Trying To Keep Observations Old When They Look Young

Keeping Saturn old was not much of a challenge for secular planetary scientists, it was easy to just assume  the planet with it’s rings was 4.5 billion years old and they expected to observe those expectations.  However, the Cassini mission didn’t turn out the data in what they expected. For example, Saturn’s rings with its array of beautiful colors and shapes that in 1610 were called by Galileo who was the first to discover them, “”handles” or large moons on either side of the planet. Many years later, Christann Huyges proposed that Saturn was surrounded by a solid ring. The first pictures of majestic rings were taken in 1979 by Pioneer 11.

The Cassini spacecraft began to take highly detailed pictures of Saturn’s rings that were absolutely breath-taking but surprises began to mount for those who believe the Universe is billions of years old because Saturn’s rings are young-looking. The ices are way too clean to be 4.5 billion years old being under the forces acting upon them that are so pervasive. So the old idea that proposed the rings formed when Saturn did fell out of favor with a need for new imaginative explanations.

One has turned up and this is not a new idea in particular but a variant of another idea, according to the BBC news:  “Saturn’s rings may have formed when a large moon with an icy mantle and rocky core spiralled into the nascent planet.” Whenever observations in our solar system do not match the old age framework or a particular theory based on naturalism, an asteroid or comet is then evoked as the alternative explanation. For example, that alternative explanation has been used for other planets like Mercury and Venus. It was funny to read that Carl Murray thought it was “a clever way to explain the peculiarly icy nature of the rings” lol.

In Science Daily, the article boosts about how in 1979, Prof. Akiva Bar-Nun from Tel Aviv University’s Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences “developed the theory that there were lakes on Titan. Upon falling to the moon’s surface, he theorized, the hydrocarbons in the atmosphere would form lakes with a depth of approximately 43 meters had they been covering the entire surface of Titan. In addition, he hypothesized that the same elements would form aerosols in the atmosphere.” Later estimations were even higher based on the assumption it’s billions of years old. What Cassini spacecraft actually found in 2005 concerning bodies of liquid on the surface of Titan are restricted to scattered lakes in the polar regions!  The prediction vastness of the lakes was falsified while his other prediction concerning the lakes being hydrocarbons rather than water was verified.

In 2005, the Cassini spacecraft made a starling discovery, there are active geysers at the south pole of little moon Enceladus! It had astronomers shaking their heads, how could a small dead moon be still be geologically active after 4.5 billion years? It should have been frozen out billions of years ago because of lack of bulk, they say. Some computer models were created to find an alternative explanation to keep the moon old, Cassini Project Scientist Dennis Matson came up with a subsurface ocean picks up ions in the rock that bubble upward and explode out the south polar cracks. Questions emerge, like how the ocean survived for billions of years in a moon just 500 miles across, why they erupt at the south pole, and why other moons don’t do this?

JPL came up with another story which calls for friction between the sides of subsurface cracks to keep the interior warm.

“Enceladus’ orbit around Saturn is slightly oval-shaped. As it travels around Saturn, Enceladus moves closer in and then farther away. When Enceladus is closer to Saturn, it feels a stronger gravitational pull from the planet than when it is farther away. Like gently squeezing a rubber ball slightly deforms its shape, the fluctuating gravitational tug on Enceladus causes it to flex slightly. The flexing, called gravitational tidal forcing, generates heat from friction deep within Enceladus.”

Questions emerge with this story, Why does this happen only at Enceladus, and not nearby Mimas or Tethys?  What makes this unique to this one moon?  Don’t other moons librate?  Isn’t all other moons of Saturn have perfect spheres and don’t they have tidal stresses too?

It’s truly amazing on what has been discovered! While the Cassini mission has thrown secular theories a loop, it has provided a wealth of great information on confirming the Bible!

About these ads

10 thoughts on “Trying To Keep Observations Old When They Look Young

  1. Oh well … you still have no clue what you are talking about. Even if the rings of Saturn would be one day old, then that would not change the age of the earth, the sun, the moon, Saturn itself, etc. etc.

    So what is your point ?

    Oh, and you should properly spell the name of one of my heroes, Christiaan Huygens.

  2. Michael: “While the Cassini mission has thrown secular theories a loop, it has provided a wealth of great information on confirming the Bible!”

    So what does your bible say about the rings of Saturn then ? Or even about Saturn ?

  3. One has turned up and this is not a new idea in particular but a variant of another idea, according to the BBC news: “Saturn’s rings may have formed when a large moon with an icy mantle and rocky core spiralled into the nascent planet.”

    Michael thinks—no, “thinks” is too strong a word—Michael believes that a moon breaking up as it approaches Saturn is a just-so story with no evidence behind it.

    Eelco, would you care to explain the concepts of gravitational tides and the Roche limit to him? Obviously, Michael either has no qualifications to discuss this subject, or he does and he is deliberately lying to his readers. We’d like to know which is the case. This is why the challenge Michael raised—his own qualifications—last February is still significant. Which is it, Michael? Ignorance or mendacity??

    But then he has also fled from his year-old promise to review Signature in the Cell. And, of course, vanished when challenged on his own claim of readership numbers. What is this invisibility cloak that creationists seem to possess? They always disappear when challenged.

  4. Eelco . . . . . . . . . October 8, 2010 at 2:44 am | #1

    Oh, and you should properly spell the name of one of my heroes, Christiaan Huygens.

    Just one more ignoramus in a long string of ignoramuses.[1] Michael can plead that Dutch is not his native language. But even we native English speakers have some inkling of Dutch spelling. We may be totally incapable of pronouncing the “uy” if “Huygens,”[2] but we can at least spell his name correctly.

    ============

    [1] The plural is not “ignorami,” since “ignoramus” is a verb, not a noun.

    [2] When we Americans visited the IBM lab in Uithoorn, we became accustomed to the peals of laughter at our futile attempts to say the name of this city. And no Americans say “van Gogh” correctly, even though it is not difficult.

  5. Michael, people may take you more seriously if you could some how, in some way explain how all of your observations support a 6000-year-old universe / solar system / planet system. And point to literature that predicts the features that you mention before they were discovered from your creationist model. For example, your next-to-last paragraph would also seem to have the same problems regardless of when these objects were created. Why isn’t Mimas like Enceladus? Or Tethys?

    Unless of course you just want to claim that your deity did it however (s)he saw fit and it’s not our place to question. If that’s your position, it’s a fairly unsatisfying one to anyone who has a questioning mind.

  6. Stuart Robbins . . . . . . . . October 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm | #5

    Unless of course you just want to claim that your deity did it however (s)he saw fit and it’s not our place to question. If that’s your position, it’s a fairly unsatisfying one to anyone who has a questioning mind.

    This is exactly what Michael asserts. And this is exactly why creationism cannot be a scientific theory: It has no explanatory power whatsoever. Everything happened because it happened.

    Creationism offers no understanding, no guide for research, no predictive power, no hope of control over physical phenomena. It’s not just wrong—it’s not even wrong.

    What creationists hope to do is to hijack the respect and authority that science enjoys in today’s world, and manipulate it for their own ends. This is why scientists call them Liars for Jesus.

  7. Michael,

    It’s truly amazing on what has been discovered! While the Cassini mission has thrown secular theories a loop, it has provided a wealth of great information on confirming the Bible!

    Michael, you cannot say this confirms the Bible until you answer one basic question: What exactly does the Bible say about Saturn, Saturn’s rings and it’s moons? — If it says nothing, then you are only reading things in the Bible that just are not there.

    What books, what chapters, what verses in the Bible talk about the planet and how the moons were formed? All it says is “God said,” which can still be true no matter how they were formed. The details of creation are not given.

  8. What exactly does the Bible say about Saturn, Saturn’s rings and it’s moons? — If it says nothing, then you are only reading things in the Bible that just are not there.

    Well, let’s see. Amos 5:26 tells us that Saturn (“Kaiwan”) was worshiped by the Jews in the desert. The New Testament was not interested in astrology. However, the star of Rephan (alt. Remphan, Rompha) in Acts 7:43 is thought to refer to Saturn, again as a foreign god. No rings or other details were mentioned.

    Now Michael can explicate for us the significance of those references. Perhaps, since Saturn was considered to be a Babylonian god, the rings are its crown. I’m not sure what Michael makes of this, but, from the two biblical references, he should probably not be as enamored of Saturn, else we might indict him for worshiping false gods.

  9. Hm. Upon closer examination, it seems that blockquote has been omitted from the list of available tags.

    You realize, of course, that this unformats all the block quotations in previous posts and comments, rendering many of them unintelligible. Oh well.

  10. Let me look at your compliant…

    Testing…

    You realize, of course, that this unformats all the block quotations in previous posts and comments, rendering many of them unintelligible. Oh well.

    Don’t know why it’s not working for you, will investigate further…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s