Follow Main Street Monroe: Facebook Twitter

 
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - You aint from around here?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

You aint from around here?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
bobpreston View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Feb 12 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bobpreston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 12:15pm
Yeah I guess its like global whining, if everything ends were tards want it then its all proof of their theories.
Even though I am not on defense of creation I still find it funny nothing has evolved in recorded history it all just stopped once humans learned to write.

I would like to see some real proof either way! No there is none at this point so dont go into what some scientist thinks. 
Back to Top
Matt_Steele View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Mar 07 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 3475
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_Steele Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 12:37pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Even though I am not on defense of creation I still find it funny nothing has evolved in recorded history it all just stopped once humans learned to write.

I would like to see some real proof either way! No there is none at this point so dont go into what some scientist thinks. 

I'm not sure why you believe that nothing has evolved in recorded history, but it's probably because of your last sentence. You want real proof but you won't listen to a scientist! lol who is going to come up with proof then? What is your standard of proof!? 
Back to Top
Matt_Steele View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Mar 07 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 3475
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_Steele Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 12:44pm
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/ten-new-or-newly-discovered-animal-evolutions-including-humans

or even cracked

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html

There's probably some distractions in there but some of these are good
Back to Top
bobpreston View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Feb 12 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bobpreston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 1:38pm
Sorry matt those are weak at best, dogs riding the subway is evolution. LOL you take this serious? Most are poison related. Alcohol is a poison, the more you drink the more you can drink. Does that mean evolution? No it means you adapt to current envronment. But stop drinking for a year and see that it reverses your evolution. Nice try! 
Back to Top
bobpreston View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Feb 12 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bobpreston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 1:42pm
So is this evolution or just islamic sheep herders in the middle east making to much love?


Back to Top
Matt_Steele View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Mar 07 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 3475
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_Steele Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Sorry matt those are weak at best, dogs riding the subway is evolution. LOL you take this serious? Most are poison related. Alcohol is a poison, the more you drink the more you can drink. Does that mean evolution? No it means you adapt to current envronment. But stop drinking for a year and see that it reverses your evolution. Nice try! 

What is your standard of proof? 

Also, can you please explain the difference between adaptation and evolution? 
Back to Top
bobpreston View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Feb 12 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bobpreston Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 7:31pm
Standard of proof, ugh maybe just life. I have been on both side of the drunk ability through my life. I could drink 2+ liters of 80 proof booze within 6-7 hours and still function. Now I am lucky to get a 750ml down the hatch before passing out. Plus search google for "record blood alcohol levels". Many of those people must have evolved to hit that high of %BAC and live. Not so much they just got use to drinking.

I think I defined the difference above, scroll back.
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 7:52pm
Wow


Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 21 2014 at 11:44pm
I actually transported a lady to the ER that was unconscious from alcohol intoxication and she had an alcohol blood level of .74. She was almost dead but the hospital was able to reverse her condition but it finally took its toll in later years and she died of a seizure due to alcohol poisoning.
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 9:30am
Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.
 
The problem, though, is that despite fact and hard evidence - people who cling to their faith no questions asked will still say he's wrong.
 
There is nothing wrong with having said faith either - but the bottom line is that creationism is just religion by another name masquerading as scientific theory and/or fact - and it's not.
 
You can poke holes in "evolution science" all you want, but I can turn around and poke planet sized holes in "creation science".
 
If your faith says that evolution is not possible - that's ok. However, until you present fact based, observable, repeatable evidence - again, it's just religion by another name - and that has no place in our public education system. I think that more than anything is the issue - I don't want my kids learning religion in public school simply renamed as creation science, or alternative theory.
 
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
Matt_Steele View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Mar 07 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 3475
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_Steele Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by bobpreston bobpreston wrote:

Standard of proof, ugh maybe just life. I have been on both side of the drunk ability through my life. I could drink 2+ liters of 80 proof booze within 6-7 hours and still function. Now I am lucky to get a 750ml down the hatch before passing out. Plus search google for "record blood alcohol levels". Many of those people must have evolved to hit that high of %BAC and live. Not so much they just got use to drinking.

I think I defined the difference above, scroll back.

You copied and pasted something from the dictionary. But that leaves open many questions. Such as, is adaptation being a cause of evolution? Or put another way, maybe evolution occurs because of a need to adapt. 

A short term "adaption" (if you could even call it that) to handle more alcohol is different than generations of animals breeding and having offspring that are genetically different to adapt to certain poisons etc. It's not like these mice that are evolving to survive our poison are all of the sudden losing that advantage when they get older. 
Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.
 
The problem, though, is that despite fact and hard evidence - people who cling to their faith no questions asked will still say he's wrong.
 
There is nothing wrong with having said faith either - but the bottom line is that creationism is just religion by another name masquerading as scientific theory and/or fact - and it's not.
 
You can poke holes in "evolution science" all you want, but I can turn around and poke planet sized holes in "creation science".
 
If your faith says that evolution is not possible - that's ok. However, until you present fact based, observable, repeatable evidence - again, it's just religion by another name - and that has no place in our public education system. I think that more than anything is the issue - I don't want my kids learning religion in public school simply renamed as creation science, or alternative theory.
 
 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it. I believe that it should be left to a vote of the people. Not the courts but the general voting public. I for one am tired of a court judge making decisions that affect my family. If the voting public decides to not have it in school then I will teach it to them at home. I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ. I do believe that He made this earth along with all the planets and if evolution does exist it is by His hand that it is allowed. And besides you with your non-belief do not have any thing to look forward to in death. But a Christian has a whole life in eternity to look forward to. We have stopped teaching our children that there is a Holy God that will judge us after this life and now they are out killing, stealing, and living like there is no tomorrow. That is why this world is in the shape it is in.
Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

Originally posted by jrock1203 jrock1203 wrote:

Originally posted by dad0f3 dad0f3 wrote:

Originally posted by blueblood blueblood wrote:


Making excuses? Not open for debate? Bad idea to discuss. Universally accepted? Sounds a lot more like religion, than, say religion. I'm not making any excuses, let the best science win. You know what the evolutionists are afraid of? You must accept a whole lot of science that contradicts evolution to believe in evolution, and that is where all the fear comes from, and it is coming all from one side! ???????
This young lady stated a lot of things as "fact" that aren't in fact a fact, lol.  If the anti-evolution croud has bad ideas, make them look like the fools that they are! Destroy them with your superior knowledge and command of science!   Surely there must be someone out there who can do this if Bill Nye isn't up to the task.  Instead they want to hide behind the excuse that they don't want to legitimize the creationist position.   Please....The problem is they consistently lose these debates because macro evolution wilts under honest-to-goodness scientific scrutiny.
 
The problem, though, is that despite fact and hard evidence - people who cling to their faith no questions asked will still say he's wrong.
 
There is nothing wrong with having said faith either - but the bottom line is that creationism is just religion by another name masquerading as scientific theory and/or fact - and it's not.
 
You can poke holes in "evolution science" all you want, but I can turn around and poke planet sized holes in "creation science".
 
If your faith says that evolution is not possible - that's ok. However, until you present fact based, observable, repeatable evidence - again, it's just religion by another name - and that has no place in our public education system. I think that more than anything is the issue - I don't want my kids learning religion in public school simply renamed as creation science, or alternative theory.
 
 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it. I believe that it should be left to a vote of the people. Not the courts but the general voting public. I for one am tired of a court judge making decisions that affect my family. If the voting public decides to not have it in school then I will teach it to them at home. I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ. I do believe that He made this earth along with all the planets and if evolution does exist it is by His hand that it is allowed. And besides you with your non-belief do not have any thing to look forward to in death. But a Christian has a whole life in eternity to look forward to. We have stopped teaching our children that there is a Holy God that will judge us after this life and now they are out killing, stealing, and living like there is no tomorrow. That is why this world is in the shape it is in.
Which, don't get me wrong, is perfectly fine. As long as it's not in tax payer funded schools. You want that concept taught to your kids, educate them in a religious school and let the rest of us move on . Big smile
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 2:12pm
Also, MFD, how many are "out killing, stealing, and living like there is no tomorrow" in the name of your God?
 
You're right, I have nothing to look forward to after death because I will no longer be- but I have plenty to be happy about regarding my death - namely an end to any suffering I may be experiencing leading up to death. A final release as it were.
 
If your kids are going to church and religious school, how are they not being taught about God and religion?
 
I don't need the fear of a big man in the sky to make me a good person.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 2:57pm
And it is your "right" to believe you are nothing more than a cosmic accident, defying astronomically infinite mathematical odds of occurrence.

Thought for today and everyday, without an audible reply being requested or necessary.

Whether you believe or you don't believe, has absolutely zero effect on the outcome of it being real or not real.

Eternity is a concept in which the human brain is incapable of processing!


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 4:10pm
What you really do not understand is that your "suffering" will just be beginning at the time of your death if you do not surrender your life to God. You will be cast into outer darkness with the wailing and gnashing of teeth. I take this to believe you will be thrown into eternal separation from anyone yet you will still be able to hear the lamentations of those around you suffering in the same way.
And yes I think it should be put to a district vote for each school and let the voters decide it they want creationism taught in their publicly funded school. That way you can decide which school district you want to move into.
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 5:02pm
Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it.


Religion has no place in the public school system.

If you want your kids learning that you should send them to a private religious school.

It isn't up for vote.  The supreme court has spoken on this.

No matter how bad you "want it" doesn't make creationism science.






Back to Top
MElass View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Sep 11 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1640
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MElass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 7:00pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:



Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

 

And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it.


Religion has no place in the public school system.

If you want your kids learning that you should send them to a private religious school.

No matter how bad you "want it" doesn't make creationism science.










Absolutely right! If you want your children to learn about creationism, send them to a religious school (either full time or "Sunday school") or teach them yourself. Public school should teach proven SCIENCE! Creationism is NOT science.
Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 22 2014 at 11:12pm
Originally posted by cmsquare cmsquare wrote:

Originally posted by MFD50 MFD50 wrote:

 
And I do want my kids learning that there is a creation science. Just because you don't want it does not mean that everyone doesn't want it.


Religion has no place in the public school system.

If you want your kids learning that you should send them to a private religious school.

It isn't up for vote.  The supreme court has spoken on this.

No matter how bad you "want it" doesn't make creationism science.






 
The Supreme Court has no right to tell individual districts what to teach. If the voters in that district want a certain subject in that school then it should allowed.
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 23 2014 at 6:18am
Not only does it have the right MFD it's already done it a LONG time ago.

Come back to reality.


Back to Top
jrock1203 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 22 2013
Location: Monroe
Status: Offline
Points: 1542
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jrock1203 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 23 2014 at 9:33am
MFD they most certainly do - if you can provide evidence otherwise please, by all means...
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Back to Top
blueblood View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 6493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blueblood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 11:51am
Sound familiar? Exactly what is happening throughout this thread! Wonder what everyone is afraid of?
From AIG.

Q: Why are atheists decrying the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham?


A: The media coverage of the upcoming debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye at the Creation Museum continues to grow. Many well-known figures on both sides are speaking out about who they believe will win or about whether there should be a debate at all. Recently, famed atheist Richard Dawkins weighed in on the debate in some impromptu comments on a recent web article decrying the debate.

Unfortunately, at least in his interviews, Dawkins treats his opposition with a remarkable amount of disrespect and offers little more than blind assertions that evolution is true. Perhaps it’s better that he chooses not to debate biblical creationists as he has nothing concrete to offer, except his typical anti-creationist assertions seen in his books and articles. It’s like a child throwing a tantrum.

Dawkins and other atheists don’t want people to hear what biblical creationists have to present. These secularists want to censor what the public will hear, for they know that as soon as people are taught to think critically and correctly about origins, they will understand that molecules-to-man evolution is a belief system. Evolution is really the secularists’ religion to try to explain life without God.

Read the whole article for our response to several evidences Dawkins points to in order to refute creation science, such as radiometric dating and the fossil record.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/22/atheist-tantrums-dawkins-debate?utm_source=answers-weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=main-question&utm_campaign=aw01252014


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Mark Twain
Back to Top
MFD50 View Drop Down
Prominent Voice Citizen
Prominent Voice Citizen


Joined: Dec 24 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 2182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MFD50 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:20pm
Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 25 2014 at 12:24pm
I'd rather revisit your comment about how the supreme court can't dictate what is taught in schools.

that was certainly spoken from a place of being  well informed.

I love the spin from Answers in Genesis.

"...don't want people to hear what biblical creationist have to say"

  Not true.  Not true at all.  You can say it all you want.  We just don't want you saying it under the guise it has anything to do with science.  It doesn't.  It doesn't hold up to the scientific method at all. 

Again if you want to teach this stuff go ahead in your church. No one here is saying you don't have that right.  You can teach about how the earth is flat there too if you want; nobody will stop you.

By the way nobody is throwing a tantrum.  Bottom line is you didn't start with trials and end up with an answer of this creation theory therefore it is NOT science.  You had your answers....and filled in the blanks and made up a good story.  Referring to that as science is an insult to science.  This is what people have a problem with.  People like you masquerading Church, Faith and God as Science. 


Back to Top
cmsquare View Drop Down
Voice Council
Voice Council
Avatar

Joined: Sep 30 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 8186
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cmsquare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 26 2014 at 7:52pm
Completely forget evolution for a minute.

The trouble with creation theory is that in order to buy in not only do you have to disregard evolution in general; but pretty much all of science in general.

There is just a huge piece of what we know today to be true that you are basically saying is WRONG.  All while living with the conveniences and modern amenities that sciences provides you with by the way.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140126-grand-canyon-american-southwest-erosion-geology-geophysics/


Unlocking Secrets of the Grand Canyon's Age

Rocks from the iconic gorge provide the clues.

Sunrise over Mt. Hayden in the Grand Canyon.

Sunrise over Mount Hayden in the Grand Canyon.

PHOTOGRAPH BY ERIK HARRISON, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC YOUR SHOT

Sid Perkins

for National Geographic

Published January 26, 2014

To the untrained eye, the Grand Canyon might just look like one big hole in the ground. But to some scientists, the American Southwest's iconic gorge is increasingly looking like several ancient canyons of different ages, stitched together by erosion that occurred about six million years ago, and subsequently sculpted into its modern form.

A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, added to more than a century's worth of fieldwork, is helping researchers decipher a geological tale that began unfolding when dinosaurs roamed the landscape.

For nearly 150 years, scientists have been debating how and when the Grand Canyon formed, says Karl Karlstrom, a geologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. In recent decades they've mostly split into two camps: those proposing a "young canyon" model in which the Colorado River alone carved much of the gorge in the past five million years or so, and those suggesting an "old canyon" model in which a series of ancient rivers carved ancestral canyons along more or less the same route. New research by Karlstrom and his colleagues bolster the notion that what actually happened lies between these two extremes.

To help estimate ancient erosion rates, the team turned to thermochronology—the study of how a rock's temperature has changed through its history. Because temperature rises as depth in the Earth's crust increases, a rock's thermal history provides insight into when, and how quickly, terrain above it eroded away.

Analyzing the Rocks

In the new study, the researchers used a variety of techniques to analyze samples of phosphate-bearing rocks taken from four of the five major sections of the canyon, both from river level and from the canyon rim, which typically lies almost a mile (1.5 kilometers) above the river.

One technique, called apatite fission-track dating, involves counting the number of paths carved through apatite crystals by high-speed alpha particles (helium nuclei) emitted during radioactive decay. Because the atoms in these crystals tend to shift and heal such defects at temperatures above 230°F (110°C), the number of paths remaining in minerals today gives researchers a sense of how long ago the rocks cooled below that threshold.

(Read: "What Created the Rare, Breathtaking Fog Over the Grand Canyon?")

Similarly, by analyzing the amount of radiogenic helium trapped in apatite crystals, the researchers could estimate how long ago the rocks cooled to below 86°F (30°C).

Finally, by measuring the length of fission tracks remaining in apatite crystals, the team got an idea of how long those minerals remained at intermediate temperatures.

So How Old Is It?

Like several previous researchers, Karlstrom and his colleagues found that different parts of the canyon formed at different times. One of the oldest segments, named the Hurricane segment after a famed geological fault, lies in the western portion of the canyon. Data suggest that this stretch of the gorge had been carved to about half its current depth between 70 million and 55 million years ago.

But the researchers posit that erosion hadn't started etching a section that geologists have dubbed "Eastern Grand Canyon," immediately downstream of where the Little Colorado River joins the Colorado, until some 25 million years ago. And the team's analyses suggest that the westernmost and easternmost segments of the canyon were largely carved in the past five million or six million years.

Karlstrom and his colleagues argue that while the Hurricane and Eastern Grand Canyon segments were originally sculpted by different rivers, the Colorado took over the job in the past six million years, joining the disparate canyons and carving them wider and deeper.

"Overall, I think they've done a really good job," says Peter Reiners, a geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "This new model isn't just a compromise of all previous notions; it's recognition that a big river can have a complicated history."

Not everyone is convinced. Brian Wernicke, a geoscientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, points out that interpreting thermochronology data, especially fission-track data in terrain where erosion carves downward as well as sideways, is notoriously difficult. "The new model seems to be much too complicated," he says.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

The Voice | Weather | Advertisers | Advertising Information | Lending Library | Monroe Church Directory

Archived Monroe News From: 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011

Website Design © Xponex Web and Media Services | Contact | Terms of Use | Copyright ©2012 MainStreetMonroe.com