Saturn’s Rings, Io and Enceladus: Showing Youthfulness

Keep this in mind, when evolutionists argue their points in the present time, but in the future spells their arguments doom as a result of better data!

Today’s post will be a bit different from previous ones, some issues are going to be addressed. There is a scientist in here that has gotten upset with me over the years because we disagree on how nature and the universe was designed. About two years ago, he said this…

“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.”

This is setting up a straw man using circular reasoning. In Discover Magazine, when Cassini was sending back amazing new data about Saturn’s rings, it says…

“It bugs me because Saturn’s rings are gaudy and obvious, spectacular and awesome. It seems really unlikely that they are so young, compared to the fantastic age of the solar system (4.55 billion years). It’s too much of a coincidence to think that they happened to exist just when we happen to be around to see them.”

There are two secular theories regarding Saturn’s rings, one is from the 1800′s by the man named, Édouard Albert Roche. His proposal went like this, Saturn’s rings were once a moon which got ripped apart by tidal forces. The second theory goes like this, the rings were part of the original Nebular material from which Saturn was formed. What is the point? The point is, the consensus view among those who believe the solar system is billions of year old, also believe that Saturn rings are that old too, in their opinion. As you can see, some have a hard time with the rings being even 100 million years old which would be still too old for the creationist model. So it is believed that things like stars and planets formed very slowly, the rings are no exception, they would never accept even 25 million years old.

Back to the scientists in here, he says this while quoting me first…

“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 ?”

It’s a math thing, given the dates recorded in the Bible, which tell us the Universe is young including Saturn’s rings. Observational data is very important, well beyond story telling proposals of old age which what would be argued for Saturn’s rings.  The Cassini mission however, has brought new data which proves more conclusively that the rings are young not billions of years old!

Moving on to Jupiter’s moon, called…lo which is the most active volcanic body in the solar system! No planetary scientist ever imagined this happening to such a small moon. It has been argued too from another person that tidal were responsible for the activity. However, in JPL’s press release it says…

“A mystery has also emerged. The team found that active volcanoes accounted for only about 60 percent of Io’s heat. This component mostly emanates from flat-floored volcanic craters called paterae, a common feature on Io. But where is the “missing” 40 percent? “We are investigating the possibility that there are many smaller volcanoes that are hard, but not impossible, to detect,” said Veeder. “We are now puzzling over the observed pattern of heat flow.”

“The fascinating thing about the distribution of the heat flow is that it is not in keeping with the current preferred model of tidal heating of Io at relatively shallow depths,” said Ashley Davies.

The mystery is trying to make something very old when it is actually quite young! Their objective is trying to find a way how this activity could have been going on for billions of years. It makes more sense with it being considered young because youthfulness reflects activity! The reason why it appears young is because it is young!

Enceladus is another moon where planetary scientists are working on a story that would suggest how the activity of this moon could last for billions of years.

In phys.org

“This morning’s E-19 flyby completed a trio of recent close passes by Cassini of the 318-mile (511-km) -wide moon, bringing the spacecraft as low as 46 miles (74 km) above its frozen surface. The goal of the maneuver was to gather data about Enceladus’ internal mass — particularly in the region around its southern pole, where a reservoir of liquid water is thought to reside — and also to look for “hot spots” on its surface that would give more information about its overall energy distribution.”

The geysers on Enceladus create plasma but it is unlike anything that has been seen before: tiny dust grains that pick up negative ions from water molecules pumped out the geysers. This plasma feeds a magnetic bubble, or magnetosphere, surrounding Saturn! Could this have been going on for billions of years? That is what planetary scientists are working on, trying to keep this activity that is common and more logical with youth, going for billions of years which is not logical.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Saturn’s Rings, Io and Enceladus: Showing Youthfulness

  1. Michael: “There is a scientist in here that has gotten upset with me over the years because we disagree on how nature and the universe was designed. ”

    I think that was me … ah yes, a google search just confirmed that: https://thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/trying-to-keep-observations-old-when-they-look-young/

    So my reply:
    1) i have not gotten upset. Why would I ? I merely shake my head in disbelief at your posts. And I asked you what your point was … which you did not reply to (you rarely reply to comments anyway ….).
    In case you’re interested in my feelings about you: I mostly feel sorry for you.

    2) we do not “disagree on how nature and the universe was designed”. The ‘how’ should be replaced by ‘that’. There is no single shred of evidence for a designed nature or universe.

    Michael: “This is setting up a straw man using circular reasoning.”

    Eh ? Of course not. There is no straw man (it is an argument). Even if the rings are young, that only provides a MINIMUM age for the rest of the universe, which has to be older than the ring but of course not the same age.
    So there is no circular reasoning either.

    Michael: “There are two secular theories regarding Saturn’s rings,”

    There are no such things as a ‘secular’ theories. There are theories. And there are surely more than two (why can creationist so often only count to two ?).

    Michael: “The point is, the consensus view among those who believe the solar system is billions of year old, ”

    No-one believes the solar system to be billions of years old. It is MEASURED to be billions of year old. Just over 4.5 bilion years old.

    You still do not have a clue about what science does. Believing is not part of it.

  2. Michael: “It’s a math thing, given the dates recorded in the Bible, which tell us the Universe is young including Saturn’s rings.”

    Saturn’s rings were only discovered when the telescope was invented. Where are these mentioned in your bible then ?
    And “the Universe” as we know it now: is that mentioned too ? I don’t think so.

  3. Eelco,

    You say, “No-one believes the solar system to be billions of years old. It is MEASURED to be billions of year old. Just over 4.5 bilion years old.”

    That is another straw man’s argument…The question is, how accurate are these measurements (assumptions)? About 375 light years away, Astronomers have discovered a 13 billion-year-old star located in the constellation Leo that shouldn’t exist according to your consensus measurements (assumptions). Most likely it’s not the only star out there that is relatively close to Earth which would be measured by your consensus measurements (assumptions) as being vastly old (millions of years to billions of years range).

    You also say,

    “You still do not have a clue about what science does. Believing is not part of it.”

    Philosophy of science is a problem for you. Thomas Kuhn who introduced “paradigm shift” in modern scientific research has written a book that was published back in the 1960′s called, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Kuhn promotes this when teaching students…

    “A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs…”

    Faith and belief means the same thing, they are synonyms. Because Darwinism rejects the supernatural, your consensus viewpoint within your community, tries to redefine the term “belief” into something else and make “faith” exclusive to religion only. However, your definition goes beyond the mainstream, you add the word “belief” as exclusive to religion only and not science. To remove “belief” in science research is assuming one knows it all. And you fully well know, this is not the case. In the journal of science…

    “The nature of dark energy is now perhaps the most profound mystery in cosmology and astrophysics. And it may remain forever so.”

    If you remove “belief” from science research than you deceive students by teaching simplistic, wrong answers without revealing what scientists really know in with their partial answers, if any. Here is a good question for you, What distinguishes science, whose root means “knowledge,” from other methods of human inquiry that also have more questions than answers? If you are invoking numerous “stuff happens” as an explanation, then how can that not be a “belief” in science research? You fully know that science advances with better data which changes the expectation from previous old data. Planetary scientists are zero for 8 as far as observations meeting predictions and even worse when moons like Io, Enceladus and Titan are included! Predictions in science are beliefs!

  4. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Kuhn promotes this when teaching students…

    “A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs…”

    Faith and belief means the same thing, they are synonyms. Because Darwinism rejects the supernatural, your consensus viewpoint within your community, tries to redefine the term “belief” into something else and make “faith” exclusive to religion only. However, your definition goes beyond the mainstream, you add the word “belief” as exclusive to religion only and not science. To remove “belief” in science research is assuming one knows it all. And you fully well [sic] know, this is not the case. In the journal of science…

    Michael confuses two different kinds of belief, which can be seen from the definitions of this word in any dictionary.[0]

    Religious “belief” is a tenet or creed that proceeds from an authority. It is subject to change only if some more powerful authority overthrows the original one.[1] Religious beliefs reside at emotional levels in their adherents. They need not be self-consistent, even in a single individual.

    The “belief” that Kuhn applies to science is a confidence in something that proceeds from physical evidence, not from an authority figure.[2]. It is a provisional position, not an absolute truth. It resides at an intellectual level, not emotional.[3] This is one of the reasons that creationists are much more fervent in proselytizing their (religious) beliefs than scientists are at popularizing scientific beliefs.

    When Kuhn speaks of “beliefs,” he obviously intends the second meaning. rather than the first. And he is speaking of what he calls “normal science” rather than of the revolutionary phase. And it makes eminent sense that new students need to e taught something. You can’t just say to a college biology major, Well, here’s a microscope; go find out something and let me know.” So you start with the received wisdom” of the currently accepted theories. Since the later research of the majority of students will take place.within the current paradigm, this is also an efficient approach. It makes sense even for revolutionary purposes, however: How can you tell whether a theory is wrong if you don’t understand it?[4]

    Kuhn does not denigrate “normal science,” where the paradigm is basically not questioned. The “revolutionary” phase is–and should be–brought into play only when a sufficient number of anomalies have been discovered in the normal phase.[5] And, the more evidence (confidence) we have for the current theory,the more evidence it will take to modify or overthrow it.[6] Kuhn certainly did not propose that revolutionary science become routine.

    And subsequent philosophers conclude from historical examples that these “revolutions” are far less revolutionary than Kuhn had portrayed them. Although they are more interesting to watch.[7]

    In summary, Michael has not read Kuhn closely, and does no understand what Kuhn says. Certainly he has no inkling of current thought in this field. He merely picks out key words and throws them at the wall, a a crow picks up shiny objects indiscriminately. ….

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

    [0] Again, Conservapedia doesn’t count. Any reference thereto forfeits the argument, under the extensions to Scopie’s Law.

    [1] This is frequently accompanied by large quantities of blood.

    [2] Creationists misunderstand this difference when they attempt to refute a scientific theory by quoting scientists (i.e., authorities) who disagree with the theory–for example, the attempt to show that Darwin repudiated evolution on his deathbed. This misbegotten concept drew great mirth in the biology community at the time.

    [3] Although of course scientists will often push their own theories heatedly. Scientists are people, after all.

    [4] This is a major problem for creationists; they simply do not understand evolution or cosmology. This is one reason their arguments are so ridiculous. As when Michael argues that spiders that have not changed for 100 million years “falsify” evolution. He has never heard of stabilizing modes.

    [5] In practice, a a lot more questioning goes on that creationists perceive. And there is motivation to do so: The biggest feather in Assistant Professor Newbie’s hat would be to overthrow the long-held theory of Distinguished Professor Noitall.

    [6] Another facet that creationists no not understand: that a theory can be modified, and need not stand or fall as a unit. For example, we now think that genetic drift plays as large a part in biological evolution as does natural selection. This has no effect on whether or not evolution occurred, or the extent to which it occurred. Michael certainly cannot understand this (Probably because religious tenets tend link together—most creationists who “convert” to science become atheists, rather than Lutherans.)

    [7] My favorite spectator sport is the contention between string/M theory (e.g., Brian Greene) and quantum-loop gravity (e.g., Lee Smolin). One is broader, but the other potentially more testable; one requires unseen entities, but the other does away with familiar entities as we know them. And their world pictures are fundamentally and irretrievably incompatible with each other! (One consumes a lot of group theory, while the other draws upon graph theory—both of which I used in graduate school a long, long time ago.).

  5. You also clearly do not understand modern understanding of Saturn’s rings. My research published in 2010 (Robbins et al., 2010, in Icarus) clearly shows that Saturn’s rings can show youthful features while still being old. This is the current model that most people use today. A good analogy is buildings in China: China has many ancient buildings and features, but many are being torn down while still using the original materials to build new ones.

    Oh, and there are more than 2 models for the formation of the rings – what you posted is a false dichotomy.

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