There's a scene in a "Flintstones" where the two families are on vacation and they get the Grand Canyon and it is a little stream. "They say it's going to be a big thing some day..."

I learned from a climate warmers website about the breaking of an ice wall that drained the St. Lawrence and changed the salinity of the Atlantic.

Re the Mississippi and the Colorado and the wider discussion including global warming, 150 to 100 years ago and up to today, there was an argument between Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism, as there was before that between Vulcanism and Neptunism (great land masses formed from volcanoes or drying oceans). Myself, I understand those all as false dichotomies.

Even the distinction between a comet and a planetoid ("meteor") can be arbitrary. One is different from the other conceptually, but not every object falls exclusively into one class or the other.

In Suspect Terrain by John Mcphee (author of Irons in the Fire and The Curve of Binding Energy among many others) is about a geologist who questions the over-use of continental drift as an explanation. I just mention this in the context of paradigms from the classic Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Over-arching theories come and go, and while they are ascendant they dominate completely. Seldom in science do we have competing co-equal paradigms.

Thanks for the link. With several meteorites in my collection, I should think differently about platinum.

In Suspect Terrain reviewed here.
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
"Collecting Meteorites" here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

I live near the confluence of the Minnesota River and the Mississippi the river valley is over a mile and a half and the river is about 100 yards it is also a very flat low area. the water cut bluffs at sometime in the past 200 feet or more for high water. The water volume had to be incredible during a massive flood that eroded the valley.

Yes that was detailed in one of Graham Hancock's books. I find it interesting that supposed "discoveries" that are presented as new, seem to be recycled now, almost as if someone is just wanting to toss out stuff to keep people occupied. This was not new material, but is presented as such, especially after the big brooh ha they made over it.

Hi Nickursis
As you know The comet theory for this event was written in a scientific paper back in 2007 or so and the establishment has been blowing back ever since . The resistance to hard evidence has gone on for a hundred years almost. The event melted vast unimaginable amounts of ice releasing a wall of water 100's of meters high instantly.

J Harlan Bretz was ridiculed and ostracized for
50 + years .
Starting in 1923 paper Bretz decided to stir up his fellow geologists just a little bit. In the second paper Bretz presented his theory that a truly huge catastrophic flood was in fact the creator of the most prominent features of the Scabland region. 2

Bretz's remarkable work was built painstakingly
over many years, but he had to fight great opposition for many decades for its final acceptance. Finally, in 1979, the geological establishment publicly acknowledged Bretz's work by awarding him the prestigious Penrose Medal - the most prestigious honor in the field of geology.
The thing is all these prominant geologists almost drove him out of his profession for 5 decades when they had never even bothered to see the sight for themselves.

Yet, Wiki pulls in the "other crowd" in denying the same evidence as it has been gathered over the years. Seems like Science wants to reflect politics and culture as the "must be a good guy bad guy" relationship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger...

Here is an article on Space.com that says essentially the same thing as this "new paper" and it was in 2012:

http://www.space.com/14793-comet-eart...

So, this just makes me wonder, how much science is actually "new" and how much is just "recycled" as "new"? How much is original anymore? Seems strange how things are being presented nowadays.