Figure 1. Uluru (Ayers Rock), central Australia
Article image and caption
Figure 1. Uluru (Ayers Rock), central Australia
Article image and caption
Actually, they don't. But nice strawman anyway.
They once found them puzzling, and then through scientific inquiry, theory, testing and refinement, they explained them without resorting to magic.
Good article, thanks for posting.
Man, the arguments made in the article are scientifically wrong in so many ways. So MANY ways. It is like a child just tried to use his common sense in the absence of science.
I will take just one example.
They say the inselbergs can’t possibly be millions of years old, citing the fact they are eroding rapidly today. They make the erroneous assumption that the inselbergs were very nearly the size and shape when formed as they are today, and therefore could not have been eroding long.
They discount the scientific possibility that the current inselbergs are the result of million’s of years of erosion at current rates. It is very possible they were much wider when initially formed and have eroded over the millions of years since.
This is just one fallacy. Just like the simplistic assumption on their part. The article is riddled with such. It reads like a bad high school essay. Or rather a good essay for high school, but bad for a true scientific scholar.
I’m gonna tell you one thing kid...Immanuel Velilkovsky.