by the Arc, that sat lower in the water because of all the dinosaurs on board. You betcha.

Re:A lot of religious people... (2)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | about 6 months ago | (#46081151)

Last Tuesday? No, you old-Earth Creationist, His Noodliness created it along with the rest of the Universe five minutes ago.

What, you remember events in your life that happened longer ago than five minutes? Well, He created you with those memories already in your brain!

Go ahead, prove it ain't true meanwhile, I'll have another plate of spaghetti, please.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>