Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   In what's been a long-standing battle, some scientists have always believed the Grand Canyon is very, very old. Others believe it's quite young. Now new evidence shows they both might be right. See, creationists and evolutionists? You can get along   (npr.org) divider line 13
    More: Cool, Grand Canyon, University of New Mexico, Nature Geoscience  
•       •       •

5817 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-29 09:19:47 AM  
4 votes:
Geologists: Disagreeing on the interpretation of scientific data.
Creationists: Pulling shiat out of their asses and pretending it's scientific data.

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME!11!
2014-01-29 01:48:03 PM  
1 votes:

tylerdurden217: Frank N Stein: See, I'm a catholic. So I believe that God's hand guides evolution. So I can look down on both people. I'm not a retarded anti-science creationist, and I'm not a fedora tipping hell-bound athiest :)

This is the game that religious people play. Their book makes a claim about the origins of life on earth (for example in Genesis) and when this is found to be inaccurate they tell you that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Even worse, when scientific discoveries are made, then these same people will tell you, "That's how God did it." The obvious problem is that all of these mechanics work perfectly well without an assumption of a God.

How anyone can identify as a Catholic defies reason. That church matches the definition of organized crime.


*tips fedora*
2014-01-29 11:05:35 AM  
1 votes:
"Evolutionist" isn't a thing. There are creationists... and people who understand and accept scientific facts.
2014-01-29 11:04:43 AM  
1 votes:

trappedspirit: TheShavingofOccam123: My guess is it started on a fault line and grew from there. Or it grew and found a fault line and grew from there.

We were wondering if you were going to weigh in on this or not.


"weigh in" is such a powerful term to describe my wishy-washy, non-committal, I-don't-know-what-do-you-guys-think input.

However I will post these pics of enormous current ripples formed when a giant ice dam gave way

4.bp.blogspot.com

Those are some pretty big features
2014-01-29 10:51:36 AM  
1 votes:
If scientists cannot agree whether the Canyon is seventy million ears old or six million years old, then clearly scientists cannot determine the age of anything at all and the earth is actually only six-thousand years old.
2014-01-29 10:48:48 AM  
1 votes:

Mikey1969: This actually has nothing to do with Creationism anyway, since the "young" model of the Canyon is 6 MILLION years, not 6.000.

And the "Colorado River did it" is just the simplified thing they teach you in grade school anyway, it's much more complex than that and they know it. Earthquakes, rockslides and frost heave do just as much to mold the Canyon as the river, and they've known this for years, so I'm not really sure what the "new" data is here...


Kinda like the simplified atom model resembling the solar system.
2014-01-29 10:47:54 AM  
1 votes:

Bondith: Mr. Right: What a silly argument.  Every body knows that the Grand Canyon was created when Paul Bunyan's ox Babe dragged Paul's peavy behind him.

...Paul's what?


sorry.  misspelled it.  His peavey.  It's a logging tool with a long wooden handle and a hook on it that is used to turn logs.  It was used when men were men and logging was done with axes, two-man saws, wedges, cant hooks, horses, oxen, log chains and peavies.
2014-01-29 10:41:45 AM  
1 votes:
Subby sounds as dumb as the creatards.
2014-01-29 10:41:00 AM  
1 votes:
Uh, no, subby, just no. That's not how it works.

Case A:
Researcher 1: "I think it's 1000." [shows research]
Researcher 2: "I think it's 10000" [shows research]
Researcher 3: "I think it's 4500." [shows research]

Case B:
Millenia-old social/philosophy book: "It is 100."
Researcher 1: "I think it's 10000" [shows research]
Researcher 2: "I think it's 10000" [shows research]
Researcher 3: "I think it's 4500." [shows research]
Subby: "SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESEARCH AND BOOK"
2014-01-29 10:38:06 AM  
1 votes:
My guess is it started on a fault line and grew from there. Or it grew and found a fault line and grew from there.
2014-01-29 10:35:36 AM  
1 votes:
I think Family Circus tackled this debate about 30 years ago.
2014-01-29 10:32:57 AM  
1 votes:
This actually has nothing to do with Creationism anyway, since the "young" model of the Canyon is 6 MILLION years, not 6.000.

And the "Colorado River did it" is just the simplified thing they teach you in grade school anyway, it's much more complex than that and they know it. Earthquakes, rockslides and frost heave do just as much to mold the Canyon as the river, and they've known this for years, so I'm not really sure what the "new" data is here...
2014-01-29 08:57:18 AM  
1 votes:
Teach the controversy!

i522.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report