Some Say Ring Particles Can Grow Into Moons

The Cassini spacecraft continues provide a great deal of amazing observations coming from Saturn and it’s moons. One moon in particular had been photographed at it’s closest range to date. The location of the moon known as Daphnis, orbits in the “Keeler Gap” within Saturn’s rings creating scallops and gouges as it touches them.

For the first time ever, observations represent embedded objects in a dust disk have been tracked. Some scientists are desperately hoping that material can “accrete” into larger objects like moons and these same principles might apply to the creation of planets from dust disks around stars.

Space.com points out…

“The rings of Saturn might have given birth to the giant planet’s odd, small moons, scientists now reveal. These unusual moons, some of which resemble flying saucers, might have clumped together from the bits of ice and dust that make up Saturn’s majestic bands. The large moons that orbit the giant planets are thought to have finished forming roughly about when their hosts did, some 4.5 billion years ago.”

“However, calculations of the orbits of five small moons of Saturn that gather just within and beyond the periphery of the planet’s main bright rings revealed they are far too young for this to have been the case. These must be less than 10 million years old — for instance, they have bright, nearly pure ice surfaces largely unmarred by the impacts expected from meteoroids.”

The Nebular hypothesis which was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and then modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace has been falsified by recent discoveries in the modern era. The Accretion theory says that “the formation and evolution of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.55 to 4.56 billion years ago with the gravitational  collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.” It also has been falsified with recent observations and experiments.

“Over the past two hundred years, a standard model emerged to explain how solar systems form. Using our own solar system as a guide, the model explains the existence of a central star (our Sun), an inner system of rocky, “terrestrial” planets, and an outer system of “gas giant” planets, all orbiting in nearly the same plane of rotation as the central star.”

“Recent discoveries of planetary systems around other stars have challenged this model. These exoplanet discoveries have included gas giant planets in close orbit around their stars, some of which are in radically different planes of rotation from their primary stars.”  -Astrobiology Magazine

Quite a challenge to fit the data into a supposedly evolved solar system based on the Nebular hypothesis. Complexity due to a pattern of falsifications in a hypothesis or theory renders it useless. Inventing different schemes such as giving it a name, “migration” which makes life less probable around other stars in explaining how a gas giant could form beyond the ice line and then move inward toward the star. But is this interpretation a reliable conclusion?

What is useful science are the discoveries in which we can learn from space exploration or any other areas in science.  On the other hand, things like solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence whatsoever! Labs in the modern era have shown particles bouncing off one another or break into smaller pieces not forming into larger or even more complex particles. This confirmed James Clerk Maxwell who showed in 1859, based on his model of Saturn’s rings, that larger particles cannot coagulate from revolving small particles!

There is no evidence of a nebula collapse, of stars forming, or of planetary systems forming under the explanation of the hypothesis. The only reason why this hypothesis still exists after 200 years is because scientists  keep trying to avoid the empirical evidence that indicates natural law has not been shown to be capable of providing! Rather, they put false hope into a particular model by inventing new elements in order to keep the hypothesis or theory alive.

The creationist model is based on the Bible and The Second Law of Thermodynamics

“Generally all systems will lean toward the most probable state possible, and then over time become totally random and disorganized. Albert Einstein stated this law particular law would be impossible to eliminate. We observe this in the natural world today!”

There is observational evidence for disruption, destruction, and dissolution, Christians believe the state of nature is going down not up (since the fall of Adam) and certainly there is no accretion of small objects evolving into into bigger ones as some claim that ring particles can grow into moons.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Some Say Ring Particles Can Grow Into Moons

  1. Some say that questions can be answered:

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

  2. Michael,

    On your attempt to answer my challenge,

    . . . the flagellum IS NOT EVEN IRREDUCIBLE. — G. Kuwajima was able to remove ONE-THIRD of the 497 amino acids from the flagellum, AND IT STILL WORKED PERFECTLY!!!!! . . . Also, we know that the L and the P-rings can be taken away from the flagellum, and it will STILL work. . . .

    You completely failed. You said,

    There is a difference between reducible complexity and irreducible. The Bacterial Flagellum has a universal joint, bushing, stator, rotor, drive shaft, propeller which of course resembles an intelligently designed electric motor made by man.

    The fact that it resembles a man-made motor means absolutely nothing. The person that Michael Behe quote mined even said (in NOVA’s Judgement Day) that the impression Behe gave of that quote was incorrect. He even pointed out that the flagellum still has the features of an organism that evolved.

    I notice that you cite the propellor as part of the so-called essential pieces. . . Are you aware that the propellor of the Eubacterial flagellum itself can be taken apart without harming the function? — You fail.

    You then said,

    It’s these specialized parts that makes up irreducible complexity. Without one of those specialized parts it’s unable to survive. In other words, the system needs those components to exist before it can function and survive.

    This statement presupposes that the original function of the flagellum was ALWAYS the same. The parts of the flagellum have their own functions independent of the actual flagellum, and therefore there is no need to assume that the flagellum had the same function originally.

    In fact, Darwin himself in the 6th edition of Origin of Soecies predicted that there would be change of function as evolution took place. On page 177 of that edition, he said,

    This subject is intimately connected with that of the gradation of characters, often accompanied by a change of function

    Of course the flagellum could not work in THE SAME WAY if one of those major parts was taken away, BUT it would have had a chance of function as it evolved. The fact that Behe didn’t know that shows he doesn’t understand how evolution works.

    So, in the long hull, yout answer doesn’t work.

  3. Michael,

    (1) Blog readership numbers ?

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    (4) outstanding question from Upson Downes on mitochondrial Eve

    Sometimes I wonder why we bother…

    … if not for your own good.

  4. There is no evidence of a nebula collapse, of stars forming, or of planetary systems forming under the explanation of the hypothesis.

    More reckless disregard for the truth. We can actually see planetarynebulae forming around other stars. So we know that such a thing can happen.

    The creationist model is based on the Bible and The Second Law of Thermodynamics…

    Well, it certainly ain’t based on any evidence, is it? Because we don’t observe any creations taking\place now or ever.

  5. olorin :

    There is no evidence of a nebula collapse, of stars forming, or of planetary systems forming under the explanation of the hypothesis.

    More reckless disregard for the truth. We can actually see planetarynebulae forming around other stars. So we know that such a thing can happen.

    The creationist model is based on the Bible and The Second Law of Thermodynamics…
    Well, it certainly ain’t based on any evidence, is it? Because we don’t observe any creations taking\place now or ever.

    Funny the claim for the second law of thermodynamics should be made since Creationists don’t even understand that.

  6. Funny the claim for the second law of thermodynamics should be made since Creationists don’t even understand that.

    Not only that—Answers in Genesis includes that one on their list of “claims that creationists should not longer make.”

    Why? Not because it’s wrong, mind you. BECAUSE IT IS SO STUPID THAT EVERYONE LAUGHS AT IT.

    Being shown conclusively to be wrong doers not change creationists’ minds. It certainly did not when in the early 20thC, creationists also believed that the Earth is flat. It took laughter and ridicule to make them bury that belief in an unmarked grave.

    Well, here’s another one that AiG thinks is becoming too embarrassing. So give it up, Michael.

  7. “Some Say Ring Particles Can Grow Into Moons”

    And some say you can teach a pig to whistle. I say it’s a waste of your time, and just annoys the pig.

  8. Pingback: Sea of Faces

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