Grand Canyon Is "Frankenstein" of Geologic Formations 132
sciencehabit writes "It's a debate that has vexed scientists for decades: Is the Grand Canyon young or old, geologically speaking? Both, a new study declares. A group of scientists reports that the famed formation is a hybrid of five different gorges of various ages--two of three middle segments formed between 70 million and 50 million years ago and between 25 million and 15 million years ago, but the two end segments were carved in the past 5 million to 6 million years--and the Colorado River only tied them into a single continuous canyon 5 million or 6 million years ago."
That's not what Frankenstein means (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea what Frankenstein means, do you? Try reading it sometime. Here's a hint: start by reading the subtitle.
Re:Erosion is a myth (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:The Grand Canyon is not a "formation" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for precision in language, but in day-to-day speech a 'formation' is just something that is formed, and the grand canyon is indeed a formation even if it is not a 'geologic formation' proper. It's a bit like if mechanics decided to formally call washers 'round things' and then got particularly upset when a ball bearing was casually referrered to as a 'round thing' as well.