Evidence Continues To Demostrate Saturn’s Youthfulness

Ever since Cassini has been exploring the planet Saturn, scientists unwittingly have turned up evidence for creationism rather than revealing a very old appearance consisting of billions of years old.

One of the ways scientists were trying to fit it’s youthful appearance into their framework of an old Universe was with through the use of a computer simulation. The program came up with a scenario in which “particles could be colliding, fragmenting, and re-clumping, thus maintaining a fresh look for millions of years.” It was admitted, it’s not clear if re-clumping does occur because under that sort of situation it would have caused the moons to be pushed further out. Saturn’s rings appear brand new, bright and shiny and they should be considering the Universe is not that old!

Methane in the sky under the bombardment of solar winds observed on Titan has been perplexing for many evolutionary scientists, the lifetime of Titan’s atmospheric methane was straightforwardly calculated to be a few percent of the age of the solar system.” The solar bombardment over a very long period of time would have eliminated the methane in the sky but yet the substance remains.  This caused speculation of supply sources either external or internal.  External was ruled out, because there was not enough impacts to supply the methane, which leaves the internal source hypothesis.

Another problem with Titan was on the surface, it was predicted with calculations within it’s supposedly old age framework, the moon would have an global ocean of liquid ethane. The Huygens probe was supposed to be a floating device. As it turned out, there is not that much of ethane on the surface of Titan. The billion dollar question, where did the substance go?  Vaporization doesn’t come easily for ethane which indicates a young age.

The Institute for Creation Research points out…

“Another indicator of youth is that Enceladus, one of Saturn’s moons photographed on Cassini’s latest flyby, is spewing ice into space in a giant plume, like a water faucet with the handle stuck on.”

“The spray of icy particles from the surface jets collectively forms a towering plume three times taller than the width of Enceladus. Evolutionary scientists do not have an explanation for why Enceladus still retains enough material to continue supplying the fountain, as well as enough energy to keep the pressure on.”

“What causes and controls the jets is a mystery.” Like Saturn’s rings, Enceladus shows no hint of being 4.5 billion years old, but instead appears remarkably young. There are also clear signs of youth on another of Saturn’s moon, Titan, which does not have the oceans of ethane or the myriad of craters that naturalistic models predicted.”

It’s true, evolutionary scientists haven’t come up with viable explanations on why their model predictions have been off, but it doesn’t mean they will not be able to come up with an explanation even though that particular explanation is not a viable one. One has to keep in mind, those searching for the naturalistic explanation have to fit the evidence into their models rather than the other way around. But it’s quite a good fit with the creationist model and it demonstrates once again, it’s more way accurate than the presentation of naturalism.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Evidence Continues To Demostrate Saturn’s Youthfulness

  1. “One has to keep in mind, those searching for the naturalistic explanation have to fit the evidence into their models rather than the other way around. But it’s quite a good fit with the creationist model and it demonstrates once again, it’s more way accurate than the presentation of naturalism.”

    The first sentence is absolutely correct. But the second sentence assumes that creationism is more accurate merely on the basis that this has no one has yet provided an explanation.

    This is pure god-of-the-gaps. You should be very careful in making this argument, because every time a natural explanation is discovered, your God gets smaller and smaller.

    When you have a theory supported by tens of thousands of facts and you find three that don’t seem to fit, you—well scientists, at least—try to find causes that do fit. Do you consign your car to the junkyard when it won’t start one morning? I hope you’re more likely to think you left the lights on and the battery needs charging.

  2. “But the second sentence assumes that creationism is more accurate merely on the basis that this has no one has yet provided an explanation.”

    What you are trying to assert an old agrument doesn’t apply to what the evidence has been showing (not gaps) for the last five years on Saturn and it’s moons. Rather than going where the science leads, there is the belief that someday a future scientific revelation will always keep it at 4.5 billion years old. This known as having a false assumption. There are very little impact craters on Titan for example, but sand dunes cover 20 percent on a dry surface. There are indications of the methane steadily decreasing which measurements can be used to prove a youthfulness age. These are not gaps, these are interpretations of the data!

  3. As noted in the post, assuming that these data have natural explanations is leading to new research, even as we speak. Assuming that god-did-it may create a smug feeling, but it does not create any new knowledge, since creationists are infamous for avoiding any research of their own.

    Here’s a famous example. In the late 19thC, world-famous physicist Lord Kelvin calculated a young age for the Sun. Even if it were entirely composed of coal, he said, it could not burn for more than a few million years.. Creationists cheered loudly. But research into a natural explanation led to the discovery of atomic fusion, which can power the Sun very comfortably for ten billion years. Another gap closed, and the creationists’ god got smaller.

  4. I assume you took this mostly from the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) article which is pretty identical to what you have posted, Michael. What really gets to me is that particular article cites a ScienceNews article that is talking about MY research. And the conclusions from MY research is that, in fact, NO, Saturn’s rings can actually be at least 2x older than previously thought.

    I have written a fairly annoyed critique of the ICR article on my own blog (http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com) and I invite people to read it to get the picture of what real scientists really think about Saturn in the context of this ICR article.

  5. I think astrostu206265’s blog says it all … no more comments needed.

    By the way, Michael, at the end you say:
    ” …have to fit the evidence into their models rather than the other way around.”

    I’m afraid that that is what creationists do (if you take christianity as a model), not scientists. If you cannot fit evidence into a model, you should stop trying to do so, and come up with a better model (which does NOT have to be radically different, of course). Unless you’ve misinterpreted the evidence …

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