The Age of the Grand Canyon

[Coasterkidmwm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/2 ... 37406.html

Sad isn't it?

Another reason why we all love the Bush Administration...and especially Bush Yeah that is kind of sad though.

That's horrible. The earth is at least 4 billion years old, are they going to start taking that out of books too? Maybe the dinosaurs next, they are way older than the grand canyon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon#Geology So yeah, the grand canyon is 5 to 6 million years old, which isn't even that much compared to anything besides humans.

[coolbeans326]

Anyone who is offended by the age of the Grand Canyon should be shot. The age of a certain land formation should have no baring on a person's religion when, in fact the religion is not based upon how long it took the world to be created or how it was created, but rather just life in general.

I hate Politically Correct, who cares except for the uber liberals and the soft skinned conservatives.


Besides, everybody knows its not what you do with it, but who you do with it.[;)]

^ Excellent point. Although I might say there is a little dependance of religion on how the earth was created (about the science "big-boom theory, and about the God's instance of creation) but that's beside the point.

It is unusual that people are getting the wrong idea or offended by this. This great land formation should definitely be honored in some way, but instead, we get more losers in our country just trying to grab attention and stop some huge event!

Well aside from the typo that it was Noahs flood, which, it wasnt HIS.

But rather, whos to say that the age we think it is, is what it is? How do we know the way it was cut is the exact way? And how do we know the exact rate? There are so many, many factors, that even using a scale of millions of years could be way, way off. Its all, like anything dealing in this area, lots of "what ifs".

I think its funnier that they are so quick to denouce a world flood considering it would have only happened once, how could even begin to know what things "should" look like and such? You cant. You cant because the knowledge we have today is still miniscule in comparison to what we need to comprehend these issues.


Just like the storms this year. Last year it was predicted that this years weather in the Atlantic would be devestating and that the hurricanes would only get worse and more frequent. But how many hurricanes did we have? 10 total storms, only 3 over Cat. 3. With a total of 11 direct deaths and 6 indirect. Come on, thats quite the opposite. We just dont know enough.


Its lame that they are preventing an age to be given, and its lame that we think we can figure it out. Because figuring out ages of things is one of the sciences we are the worst at. Countless times ages get changed for one reason or another.



So why bother? Its just a number anyways.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by Real

Well aside from the typo that it was Noahs flood, which, it wasnt HIS.

But rather, whos to say that the age we think it is, is what it is? How do we know the way it was cut is the exact way? And how do we know the exact rate? There are so many, many factors, that even using a scale of millions of years could be way, way off. Its all, like anything dealing in this area, lots of "what ifs".

Carbon dating is correct. Don't even try to argue this.

Just like the storms this year. Last year it was predicted that this years weather in the Atlantic would be devestating and that the hurricanes would only get worse and more frequent. But how many hurricanes did we have? 10 total storms, only 3 over Cat. 3. With a total of 11 direct deaths and 6 indirect. Come on, thats quite the opposite. We just dont know enough.

Its lame that they are preventing an age to be given, and its lame that we think we can figure it out. Because figuring out ages of things is one of the sciences we are the worst at. Countless times ages get changed for one reason or another.

See this is why I hate CNN. Remember bird flu?

Yeah, Coasterkid is right, you can't really argue with carbon dating. As for the storm thing, I don't really see what it has to do with this. Is your local weather report correct 100% of the time? A bad storm season this year was just an educated guess, not scientific fact.

Hmmm. A completely non-religious rebuttle to C-14 being accurate
He even uses the creationist/evolutionist arguments to show the flaws.
http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

A rebuttle to that previous link, by an evolutionist
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Yet Another
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html


The more I read, the more I find that C-14 dating is young, full of errors and has too many variables.


About the storms, who ever mentioned CNN? All of us agree that weather is as unpredictable as it gets. So, when it comes to historical weather events, why is there somehow "factual" evidence to things theres no record of and evidence to support something that even to this very day we have an amazingly hard time predicting?

We cant even predict whats going to happen in the next 12 to 24 hours in our own little parts of the world, so how is it we can be so sure what happens long, long ago? Makes no sense to me...



Im not even riding the religious bandwagon here. Anyone in their right mind wouldnt be able to say yes or no to an event like a massive flood. Since theres no record of one even happening in remotely the same scale, hows it fair to rate it against the small bits of knowledge we have?

Just like the C-14 dating. The technology is so new, so full of variables and errors that it hits the mark like 2% of the time. Yet, because its one of the ONLY dating methods we have, its reguarded as factual evidence...?? Come on, hows that scientific proof?

Keep the religion out of this, you dont even need it. You just need the ability to look at both sides of a given argument - not just one.

I think you'd have to get one crazy variable to be off by a couple MILLION years. But that's just me.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Carbon dating is supposed to give you an approximate time window, not be 100% exact. I don't exactly trust information from two biased websites to begin with.

A million years is quite different that less than 10,000, which is why this is so absurd.

Read the articles - mainly the first 2, then get back with us.

Now that that's over, I still stand by my claim, and even if they don't use carbon dating for the grand canyon, I'm pretty sure that if they studied erosive rates on soil compositions similar to that of the grand canyon, none of the time required to carve that naturally would come anywhere near fitting into any of the most lenient Biblical time frames. Being generous, we're looking at earth supposedly existing for under 10,000 years.....

Also, I don't even think there's enough water on Earth to fill up to the Grand Canyon's height.

OK folks -- Place your bets as to how long it takes for this to turn into a rip roaring argument about religion .... whether intended or not, the obvious is coming. Just a friendly helper to ask you to remember the new rules here before hitting 'Submit Reply'.

Wait, this is the same people (doubting carbon dating's accuracy) who chopped anyone's head who believed that the world was not the center of the universe before 1000 years later officially declaring that they were wrong about everything...

[Coasterkidmwm]

Originally posted by TConwell

OK folks -- Place your bets as to how long it takes for this to turn into a rip roaring argument about religion .... whether intended or not, the obvious is coming. Just a friendly helper to ask you to remember the new rules here before hitting 'Submit Reply'.

Thanks for pretending to be everyones parent while on another ego/power streak. You have contributed greatly to this thread by doing that and I know everyone appreciates it.

[hyyyper]

I don't see why they can't just put up a sign and say "the GC is approx. ...(b/m)iljon years old" they can even use "between ... and ... yo" but not displaying it because some are convinced it was created by god on one of the days in 'the week', carbon dating might not be accurate, but it can give us a very huge arrow in the right direction


EDIT: eh real, if that coughing was for me, i know how carbon dating works, with radioactive carbon and their halftimes

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Originally posted by TConwell

OK folks -- Place your bets as to how long it takes for this to turn into a rip roaring argument about religion .... whether intended or not, the obvious is coming. Just a friendly helper to ask you to remember the new rules here before hitting 'Submit Reply'.

Thanks for pretending to be everyones parent while on another ego/power streak. You have contributed greatly to this thread by doing that and I know everyone appreciates it.

lmao. You try so hard to brand him as the site parent, but fail so miserably. Actually, it makes no sense. He said what I said, but you only tried to cut him down. Strange. I recall myself saying you dont even need religion in this thread to see some straight answers. And wheres the power/ego in his post? I certainly dont see it. If anything, I see it in yours since you are taking a person shot while he took a broad shot. Notice the difference?

Also looks like I put that Carbon Dating to rest. Those were some really interesting articles written so most people could understand it. Well, most. I wouldnt expect some here cough^^cough to understand it


hyyyper - added another ^

Originally posted by Real
Also looks like I put that Carbon Dating to rest.

Excuse you. You did nothing but point to articles that shed light on some of the variables that may(or may not) effect carbon dating results. Even so, their presumptions are no more or less logical than those upon which carbon dating relies. You could point out *ifs* about basically any scientific theory/fact/idea in the same way those articles did about carbon dating, it's just a matter of somebody doing it, and it seems that none of this nit-picking comes out until it goes against somebody's beliefs or well-being.

The first two sites you linked were on biased servers, and as your final link said, people tend to see what they want to see, and people will host what they want to host. Carbon dating wouldn't be as popular as it is if it weren't largely logically sound. If there weren't enough arguments in favor of carbon dating to out-weigh the possible discrepancies that Libby himself recognized, and are listed in your article, I doubt many scientists would even bother using it.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Thanks for pretending to be everyones parent while on another ego/power streak. You have contributed greatly to this thread by doing that and I know everyone appreciates it.

Regardless of what Real explained to you, is this flaming? Obviously.
Staff, a ruling please according to your rules?