tags: science, geology, Grand Canyon, religion, creationism, humor, funny, streaming video
The Grand Canyon is such an icon of the Earth's geological history, of slow and steady uplift, erosion, submergence and deposition, that the creationist crowd thought it essential to tackle it head on. So they have come up with an explanation as to how it might have got there in a world created only 6,000 years ago. Their attempts to squeeze this majestic testament to natural processes into bronze age mythology are not just clumsy, they're the stuff good comedy is made of [10:03]
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I want to tell you about a great new book that has one forgivable flaw, which I’ll mention at the end. But first, a word from Bizarro Land. This is about the Grand Canyon.
I would think that the Grand Canyon would be the last thing that creationists would point to as proof of a young earth (…
To answer that question briefly, it is really really old if you mean "how old are the oldest rocks that are exposed by the Grand Canyon," and it is probably just a few million years old (5 or 6 by some estimates) if you mean "how long did the canyon itself take to form."
An African peneplain…
That Answers in Genesis crackpot, Terry Mortenson, is speaking on "Millions of Years" at the Creation "Museum". Those of us who visited that circus of charlatanry know that this is one of their obsessions — the idea that the earth is more than 6000 years old is one of the wrecking balls atheists…
I'm pretty sure Amanda and I were abducted by aliens this morning. This is not the first time, for me. I was abducted with two others about 20 years ago in Southern Maine while looking for antiques, back when you could still get them cheap even in antique stores (inexpensive antiques, not aliens…
This is a nice way to learn geology. 2 parts fun, 1 part real science.
For one horrible moment I expected to be watching an ID production. Thankfully not.
One could go a little further than this short, and point out how the Creationists are poster children for the dangers of reasoning from analogy. Analogies have their place - in conveying some key points of an idea, laying the ground work for a teaching experience, etc. i.e., their usefulness is descriptive. Not prescriptive. Mixed in with starting from analogy is starting from unexamined and erroneous statements and using them as axiomatically TRUE for the ensuing "proof". Yes, they say "if A then B", but then studiously ignore the fact that their A is actually and demonstrably FALSE, instead taking it as proof that B is TRUE.
Now I think of it, I do not recall them ever using a construct other than "if A then B". Maybe it sounds too close to English? Maybe the others (constructs) do not? What part of A -> B is it that they miss?
The stupid - it deluges!