Should There Be Higher Expectations With Space Exploration?

While some evolutionary scientists are working on inventing various scenarios on how they view nature evolving which is impossible to confirm considering not one of these scientists were able to observe the past in which they are studying. For example, birds have been researched over many years to answer a basic question, why do they exist in the evolutionary framework?

From an evolutionist standpoint, a new theory on the origin of birds has been created to answer the basic question. Although it’s not the correct usage of the term ‘theory’ but rather an “hypothesis” so what is their reasoning? According to the new ‘theory’ in Physorg, “Scientist cites enlarged skeletal muscles as reason birds exist.” In other words, this scientist is suggesting that birds have strong muscles; therefore, these amazing creatures must have evolved.  Circular reasoning! Waste of public money!

Now what about these ‘theories’ explaining things like our solar system? Have you ever had a career where management was consistently wrong but yet still considered experts? If management is consistently wrong, nothing could be built or produced. This is not to say there might be efficiency issues which is another subject, but accomplishing products or services to remain in business.

When it comes to exploring space, planetary scientists have a track record of consistently getting it wrong with their various ‘theories’. Unlike Darwinian evolution where one cannot explore the past to verify their speculations, it all depends how popular their explanation is among other scientists, but planetary scientists have been able to do some direct observing that has tested their ‘theories’ which have failed in more ways than one. This is not to say things like their orbital mechanics are a failure, but on the contrary, it’s been quite amazing to say the least. This part of science is not in question, because this particular part of it does in fact enhance knowledge!

Missions have revealed quite often a completely different reality than from what scientists have told the public they expected to discover from their beliefs in planetary evolution. While keeping the basic ‘theories’ intact which was the problem in the first place for the falsifications, they instead created major revisions with Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, comets, asteroids, and most of the moons of the solar system! This is why direct observation is so important and vastly superior over speculation.

Here are a few examples…

Saturn’s geysering moon Enceladus which data has been confirming creationism is now known for its amazing performances.  The Cassini spacecraft recently made another pass through the geysers at close range and sampled some of the particles. More data of sodium and potassium was discovered which was then used to hype up the mission by speculation about life. However, there is something that was not hyped up to the public with new data coming from Cassini. The challenge of old age assumptions with Enceladus has become a major obstacle in fitting in the data.

Nicholas Altobelli quoted in science daily says, “Enceladus is a tiny icy moon located in a region of the outer Solar System where no liquid water was expected to exist, because of its large distance from the Sun.”   Not only that, but another challenge to the idea of tides having an impact on creating the heat on the moon for billions of years which one expert in here referred to a long time ago. A new study was published in Icarus which was conducted by Chin and Nimmo who calculated that the obliquity tides do not significantly heat Enceladus. Any heating would be around a thousand times too small as a heat source for the moon’s powerful geysers.

Not long ago, scientists were telling the public at large that comets nothing more than dirty snowballs from the pristine outer reaches of the solar system nudged in toward the sun by passing stars. But direct observations have proven otherwise! Missions that included Halley, Borrely, and Tempel, have shown there are minerals that require high temperatures for their formation, calling for radical revisions of ‘theories’.  Now enter Comet Hartley 2, visited last November on Deep Impact’s extended mission, nicknamed EPOXI.  Natalie Wolchover’s headline on Live Science says it all: “Quirky Comet Hartley” which confounds every popular evolutionary idea.

The question is, should the public hold to higher expectations with these so-called experts with space exploration? After all they are spending billions of dollars for this research and look at the results they are getting. This is not to say scientific discovery is bad in fact it’s good because it brings reality back over speculation. The money was well worth spent on the fabulous jobs the techs have been doing for bringing to earth, in our lifetimes, a highly impressive treasure of new data about the solar system.  This includes those who have worked hard for years to save the delicate particles from the Genesis mission! And look at the Cassini mission, its original intent is long since complete and yet it’s still going strong with collecting amazing data!

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Should There Be Higher Expectations With Space Exploration?

  1. “evolutionary scientists” don’t exist, Michael. “Scientists” do.

    Michael: “Saturn’s geysering moon Enceladus which data has been confirming creationism”.

    How would that be ? How could that be ? This statement is utter nonsense.
    The age of Enceladus is only a lower limit to the age of the rest of the Universe.

    Michael: “The challenge of old age assumptions with Enceladus has become a major obstacle in fitting in the data.”

    Which old age assumptions ? The age of what ?

    You then talk about heat sources, and that obliquity tides are not producing enough heat to drive the geysers. What has that got to do with age ?? The obliquity tides were proposed as an alternate source of heat, not as the only one !!

  2. While some evolutionary scientists are working on inventing various scenarios on how they view nature evolving which is impossible to confirm considering not one of these scientists were able to observe the past in which they are studying.

    Michael claims that evolution is impossible to confirm because no one can directly observe the past.

    On the other hand, biblical creation is impossible to confirm because no one can directly observe the past.

    Furthermore, Michael cannot confirm his own conception, because he was not there to observe it directly.

    Stalemate.

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

    PS: Michael, where is the rest of the quoted sentence? It has several subordinate clauses, but has no main clause. Thus we might ask, what is this sentence about, actually?

  3. According to the new ‘theory’ in Physorg, “Scientist cites enlarged skeletal muscles as reason birds exist.” In other words, this scientist is suggesting that birds have strong muscles; therefore, these amazing creatures must have evolved. Circular reasoning! Waste of public money!

    Michael, please provide a justification for your claim that this work at New York Medical College was supported by public money.

    I thought not.

    .

    Michael is lying to us again.

    But then we expect that, don’t we?

  4. . . . . . Should There Be Higher Expectations With Space Exploration?

    Yes, but how much higher? A hundred thousand miles? Ten million?

  5. @Olorin

    Michael is lying to us again.

    If only we had a nickle for every time Michael broke the 9nth commandment.

  6. Eelco,

    You say, ““evolutionary scientists” don’t exist, Michael. “Scientists” do.” You still draw a distinction, there are scientists who are creationists and those who are not. “Which old age assumptions ? The age of what ?” Enceladus being in the lower limit range is still within the old age assumption. How old is that lower range in which you speak of? Is it millions or still billions? For a small moon to be that active so far away from the sun, and being that old, requires something on going for a very long time, wouldn’t you think? If it was younger (thousands of years), it’s activity is not such a surprise but rather amazing phenomena.

  7. Michael, there are some scientists who are creationists. There are also acrobats who are blind. Very few, in either case, And for the same reason.

    However, there are no “creation scientists,” that is people who apply the principles of creationism to scientific research. Just as there are no medical doctors who apply the principles of exorcism to curing cancer. And for the same reason.

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