How old is the Grand Canyon? "No comment", from park officials

[BrettStah]

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

We need an atheist president or two, I think...

[JohnJr]

Do Bears shit in the woods?

"No comment."

;)

-John

[Pablo]

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801


We need an atheist president or two, I think...
Someone does not need to be an atheist to say that based on radio carbon dating and "blah blah blah" the Grand Canyon is "blah" years old.

[JPriller]

Someone does not need to be an atheist to say that based on radio carbon dating and "blah blah blah" the Grand Canyon is "blah" years old.Indeed, an Atheist saying it is unlikely to effect religious folks at all. What we need are respected religious leaders saying it.

[mbklein]

I look forward to seeing how Mel Gibson handles the special effects when he makes his Big Flood Movie.

[Lori]

Someone does not need to be an atheist to say that based on radio carbon dating and "blah blah blah" the Grand Canyon is "blah" years old.

My friend Mark doesn't believe that radio carbon dating is accurate. He believes that God deliberately manipulates radio carbon dating so that we get false results, showing that things on earth are well older than they can possibly be.

I ask him why God would do such a thing and he shrugs his shoulders and tells me that it says in the Bible that God will confound.

So, someone from the park could say that radio carbon dating indicates that the grand canyon is 16 trillion-gazillion years old, and that wouldn't stop my friend Mark from thinking that it was formed 6,000 years ago.

[Man In Black]

My friend Mark doesn't believe that radio carbon dating is accurate. He believes that God deliberately manipulates radio carbon dating so that we get false results, showing that things on earth are well older than they can possibly be.

I ask him why God would do such a thing and he shrugs his shoulders and tells me that it says in the Bible that God will confound.

So, someone from the park could say that radio carbon dating indicates that the grand canyon is 16 trillion-gazillion years old, and that wouldn't stop my friend Mark from thinking that it was formed 6,000 years ago.

My grandmother (insert "not your grandmother AGAIN" comment here) believes carbon dating is inherently inaccurate, but that scientists deliberatly use it to brainwash us into believing evolution.

EDIT: Oh, and she believes the Grand Canyon was caused all in one fell swoop by water rushing around during The Flood.

[pgogborn]

My grandmother (insert "not your grandmother AGAIN" comment here) believes carbon dating is inherently inaccurate, but that scientists deliberatly use it to brainwash us into believing evolution.
Just to be super pedantic (I have drunk in pubs with too many archaeologists) in terms of the age of the Earth, the age of the Grand Canyon etc, carbon dating is indeed inaccurate / totally useless.

(it is only accurate / useful for materials very approximately less than 50,000 years old - a time period that is irrelevant when it comes to evolution, let alone the age of the planet)

[Otto]

The problem is that "carbon" dating is a term frequently used as a catch-all for radioisotope dating methods, when that's not entirely true. To date something like a rock, you generally use Rb/Sr dating instead, although there are other methods.

[RegBarc]

The problem I have with the original article in the thread is that it's basically a press release; they quote their own organization for the story.

The only thing I've been able to confirm is that they sell a book at the store that has the biblical story, but beyond this article from PEER (which is a press release) there is nothing corroborating their major claims.

It seems like BS to me anyway, but I'm incredibly sceptical of it until there's at least a second source, which there isn't as of yet.

[Turtleboy]

A google news search for "park service grand canyon" does not yield a single mainstream media source reporting this story.

Just people with agendas, and one spoof.

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-10,GGGL:en&q=park%20service%20grand%20canyon&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

[Pablo]

My friend Mark doesn't believe that radio carbon dating is accurate. He believes that God deliberately manipulates radio carbon dating so that we get false results, showing that things on earth are well older than they can possibly be.

I ask him why God would do such a thing and he shrugs his shoulders and tells me that it says in the Bible that God will confound.

So, someone from the park could say that radio carbon dating indicates that the grand canyon is 16 trillion-gazillion years old, and that wouldn't stop my friend Mark from thinking that it was formed 6,000 years ago.
That was my point. The say "based on the following evidence ..., the Grand Canyon is yyyy years old." At that point, people are free to believe or not believe the evidence. If the do not believe the evidence, then they can disregard the conclusion about the age that is based on the evidence.

[JustAllie]

That's messed up.

[Turtleboy]

I think the story is bullshit.

From the Grand Canyon National Park Official Website (http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm)

The exposed geologic strata - layer upon layer from the basement Vishnu schist to the capping Kaibab limestone - rise over a mile above the river, representing one of the most complete records of geological history that can be seen anywhere in the world. Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years. This geologic incline creates a diversity of biotic communities, and five of the seven life zones are present in the park.

And again, why isn't this being reported in real news sources?

[Makita]

Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years. (http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm)

Mind you, that is how old the ROCK(S) at the bottom are, not nessiscarily the actual age of the Canyon itself...

And 'No Comment' is a MUCH better answer than "I dunno, go look it up on Wikipedia, or somethin'!"

[RegBarc]

I think the story is bullshit.

From the Grand Canyon National Park Official Website (http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm)



And again, why isn't this being reported in real news sources?
I can't quote this enough.

I think someone is going to have to produce a real source, or this story is going to be in the same league as the Bush National Guard memos.

[Turtleboy]

Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years. (http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/naturalfeaturesandecosystems.htm)

Mind you, that is how old the ROCK(S) at the bottom are, not nessiscarily the actual age of the Canyon itself...

And 'No Comment' is a MUCH better answer than "I dunno, go look it up on Wikipedia, or somethin'!"


But the point of the OP is that creationists don't believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years or so. The NPS site says that the rock at the bottom of the Canyon is 1,800 million yers old.

[BrettStah]

That peer.org website is run by an organization of employees, some of whom work at the Grand Canyon. They are claiming that they have been instructed to say "no comment". I've found some news sites that repeat this claim, but I don't know what else you want to support this, other than some investigative piece on "20/20" that would have someone go undercover to ascertain if this is true by asking employees the question, or by finding employees who dispute this claim.

[RegBarc]

That peer.org website is run by an organization of employees, some of whom work at the Grand Canyon. They are claiming that they have been instructed to say "no comment". I've found some news sites that repeat this claim, but I don't know what else you want to support this, other than some investigative piece on "20/20" that would have someone go undercover to ascertain if this is true by asking employees the question, or by finding employees who dispute this claim.
The only news sites I've found that make the "no comment" claim are the ones that are getting the information directly from Peer.org. They rehash PEER's press release, but don't offer their own sources beyond that.

If a news site is simply repeating the claims of PEER, then it is just as bunk as PEER's press release. If the news sites specifically state that they contacted the Park Service and they told them the same, then it's confirmed. But without that confirmation, the story is based off of the claims of PEER.

[BrettStah]

The only news sites I've found that make the "no comment" claim are the ones that are getting the information directly from Peer.org. They rehash PEER's press release, but don't offer their own sources beyond that.

If a news site is simply repeating the claims of PEER, then it is just as bunk as PEER's press release. If the news sites specifically state that they contacted the Park Service and they told them the same, then it's confirmed. But without that confirmation, the story is based off of the claims of PEER.
A website run by government employees who work at the Grand Canyon are saying that they're told to say "no comment". If the management of the Park Service disputes this, they're free to say so. As far as I can tell, they haven't done so, but if you want to ask them directly let us know what they say.

You basically have a watchdog group (PEER) comprised of government employees making this claim. Do you think that this claim is made up, meaning that no park employees have been told to say "no comment", or do you think that one or more park employees are making it up and reporting it as the truth to this PEER website?

[Turtleboy]

That peer.org website is run by an organization of employees, some of whom work at the Grand Canyon. They are claiming that they have been instructed to say "no comment". I've found some news sites that repeat this claim, but I don't know what else you want to support this, other than some investigative piece on "20/20" that would have someone go undercover to ascertain if this is true by asking employees the question, or by finding employees who dispute this claim.

I've rafted the Grand Canyon twice. I've stayed at the South Rim, walked around, and hiked down the Bright Angel Trail from the top to the bottom.

There are two stories here.

If the story is that among the many many books in the bookstore is some stupid book about how Noah's Flood or the Great Spagetti monster created the Grand Canyon, I believe it. And I agree that the book probably shouldn't be there (although I'm not sure I believe in censorship either).

If the story is that the Park Rangers are not allowed to tell people how old the Canyon is, I say BS.

http://www.pbase.com/turtleboy/image/17279317.jpg

[Turtleboy]

Wow, the only thing that I proved is that I'm fat.

[RegBarc]

A website run by government employees who work at the Grand Canyon are saying that they're told to say "no comment". If the management of the Park Service disputes this, they're free to say so. As far as I can tell, they haven't done so, but if you want to ask them directly let us know what they say.

You basically have a watchdog group (PEER) comprised of government employees making this claim. Do you think that this claim is made up, meaning that no park employees have been told to say "no comment", or do you think that one or more park employees are making it up and reporting it as the truth to this PEER website?
The huge overlaying problem with this is that we can't ask them who told who to confirm the story since PEER exclusively works via anonymous sources. There's no way to double check the story. As I mentioned Rathergate above, I have a huge problem when the sources are anonymous and unattributed. Unattributed is as good as stating the Earth is flat and having no recourse to the statement.

[RegBarc]

Wow, the only thing that I proved is that I'm fat.
I've met you once, albeit over a weekend, and I've never even once thought of the synonym "fat" when looking at you.

[mercurial]

But the point of the OP is that creationists don't believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years or so. The NPS site says that the rock at the bottom of the Canyon is 1,800 million yers old.

The problem is the creationists are so literal they can't understand metaphors and how that reconciles many of the apparent disconnects between a literal interpretation of the bible and what science has proven.

[Turtleboy]

I believe there is one book in the bookstore that says Noah's Flood created the Canyon (among with 500 other books talking about the science).

I do not believe that NPS employees are prohbiited from saying that the earth is 4 billion years old, or how old the Canyon is.

I just don't believe that that's true.

[JustAllie]

I believe there is one book in the bookstore that says Noah's Flood created the Canyon (among with 500 other books talking about the science).

I do not believe that NPS employees are prohbiited from saying that the earth is 4 billion years old, or how old the Canyon is.

I just don't believe that that's true.I tend to agree with you, Turtleboy. I was there this past summer and I'm sure I heard them talking about the age of the canyon or the rock layers in the official ranger talks.

However, I think it's certainly possible that some political appointees tried to tell park employees not comment on the age of the canyon, and that the park employees are concerned that such pressures might grow until they cannot be ignored. That may be the root of the issue.

[BrettStah]

I believe there is one book in the bookstore that says Noah's Flood created the Canyon (among with 500 other books talking about the science).

I do not believe that NPS employees are prohbiited from saying that the earth is 4 billion years old, or how old the Canyon is.

I just don't believe that that's true.
You may be right. Some employees are apparently claiming that it's true, but they could lying, or this peer.org site could be making the whole thing up.

[pgogborn]

Today's Doonesbury is also a tad skeptical about the truth of the story >

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070113.gif

full sequence (http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/dailydose/index.html)

[Martin Tupper]

"It could be true!" refers to the possibility that the Great Flood created the Grand Canyon, not to the possibility that the Park Service is under a gag order.

[pgogborn]

Methinks that Doonsbury was having a 'double whammy' making a joke that the people who believed that there was a possibility that there was a gag order are off the same boat that believes the Great Flood created the Grand Canyon.

As one writer who started her piece "If something seems too good to be true, it's probably false. That's something most journalists learn back in j-school" went on to observe, even Kos does not now believe the gag order story
Free Speech: Nostrils of Satan?
By Linda Sickler
If something seems too good to be true, it's probably false. That's something most journalists learn back in j-school.
...
According to dailykos.com, the rest of the story has been debunked. That website referred to the National Parks Traveler, a blog hosted by Kurt Repanshek.

"This would be like shooting fish in a barrel to any reporter who likes to skewer the current administration," Kurt wrote. "I was already rearranging my day to plunge into this baby."

But, as all good reporters do, Kurt double-checked the facts. And that's when he learned that the story, sadly, just wasn't true >
full report (http://www.connectsavannah.com/show_article.php?article_id=1770)

[JustAllie]

As one writer who started her piece "If something seems too good to be true, it's probably false. That's something most journalists learn back in j-school" went on to observe, even Kos does not now believe the gag order story
We are dealing with something like this at work lately -- a widely-quoted piece of "research" that is so biased and full of holes that it's not even funny. The researchers had a political point to make and did not let any actual facts get in their way. They have numerators wrong, they have denominators wrong, they apply numbers to the wrong population, etc. It amazes me how many times it's quoted without checking the facts... but it's also true that those most likely to quote it are skewed toward the bloggers and op-ed writers, not the serious journalists.

Sigh. The sad thing is that the researchers could have made a much stronger case by using accurate data. It's not like the true numbers would not have been impressive. But the inflated numbers are not impressive, they're unbelievable. The researchers didn't need to blow things all out of proportion. They've utterly undermined their own case by their overwhelming bias.

[pseudonym]

Methinks that Doonsbury was having a 'double whammy' making a joke that the people who believed that there was a possibility that there was a gag order are off the same boat that believes the Great Flood created the Grand Canyon.

Regardless of the veracity of the original story, I think you're misreading the cartoon. There's nothing in there to indicate he's skeptical of the report.

[pgogborn]

Regardless of the veracity of the original story, I think you're misreading the cartoon. There's nothing in there to indicate he's skeptical of the report.Heck, the whole current cartoon arc is about Mark having a slow motion train wreck on air, losing touch with reality, deluding himself with falsehoods because the man who used to frost his tips threw him and his stuff out of his house onto the street.

[Martin Tupper]

Heck, the whole current cartoon arc is about Mark having a slow motion train wreck on air, losing touch with reality, deluding himself with falsehoods because the man who used to frost his tips threw him and his stuff out of his house onto the street.
I still don't see it.

[pgogborn]

Mark's very unflattering descriptions about the man who has dumped him and his conclusion "Good riddance" and "Who needs him" is part of a riff that Mark would like to be true but "sadly... just true" - the same words used in the report I linked to debunking the National Park story.

And when Chase his ex replies "Hey, it could be true, teach the controversy" he is disbelieving what Mark said in [I]all the previous frames of that cartoon story arc, not just the immediately previous one.

[RegBarc]

Mark's very unflattering descriptions about the man who has dumped him and his conclusion "Good riddance" and "Who needs him" is part of a riff that Mark would like to be true but "sadly... just true" - the same words used in the report I linked to debunking the National Park story.

And when Chase his ex replies "Hey, it could be true, teach the controversy" he is disbelieving what Mark said in [I]all the previous frames of that cartoon story arc, not just the immediately previous one.
A Brit that's a Doonesbury expert. Now I've seen everything.

[pgogborn]

We are dealing with something like this at work lately -- a widely-quoted piece of "research" that is so biased and full of holes that it's not even funny.
'Bad Science', my favorite Saturday column in the dead wood newspaper I regularly read, this morning had a good example of such a story.Gay sheep? Let's get the facts straight
Ben Goldacre
Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)

Science told: hands off gay sheep. It's hard to think of a headline more joyous than this classic from the Sunday Times. Apparently Professor Charles Roselli is conducting gruesome experiments on sheep in the name of eradicating homosexuality. Unfortunately this story, co-written by Isabelle Oakeshott - deputy political editor no less - is little more than dystopian fantasy, conjured up by a pressure group to drive an agenda.

We'll open with its big hitter. "The animals' skulls are cut open and electronic sensors are attached to their brains." It sounds gruesome. But it's simply not true. There's no neurophysiology in these experiments at Oregon State University. They measure mate preference by watching the sheep choose a mate.
...
"By varying the hormone levels," it continues, "mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had 'considerable success' in altering the rams' sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes." This is not just completely untrue, it is, in fact, the opposite of what the researchers did. The only similar work completed and published by them was about trying to make "straight" animals "gay" (they avoid those terms) and in any case, that experiment was negative: it failed to achieve this aim.

I could go on: even the details are wrong. "Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds ..." Wrong. "The research is being peer-reviewed by a panel of scientists in America ..." Wrong >
full report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1989526,00.html)

By the way, the Sunday Times that published the "research" is the same newspaper that in a recent thread I told Reg that even though it was owned by Rupert Murdoch (spit) was very reputable.

[Man In Black]

I love Bad Science.

[JPriller]

I'd like to see some supporting evidence for the accusation, but I don't find it totally unbelievable that there's some folks higher up telling Grand Canyon staff not to discuss the canyon's age.

Remember that presidentially-appointed twit at NASA who told people NASA shouldn't say anything that "discounts intelligent design by a creator"?

This kind of stuff happens.

[JPriller]

Battling Doonesbury cartoons!

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070114.gif

[pgogborn]

A Brit that's a Doonesbury expert. Now I've seen everything.
Sort of. :) It would seem that Mark still loves Chase but the big money question to which I can not even begin to guess the answer is, "does Chase still love Mike and why did Chase thrown Mark onto the street?" :angry:

To be slightly more serious, I reckon reading Doonsbury is a good way of keeping a finger on the US pulse. Gary Trudeu is often reasonably even handed when depicting US political debate* and is on the leading edge of US social mores**.

* Now that the Democratic Party has more power I expect to see a few more pokes at the way they behave and a few less at President Bush.

** Having said I have got no clue about what Chase really thinks about Mark, taking into account that Trudeu often depicts the leading edge of US social mores, I would not be surprised that as many states still do not permit gay unions, future episodes of the strip will feature a messy divorce.