Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Earth Science

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grand Canyon Is "Frankenstein" of Geologic Formations

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27, 2014 @12:18AM (#46077711)

    You have no idea what Frankenstein means, do you? Try reading it sometime. Here's a hint: start by reading the subtitle.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 27, 2014 @01:43AM (#46078123)
    Yeah around here that shit passes for "funny". Because everyone here is an insecure douchebag, always longing to prove how inoffensive and easygoing and modern and sensitive and clever they are. So this super mildmannered neutered form of humor is considered some kind of achievement. Each humors the other so he can be humored like a child in turn. Now you know why the idiotic, repetitive, annoying, predictable, unoriginal memes keep getting modded up. Yeah dude, sharks with lasers attached to their heads, man that's definitely hilarious even after YEARS of seeing it, sure man, that's great! Quick, mod it up to +5 Funny! Mod down the guys who don't share these insecurities and recognize it as stupid, let's definitely never listen to them or ask questions like "what if they do have a point?"! Oh man I almost feel part of something now!
  • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Monday January 27, 2014 @04:25AM (#46078597) Homepage

    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.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?