Everyone interprets the data based on their worldview. The article "Dating Niagara Falls" in the May 2003 issue of Impact reveals one such case. Sir Charles Lyell, the popularizer of uniformity visited Niagara falls in 1841. The falls recedes at 4-5 feet per year. Yet, he discounted an eyewitness report of "3 feet per year" and stated that it was "1 foot per year."
If Niagara Falls has always receded at the rate of 1 foot per year, it would be 35,00 years old.
If Niagara Falls has always receeded at the current rate of 4-5 feet per year, it would be about 7,000 years old.
Why did Lyell chose the rate of 1 foot per year?
Even if he had a report of 1 foot per, why did he latch onto that one and not the report of Mr. Bakewell (3 ft. per year)?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment