·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

Grand Canyon May Be As Old As Dinosaurs

by RebelSnake | Published on April 11th, 2008, 10:58 am | Science
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/uoca-gcm041008.php
Public release date: 10-Apr-2008
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Contact: Rebecca Flowers
[email protected]
303-492-5135
University of Colorado at Boulder

Grand Canyon may be as old as dinosaurs, says new study
Study by University of Colorado at Boulder, California Institute of Technology pushes back assumed origins by 40-50 million years



The Grand Canyon may be as old as the dinosaurs, according to a new study by the University of Colorado and the California Institute of Technology



New geological evidence indicates the Grand Canyon may be so old that dinosaurs once lumbered along its rim, according to a study by researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder and the California Institute of Technology.

The team used a technique known as radiometric dating to show the Grand Canyon may have formed more than 55 million years ago, pushing back its assumed origins by 40 million to 50 million years. The researchers gathered evidence from rocks in the canyon and on surrounding plateaus that were deposited near sea level several hundred million years ago before the region uplifted and eroded to form the canyon.

A paper on the subject will be published in the May issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin. CU-Boulder geological sciences Assistant Professor Rebecca Flowers, lead author and a former Caltech postdoctoral researcher, collaborated with Caltech geology Professor Brian Wernicke and Caltech geochemistry Professor Kenneth Farley on the study.

"As rocks moved to the surface in the Grand Canyon region, they cooled off," said Flowers. "The cooling history of the rocks allowed us to reconstruct the ancient topography, telling us the Grand Canyon has an older prehistory than many had thought."

The team believes an ancestral Grand Canyon developed in its eastern section about 55 million years ago, later linking with other segments that had evolved separately. "It's a complicated picture because different segments of the canyon appear to have evolved at different times and subsequently were integrated," Flowers said.

The ancient sandstone in the canyon walls contains grains of a phosphate mineral known as apatite -- hosting trace amounts of the radioactive elements uranium and thorium -- which expel helium atoms as they decay, she said. An abundance of the three elements, paired with temperature information from Earth's interior, provided the team a clock of sorts to calculate when the apatite grains were embedded in rock a mile deep -- the approximate depth of the canyon today -- and when they cooled as they neared Earth's surface as a result of erosion.

Apatite samples from the bottom of the Upper Granite Gorge region of the Grand Canyon yield similar dates as samples collected on the nearby plateau, said Caltech's Wernicke. "Because both canyon and plateau samples resided at nearly the same depth beneath the Earth's surface 55 million years ago, a canyon of about the same dimensions of today may have existed at least that far back, and possibly as far back as the time of dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago."

One of the most surprising results from the study is the evidence showing the adjacent plateaus around the Grand Canyon may have eroded away as swiftly as the Grand Canyon itself, each dropping a mile or more, said Flowers. Small streams on the plateaus appear to have been just as effective at stripping away rock as the ancient Colorado River was at carving the massive canyon.

"If you stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon today, the bottom of the ancestral canyon would have sat over your head, incised into rocks that have since been eroded away," said Flowers. The ancestral Colorado River was likely running in the opposite direction millions of years ago, she said.

When the canyon was formed, it probably looked like a much deeper version of present-day Zion Canyon, which cuts through strata of the Mesozoic era dating from about 250 million to 65 million years ago, Wernicke said. From 28 million to 15 million years ago, a pulse of erosion deepened the already-formed canyon and also scoured surrounding plateaus, stripping off the Mesozoic strata to reveal the Paleozoic rocks visible today, he said.

The prevailing belief is that the canyon was incised by an ancient river about six million years ago as the surrounding plateau began rising from sea level to the current elevation of about 7,000 feet. The new scenario described in the GSA Bulletin by Flowers and her colleagues is consistent with recent evidence by other geologists using radiometric dating techniques indicating the Grand Canyon is significantly older than scientists had long believed.


###
The National Science Foundation and Caltech funded the study.


Well, so much for the ten thousand year old Grand Canyon theory. :mrgreen:
 
 
Well, so much for the ten thousand year old Grand Canyon theory.


Actually this only re-enforces the 10,000 year theory. Creationists have always felt that the Grand Canyon was created during or right after the great flood. Since we know there were likely dinosoars on the Ark then it would be a true statement that, yes, the Grand Canyon is as old as the dinosaurs and that dinosoars likely roamed around the canyon.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
April 11th, 2008, 1:32 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
I expect I've mentioned this before: I'm currently reading a book on the history of science as told through the lives of the more important luminaries in the field. Gotten to the bits about Darwin, and the struggle in geological circles between the "Catastrophists" (people who thought the current landforms were only a few thousand years old, and had been formed by one-time catastrophes) and the "Uniformitarians" (people who theorized that the landforms had been created slowly over huge expanses of time by processes observable currently).

Even before Darwin's voyage on the Beagle, many scientists were pretty certain that there was ample evidence for a uniform view of geology. For instance, Niagara Falls would not stay in place without extreme erosion if water could carve the Grand Canyon in a few days. When Darwin was in Chile, he observed a major earthquake, and saw that it lifted a section of land several feet above the ocean, bringing with it buried sea shells. This direct observation pretty well put a stake in the heart of Catastrophism. It's been well established for over 150 years that all the physical evidence found in the natural world fits together to show us a world that's a hell of a lot older than a few thousand years.
April 11th, 2008, 1:33 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
BecauseHeLives wrote:
Well, so much for the ten thousand year old Grand Canyon theory.


Actually this only re-enforces the 10,000 year theory. Creationists have always felt that the Grand Canyon was created during or right after the great flood. Since we know there were likely dinosoars on the Ark then it would be a true statement that, yes, the Grand Canyon is as old as the dinosaurs and that dinosoars likely roamed around the canyon.


To risk borrowing from Serendipitous: Reading comprehension, you're doing it wrong.

Exactly how does ..
The team used a technique known as radiometric dating to show the Grand Canyon may have formed more than 55 million years ago, pushing back its assumed origins by 40 million to 50 million years. The researchers gathered evidence from rocks in the canyon and on surrounding plateaus that were deposited near sea level several hundred million years ago before the region uplifted and eroded to form the canyon.

Support that incredibly ignorant stance of a 10,000 yr old canyon?
"You can't put the civil rights of a minority up for a majority vote."
April 11th, 2008, 2:07 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:Since we know there were likely dinosoars on the Ark...


BHL, am I supposed to be taking you seriously in this thread?? :|
When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable. –Rene Descartes

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. -Douglas Adams
April 11th, 2008, 2:19 pm
User avatar
Serendipitous
This is my world and I am the world leader...pretend.
 
Location: in the now
Serendipitous wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:Since we know there were likely dinosoars on the Ark...


BHL, am I supposed to be taking you seriously in this thread?? :|


Absolutely!

To assume that radiometric dating is accurate is ludicrous. There are so many holes in radiometric dating that if it came before a court of law it would fail miserably yet many scientists hold to this method BECAUSE it gives them their DESIRED results.

Here is just one link that exposes the method and it comes from a professor at UNC.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

This professor is far from alone in his case of revealing how inadequate this dating method actually is. When you combine that method with the circular reasoning method of saying that the rocks around the canyon are millions or years old (because radiometric dating says so) and then go and say that the dinosaurs roamed the area because the rocks says so one has to doubt the conclusions.

Yes... I do believe that there were some dinosaurs on the ark and I believe they were likely killed off pretty quickly after the flood most likely for food. Love me or hate me. That's me and what I believe.

It is often mentioned that different methods agree on the K-T boundary, dated at about 65 million years ago. This is when the dinosaurs are assumed to have become extinct. This agreement of different methods is taken as evidence for a correlation between methods on the geologic column. One study found some correlated dates from bentonite that are used to estimate the date of the K-T boundary. I looked up some information on bentonite. It is composed of little glass beads that come from volcanic ash. This is formed when lava is sticky and bubbles of gas in it explode. So these small particles of lava cool very fast. The rapid cooling might mean that any enclosed argon is retained, but if not, the fact that this cooling occurs near the volcano, with a lot of argon coming out, should guarantee that these beads would have excess argon. As the gas bubble explodes, its enclosed argon will be rushing outward along with these tiny bubbles as they cool. This will cause them to retain argon and appear too old. In addition, the rapid cooling and the process of formation means that these beads would have Rb, Sr, U, and Pb concentrations the same as the lava they came from, since there is no chance for crystals to form with such rapid cooling. So to assume that the K-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and U-Pb dates all reflect the age of the lava, one would have to assume that this lava had no Sr, no Pb, and that all the argon escaped when the beads formed. Since the magma generally has old radiometric ages, I don't see how we could have magma without Pb or Sr. In fact, I doubt that there is fresh uncrystallized lava anywhere on earth today that has zero U/Pb and Rb/Sr ages, as would be required if bentonite gave an accurate date for the K-T boundary. So to me it seems to be certain that these ages must be in error.
April 11th, 2008, 7:27 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
It only goes to show how talented the ID crowd is at appearing to be scientific. ID takes in and fools too many who are ignorant of what science really can show us, and it wastes the time of those who do understand science and aren't fooled.
April 11th, 2008, 8:19 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
BecauseHeLives wrote:Absolutely!

To assume that radiometric dating is accurate is ludicrous. There are so many holes in radiometric dating that if it came before a court of law it would fail miserably yet many scientists hold to this method BECAUSE it gives them their DESIRED results.
Are you willing and capable of having a serious discussion about this? You are wrong - no one assumes anything about radiometric dating. Like all real science, when it comes before a court of law against ID creationism it wins because either the cdesign proponentists all hide in the Discovery Institute or they have to admit that their science is as valid as astrology.

The 'professor at UNC' is David A. Plaisted who has qualifications in Computer Science but none in the earth sciences or physics, let alone radiometric dating. From reading his rambling and grossly inaccurate account it is clear he has no expertise either. Being a born again fundamentalist does not grant him expertise. He's just another person lying for Jesus.
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
April 11th, 2008, 8:44 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:Absolutely!

To assume that radiometric dating is accurate is ludicrous. There are so many holes in radiometric dating that if it came before a court of law it would fail miserably yet many scientists hold to this method BECAUSE it gives them their DESIRED results.
Are you willing and capable of having a serious discussion about this? You are wrong - no one assumes anything about radiometric dating. Like all real science, when it comes before a court of law against ID creationism it wins because either the cdesign proponentists all hide in the Discovery Institute or they have to admit that their science is as valid as astrology.

The 'professor at UNC' is David A. Plaisted who has qualifications in Computer Science but none in the earth sciences or physics, let alone radiometric dating. From reading his rambling and grossly inaccurate account it is clear he has no expertise either. Being a born again fundamentalist does not grant him expertise. He's just another person lying for Jesus.


You make accusations that he is grossly inaccurate. Please, please point out these gross inaccuracies. Just saying he is inaccurate without pointing out what is a bit intellectually dishonest wouldn't you say? Maybe you are blowing smoke?? I seriously doubt you are more informed on radiometric dating than Mr.Plaisted but if so then please give me the qualifications you you possess that allow you discard his.

It's also quite interesting (but not a bit surprising) how you are lableing him a Christian or a "Jesus-lover" seemingly just because he doesn't back an old-earth theory. I didn't see any mention of his faith in his artlcle. Is that how science works? You attack the messenger instead of the message? That's what Darwinian evolutionists do....
April 11th, 2008, 10:26 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:I seriously doubt you are more informed on radiometric dating than Mr.Plaisted but if so then please give me the qualifications you you possess that allow you discard his.
A B.Sc. in Mining Engineering and a Ph.D. in geotechnics, how about you?
BecauseHeLives wrote:t's also quite interesting (but not a bit surprising) how you are lableing him a Christian or a "Jesus-lover" seemingly just because he doesn't back an old-earth theory. I didn't see any mention of his faith in his artlcle.
No? then you obviously didn't actually read it then did you.?
The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe. If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well. All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach.

He expressed his views more fully here: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/creation.doc
David Plaisted wrote:Today I want to talk about the creation evolution controversy, the reasons for it, and its impact on society.
God’s word as the source of wisdom

The first point to consider is that wisdom comes from God’s word. Psalm 119:130. “The entrance of Thy word giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” Psalm 119:105 “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” James 1:5 “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

What the Bible teaches about creation

So wisdom comes from God through His word. What, then, does the Bible say about the creation? According to the Bible, God is the creator of all that exists. He spoke, and the universe came into existence. He spoke, and life was created. The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” The Word was Jesus. Also, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of His mouth. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:6,9. Finally, the fourth commandment states: “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” So God created all things in the beginning. In addition, marriage, the Sabbath, and the weekly cycle all were established in Eden


BecauseHeLives wrote:Please, please point out these gross inaccuracies. Just saying he is inaccurate without pointing out what is a bit intellectually dishonest wouldn't you say?
No not dishonest, lazy possibly. I have several times in the past produced detailed point by point fisking of your creationist pseudoscience only to have you just ignore it and walk away because you are unable to support it. You don't have the knowledge or expertise to defend his arguments any more than you could for the 'moon recessions proves a young earth' so why should I bother?

If you want to learn about radiometric dataing then I suggest you read this reasonably accurate article Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Roger Weins, whose Ph.D. thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites. He's a genuine expert.
April 11th, 2008, 11:14 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:I seriously doubt you are more informed on radiometric dating than Mr.Plaisted but if so then please give me the qualifications you you possess that allow you discard his.
A B.Sc. in Mining Engineering and a Ph.D. in geotechnics, how about you?
BecauseHeLives wrote:t's also quite interesting (but not a bit surprising) how you are lableing him a Christian or a "Jesus-lover" seemingly just because he doesn't back an old-earth theory. I didn't see any mention of his faith in his artlcle.
No? then you obviously didn't actually read it then did you.?
The reliability of creationist sources is often questioned because those who write them are not always experts in the areas they write about. But I believe that their message is true, namely, God created the universe, the earth, and all that is in it, God created life on earth recently, and the earth since then has experienced a major catastrophe. If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well. All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach.

He expressed his views more fully here: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/creation.doc
David Plaisted wrote:Today I want to talk about the creation evolution controversy, the reasons for it, and its impact on society.
God’s word as the source of wisdom

The first point to consider is that wisdom comes from God’s word. Psalm 119:130. “The entrance of Thy word giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.” Psalm 119:105 “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” James 1:5 “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”

What the Bible teaches about creation

So wisdom comes from God through His word. What, then, does the Bible say about the creation? According to the Bible, God is the creator of all that exists. He spoke, and the universe came into existence. He spoke, and life was created. The Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” The Word was Jesus. Also, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of His mouth. For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Psalm 33:6,9. Finally, the fourth commandment states: “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” So God created all things in the beginning. In addition, marriage, the Sabbath, and the weekly cycle all were established in Eden


BecauseHeLives wrote:Please, please point out these gross inaccuracies. Just saying he is inaccurate without pointing out what is a bit intellectually dishonest wouldn't you say?
No not dishonest, lazy possibly. I have several times in the past produced detailed point by point fisking of your creationist pseudoscience only to have you just ignore it and walk away because you are unable to support it. You don't have the knowledge or expertise to defend his arguments any more than you could for the 'moon recessions proves a young earth' so why should I bother?

If you want to learn about radiometric dataing then I suggest you read this reasonably accurate article Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Roger Weins, whose Ph.D. thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites. He's a genuine expert.


All that expertise you supposedly have yet you STILL could not point out a single "gross inaccuracy" in his article. Amazing.
April 11th, 2008, 11:45 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
OK, if you insist. Lets take just a couple of teeny bits that demonstrate his lack of basic geology knowledge

Dr. Plaisted wrote:Lava that cools underground cools much more slowly, and can form large crystals. This type of lava typically forms granite or quartz.


Here he confuses lava with magma. A trivial example, agreed, but it's a elementary mistake. That's high school level geology.

I've talked about varved sediments before and how we know through their extent and the evidence from palynology that they are annual layers.

Dr. Plaisted wrote:Varves are thin repetitive sedimentary layers that are used to argue for a long history of the earth. It is claimed that one varve was deposited each year. But to me, the fact that they show so little evidence of erosion or any kind of activity between the layers is suspicious -- they are all so flat and even. In addition, many well-preserved fossil fish are found in the Green River varves. This is an evidence that these varves were laid down rapidly. (Experiments have shown that if fish are not buried rapidly, the bones fall apart.)


Observations have been made in modern lakes where varves are being formed today where fish are being covered in anaerobic conditions without "the bones falling apart" and annual layers are confirmed by pollen data. So it's only 'suspicious' if you know very little about varves.

So we don't really need to get into the esoteric parts of radiometric dating to realize that Dr. Plaisted should stick to computers and leave geology to those who have some education in the subject.
April 12th, 2008, 12:43 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Wandering a bit off topic here, but I can't help wondering about Prof Plaisted's professionalism. He's an employee of a state college, and has disk space on a state-owned server for putting together a web site about his work in computer science -- yet he adds this completely off-topic and self-serving directory about his personal views on religion. Seems unethical and misleading to me. As if he thinks that being a "professor at UNC" makes him an authority on anything he bothers to plaster in his "CE" directory. Obviously, he gets paid enough to buy disk space with any of a number of services where he could put his personal ramblings on things he has little expertise on.

Every page he puts out there comes with the "unc.edu" root node, and every tab shows the UNC logo. Just seems pretty bloody dishonest to me.

Note that I don't attack this fellow by saying his dishonesty means that he must be wrong on what he says. I merely wonder if he's trustworthy in general.
April 12th, 2008, 3:19 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
BecauseHeLives wrote:All that expertise you supposedly have yet you STILL could not point out a single "gross inaccuracy" in his article. Amazing.

OK... I did a little digging into this fellow's raft of articles in his special little directory of fun and games, and found one that holds many whoppers. I may not now much about geology, but I have studied astronomy in college, and I know enough about cosmology to be able to see that this guy is an idiot when it comes to this subject.

Prof Plaisted wrote:There is a distinguished location around which the matter of the universe clusters. This corresponds theologically to the fact that the universe is centered around God


Um... no, there isn't. But this does remind me of a notion that I recall reading about when I was doing a story about the history of cosmology when I was in college. Back in the 1700's, there was a fellow (I forget the name... it was 30 years ago, before the invention of Word) who was trying to figure out what the Milky Way was. He knew it was a concentration of stars -- that could easily be seen when looking through a telescope -- that made it look like the Solar System was embedded in a thick layer of stars. He came up with a proposed structure for the universe that made sense to him, and satisfied his religious sensibilities as well. He thought that maybe all stars in the universe formed a bubble -- a spherical shape with walls thick enough to hold all the stars we could see. The Milky Way was our view of the nearby stars in the bubble wall. He added that since the Universe would be a perfect sphere, the completed picture would have God at the perfect center of the perfect sphere.

Later observations indicated that he was not on the right track. Heck, even contemporary observations could have shown his idea had no merit, since if it had been true, one side of the sky would have needed to be obviously brighter than the other, which isn't the case.

Another barker from the article is this piece of weirdness:

Prof Plaisted wrote:If the speed of light is very fast in between the galaxies for some reason, this would be very hard for us to know, and might have some unusual consequences. This would have to be due to some unusual relation between the gravitational field and the speed of light. If light has slowed down, as even some physicists have speculated, this would have some observable consequences. In the first few moments of creation, light would have had practically an infinite speed. Thus the light stretching across the universe would represent events that took place in only a few moments. As the light slowed down, the light from these events would take many millions (billions) of years to arrive. Thus we should see events in distant galaxies occurring very slowly. The same effect would be produced if light beams stretched out as space expanded in the early history of the universe.

Of course, one doesn't see much change in the stars, but there are actually many sources of variation such as pulsars, binary stars, Cepheid variables, and supernovae. So if one could determine that the pulsars or binary stars in distant galaxies seemed to be rotating more slowly than those in nearby galaxies, or that the Cepheid variables or supernovae were changing more slowly, then this would be a dramatic evidence that light has slowed down, and that the universe is young. The slowing down of light would not necessarily change its apparent frequency, however.

We can quantify how much slowdown there would be if the universe is about 6000 years old. Let's consider a star that was 60,000 light years away when a beam of light left it. For the light to reach us, its average speed would have to be 10 light years per year. Assuming the speed of light has been decreasing, this means that the speed of light when it left the star was at least 10 times its current value. This would mean that the star would be seen changing 10 times as slowly as it really is. For a star that was 6 million light years away when a beam of light left, it would be seen slowed down by a factor of 1000 at least. A star 6 billion years away when a beam of light left would be seen slowed down by a factor of a million at least. For objects within about 50 light years, there will be no slowdown, since we know that the velocity of light has not changed much in that time.

Similar calculations apply if space has stretched out, stretching light beams with it. If one has a light beam 60,000 light years long with at most 6,000 years of history in it, then this history will arrive on the average at most one year of history per 10 years of time, that is, slowed down by a factor of at least ten. Farther objects would have greater slowdowns. However, I believe that one could only observe distant objects in the condition they were in when they were 6,000 light years or less away from us.

This would seem to be a good way to settle once and for all the question of whether the speed of light has decreased, or whether space has recently been stretched out. One only needs to measure rates of change of close and distant objects. Our own galaxy is, I believe, about 100,000 light years across, so there should even be some slowdown for stars in the Milky Way.

Unfortunately, there is a tremendous variation in the lengths of periods for pulsars, binary stars, and Cepheid variables, making it difficult to detect any slowdown or to know if there is a slowdown with distance at all.


"Tremendous variation" in the period of pulsars, binary stars and Cepheid variables? Is he cracked? These are known to be the most stable repeating events in the universe. For this idea to have a chance at being taken seriously, the decay rates of pulsar, Cepheids, and so on would have to be shown to change with relation to distance, with greater rates of change being observed over years of observations for more distant objects as opposed to those nearby.

This guy is doing the same thing that all creationists do: pretending to do science, while getting it ass-backward. He needs to stick to the stuff he's good at -- programming computers.
April 12th, 2008, 3:56 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:All that expertise you supposedly have yet you STILL could not point out a single "gross inaccuracy" in his article. Amazing.

OK... I did a little digging into this fellow's raft of articles in his special little directory of fun and games, and found one that holds many whoppers.


I took a brief look at the article "one that holds many whoppers", and found this line here to be particularly interesting.
The Bible seems to require a young universe, though it may be possible to interpret it differently. Therefore the possibility of a young universe should be taken seriously.


Doesn't sound like a very scientific way of conducting research now does it?
April 12th, 2008, 6:53 am
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
Wow, my hat is off to you gentlemen. You have way more patience for this type of ridiculousness than me.

Now watch as BHL once again dodges the obvious to either fade away or change the topic. The more things change, eh?
April 12th, 2008, 9:06 am
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:
Well, so much for the ten thousand year old Grand Canyon theory.


Actually this only re-enforces the 10,000 year theory. Creationists have always felt that the Grand Canyon was created during or right after the great flood. Since we know there were likely dinosoars on the Ark then it would be a true statement that, yes, the Grand Canyon is as old as the dinosaurs and that dinosoars likely roamed around the canyon.


We know here were dinosaurs on the ark !? Really? What did they eat? Especially the cuddly, meat-eaters like T-rex? What did they do with all the dino poop? Exactly how big was this stupid arK? What time was the group harmony sing-along that kept all the criiters happy, docile, and celibate? Or did Noah and the boys have to make daily rounds with the animal tranqs? No, wait, must have been like a suspended animation kind of thing, right?

I cannot see how anyone as intelligent as you otherwise seem to be can actually spout nonsense like this. And it would be okay to let our kids learn this kind of drivel in "Science" class? Over my dead body.

Unbelievable.
The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. -- Albert Camus

Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
-- John Steinbeck
April 12th, 2008, 9:47 am
User avatar
The Rain King
 
Location: High Point
Dr Plaisted is a 'just add God' instant expert on many subjects:

Here http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/junk.html he gives us the benefit of his breathtaking knowledge of genetics
b
4. Maybe the Lord inserted those similarities for a reason we do not understand. They could even have been inserted as tests of our faith. The Lord does not force any to believe, but gives opportunity to doubt for those who are seeking it.

5. Another possibility is that the Lord, when he cursed Adam and Eve after the fall, also cursed all life by introducing errors into the DNA. One could expect that similar species were cursed in a similar way, out of fairness.
...
I wanted to comment in more depth about the effects of the curse. One of the purposes of the Creation is to illustrate spiritual truth. Before the entrance of sin, a perfect creation could faithfully represent spiritual reality. After the fall of man, this was no longer so. Now it would be necessary for the plants to bear thorns and thistles to teach spiritual lessons, and for the soil to be difficult to work. Jesus in his parables often referred to the things of nature as illustrations of the workings of good and evil. It is sad that the innocent animals had to bear the effects of sin which they had not caused, but their sufferings do help to bring to the mind of man the terrible effects of evil and lead him back to God.


Just peachy isn't it? God 'to be fair' curses all animals for Adam and Eve' sin just as a reminder to humans. He also sets up life to look as if it evolved as a test, because he loves us soooooo much he wants those who use the intelligence he gave them to burn in agony for eternity.

I wonder what his computer science courses are like?

"If thou useth the GOTO thou shalt be cast into the hell of spaghetti code"
"Pascal is the only True language. All others are false doctrine and named for infidels"
"Your first passed parameter belongs to God, for the smell of burning silicon is pleasing to the Lord"
"Thou shalt no covet thy competitor's code, nor his laptop"
April 12th, 2008, 10:19 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
RebelSnake wrote:...Grand Canyon may be as old as dinosaurs, says new study
Study by University of Colorado at Boulder, California Institute of Technology pushes back assumed origins by 40-50 million years

The National Science Foundation and Caltech funded the study.

Well, so much for the ten thousand year old Grand Canyon theory. :mrgreen:


Don't be silly, RS. The Grand Canyon cannot be even 10,000 years old. Did you forget that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Gosh, I cannot believe you believe these scientific lies. Please restrict all your reading to the bible so you don't pick up these bits of misinformation. :lol:
April 12th, 2008, 3:12 pm
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
Questioner wrote:Don't be silly, RS. The Grand Canyon cannot be even 10,000 years old. Did you forget that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Gosh, I cannot believe you believe these scientific lies. Please restrict all your reading to the bible so you don't pick up these bits of misinformation. :lol:

Well, Questioner, you see the thing is that there are two groups at work here.

The straight-up creationists (ie the SUC-ers) use the Ussher timeline and say 6,000 years.

The Intelligent Designers (ID-iots) can't use the word "God" in their literature, and stick with a shadowy "designer" who "may or may not be some sort of god or other agency from outside the universe" -- normally accompanied by a series of nudges, winks and "SAY NO MORE!" :lol: These folks are the ones that generally put for their estimate of the age of the Universe as 10,000 years.

So they're sort of cousins to the Bible thumpers, at least so far as the science and natural evidence (SANE) crowd is concerned.
April 12th, 2008, 3:21 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Sanjuro wrote:Wow, my hat is off to you gentlemen. You have way more patience for this type of ridiculousness than me.

I don't know that I'd call it "patience." The matter of this UNC professor got my attention, and I found looking over the results of his Seventh Day Adventist obsession somewhat entertaining. He obviously is buying into the fallacy that a degree in engineering gives him the qualifications he needs to discuss science... as he would prefer it to be, not as it is. The fact that his university allows him the freedom to lie like a cheap rug on their servers is rather astounding to me.

Juxtapose that with the "Expelled" movie... sounds rather curious indeed. :mrgreen:
April 12th, 2008, 3:31 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote: The matter of this UNC professor got my attention, and I found looking over the results of his Seventh Day Adventist obsession somewhat entertaining. He obviously is buying into the fallacy that a degree in engineering gives him the qualifications he needs to discuss science

A degree in Engineering? How dare you :)

His BS is in mathematics, his Ph. D. is in Computer Science.

You don't need any qualifications to discuss science, but if you wish to be taken seriously you have to show some competence. If you wish to claim that several branches of science are wrong, then you would have to show real expertise as well as evidence.

His qualifications became an issue when BHL appealed to his authority as "a professor at UNC".

Somehow he must have slipped past the Big Science gestapo who, as Ben Stein assures us, will expel any professors who hint at supporting creationism.
April 12th, 2008, 4:09 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
I may be mistaken, but I consider Computer Science to be a type of engineering... As in the creation of artifacts out of patterns of instructions. It's far more a creative endeavor than science proper, which is the work of discovering new knowledge.
April 12th, 2008, 6:54 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
I've often said that any subject that has the word 'science' in it - isn't: Computer 'Science', political 'science' etc.

While some aspect of CS are like engineering, and are even given titles like 'computer engineering' and 'software engineering'; core computer science isn't considered an engineering discipline but a math one. Dr Plaisted is a mathematician not a scientist or engineer.

BHL seems conspicuous by his absence. Hello... Anyone there...
April 12th, 2008, 8:07 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:BHL seems conspicuous by his absence. Hello... Anyone there...


Your..rational.... arguments...gasp...weaken...me... Must...find..Chick tract...regain (choke) strength... :wink:
April 12th, 2008, 11:16 pm
User avatar
The Rain King
 
Location: High Point

Return to Science