Problems With Predictions From Old Age Assumptions

The majority of planetary scientists who embraced the idea of evolution as being factual, use predictions which based on old age assumptions. These old age assumptions contain billions of years. But there are problems with using those assumptions, because many times these predictions are discovered to be way off when direct observations are collected from space probes or telescopes.

Alan Boss who is an evolutionist himself, is concerned about progressing data in space exploration which is not matching with scientists predictions on the standard model of accretion into planetesimals. So he comes up with his own prediction in great detail to solve the problem.

“Boss’ new model demonstrates how a phase of marginal gravitational instability in the gas disk surrounding a proto-sun, leading to an outburst phase, can explain all of these findings. The results are applicable to stars with a variety of masses and disk sizes. According to the model, the instability can cause a relatively rapid transportation of matter between the star and the gas disk, where matter is moved both inward and outward. This accounts for the presence of heat-formed crystalline particles in comets from the solar system’s outer reaches.”

One thing you will noticed, computer models rather than direct evidence always makes the supposed evolution of our solar system seem more theoretically practical and more possible. There is no doubt that planetary scientists are very skilled at coming up with various stories which nobody has ever came close to observing in order to keep the data within the old age assumptions.

In contrast, we can obtain a fairly decent feel on how old the solar system really is based on the evidence, by observing processes which are happening in the present. For example, Titan’s processes are far from appearing to be billions of years old!

Titan’s methane has caused some serious problems with old age assumptions, why? Because as pointed out in, Titan’s methane is not being replenished fast enough! As a result, the evidence indicates there is not enough compound to keep the cycle sustainable over a long period of time! So now it’s being predicted to dry up in the future!

But in order to keep Titan’s age in the billions of years, they come up with what? I’ll give you a hint, it’s been used quite often on other planets and moons in our solar system in an attempt to rescue old age assumptions or even to explain the origin of life. If you are not familiar, it’s high impacts. “The team suggests that the current load of methane at Titan may have come from some kind of gigantic outburst from the interior eons ago possibly after a huge impact.” There is no evidence of a reservoir of methane which exists under Titan’s surface! What you don’t see helps the story, what you do see hinders it!

In Science now, describes how flat Titan’s surface is, another indication there was no huge impact! To explain why Titan is so flat, it’s “crust isn’t strong enough to support tall mountains or because its thick atmosphere unleashes methane rains that erode them away.”  

Wait a minute, then it wouldn’t be possible for Jupiter’s moon lo which is smaller than Titan, which supports global volcanism on its surface to contain high mountains! But lo does in fact contain high mountains on its surface!

Pluto is the next to defy old age assumptions. Planetary scientists are gearing up, the spacecraft is set to make its very first flyby in 2015. And as we speak, more predictions are being formulated based on old earth assumptions, but this time, they added on the prediction of surprises that are going to “befuddle” them. Those type of surprises usually comes from problems with the data falsifying old age assumptions in which they set out to fix with creative stories. In any case, it’s going to be exciting to see what the spacecraft uncovers using direct observations!

And what last note, today is the six-year anniversary of this blog, it’s hard to believe that much time has gone by so quickly! It’s been a fun ride so far and looking forward to new discoveries in the future!


20 thoughts on “Problems With Predictions From Old Age Assumptions

  1. It’s been a fun ride so far and looking forward to new discoveries in the future!

    What Michael means is that he is looking forward to any creationist discoveries in the future. Because, in the 4+ years I’ve been following this blog, he has not come up with a single discovery generated by any theory of special creation. No predictions of as-yet unobserved phenomena, no explanations as to how any creation events were implemented—and whether they still occur today—or any new facts that advance the state of human knowledge. Nothing. Zippo.

    Keep on slogging, Michael. It’s a quixotic quest, and you have so far convinced no one who knows anything about actual science, no one who was not already shackled by faith to your cult,

  2. Here we go again … ‘old age assumptions’.

    No Michael: billions of years is what is measured all over.

  3. Michael, we give you books and we give you books, and still you just eat the covers.

    To MIchael, “asumption” has a different definiyion/ It mans “evidence that I don’t like.”

  4. Alan Boss who is an evolutionist himself, is concerned about progressing data in space exploration which is not matching with scientists predictions on the standard model of accretion into planetesimals.

    The thing is, Michael, even if everything Boss saidt is true, how does that possibly indicate an age for the Earth of only a few thousand years??
    > Standard model of planetary accretion has some flaws. Ergo, the Earth is only a few thousand years old! BWAhahahahahaaaaaa.
    > Standard model is based upon a computer simulation. Ergo, the Earth is only a few thousand years old! Harharharhar.
    > Nobody has actually sat around for millions of years watching planets form. Ergo, the Earth is only a few thousand years old! ROTLLMAO.
    > Scientists have to make up theories[1] to account for planetary accretion. Ergo, the Earth is only a few thousand years old! MWMPfhahahahahaha!

    Please demonstrate how any of those, or anything else that Boss said, leads to an inference of a young Earth. Show your work.


    [1] In the sense of “mo’olelo” in Hawaiian..

  5. Titan’s methane has caused some serious problems with old age assumptions, why? Because as pointed out in, Titan’s methane is not being replenished fast enough! As a result, the evidence indicates there is not enough compound to keep the cycle sustainable over a long period of time!

    Michael, we have been through this many times. But you will not listen.

    So here it is again: Not all planetary processes started when the planets were formed.

    Michael thinks that because a thunderstorm in his neighborhood started just yesterday, that the Earth could not be billions of years old, because the storm would be unsustainable for that long. Remember, Michael, there is a thin line between willful ignorance and stupidity.

    (By the way, the thunderstorm is unsustainable. Most people would conclude that it will end in a day or two.)

  6. Problems With Predictions From Old Age Assumptions

    Of course, there are no problems at all with the young-age assumption.

    Oh, maybe just a few: The speed of light. The decay of atomic fission products. Geologic sedimentation rates. Plate tectonics. Biogeographic dispersion of plants and animals. Cosmic background radiation.

    But nothing serious……

  7. Michael may be interested in a new blog, (a href=””>Science League of America for communicating science topics to the general public. Six posts are up now, dealing with climate change, John D. Morris, and other topics.

    Oh, did I mention that the blog is sponsored by NCSE?

  8. Michael continually reminds us how engineering imitates life. Here is an interesting example. The flagship journal of computer science, Communications of the ACM, has a paper entitled “Evolutionary Robotics”[1]

    Conventional practice designs robots, then exposes them to machine learning programs to fit them to their intended tasks. Bongard, however, builds virtual robots in a computer using evolutionary algorithms. The robots are adaptive. They compete to perform the intended task, and their fitness is measured. The most fit are culled and allowed to mutate and reproduce as further virtual robots. When their fitness has reached a sufficient level, the most fit are fabricated as hardware machines, to go about their task(s) in the physical world.

    According to Bongard, this approach allows greater variation in the robots, even including their structures and physical attributes.

    {A]n evolutionary approach can free the investigator from having to make decisions about every detail of the robot’s design. In many cases, the evolutionary algorithm discovers solutions the researcher might not have thought of, especially for robots that are non-intuitive for a human to control or design.

    Moreover, imitating biological evolution in robots can be a two-way street—

    {E]volved robots that exhibit traits observed in nature —- such as a robot swarm that evolves cooperative rather than competitive tendencies —- often provides new ways of thinking about how and why that trait evolved in biological populations.

    Josh Bongard is a professor of computer science at the University of Vermont.


    [1] Josh Bongard, “Evolutionary Robotics,” Comm. ACM 56:8:74-83 (Aug 2013)

  9. In Other News

    Ken Ham’s Creation Museum (a.k.a. “ark park”) in Kentucky has been struck by the divine hand. Apparently just a mild rebuke, however. The Creation Museum employee struck by lightening while on the job was taken to hospital, but will recover.

  10. Six days into Enceladus, and Michael has come up with no defense of his assertion that the plume shows a young age for the earth. So here are some other recent subjects to consider, culled from Michael’s favorite sources—

    > Creation Evolution Headlines presents several cases where David Coppedge displays his ignorance of evolution by claiming that natural selection and sexual selection don’t work.
    > In Evolution News & Views, Jonathan Wells travels yet again over the well-trodden ground of non-coding DNA functionality. Ho hum.
    > EN&V also carries a defense by Granville Sewell of his ridiculous poerspective on the 3d law of thermodynamics.
    > The EN&V staff tries to take down a Carl Zimmer article with the “:they’re still just bacteria” argument. (Yea, and humans are still just animals.)
    > EN&V notes a new “scientific volume” Biological Information (Robert Marks et al., 2013) a symposium proceedings where information is redefined until it fits the ID model.
    > Michal has already cribbed the protein resurrection article from AiG.
    > AiG News to Know also wrote recently about mtEve & Y Adam, but the technical level is probably too deep for Michael.
    > AiG NtK alleges failure of sexual selection in one of the examples of EN&V above.

  11. In the above comment, “3d law of thermodynamics” should read “2d law of thermodynamics.”

    (Of course, Michael doesn’t know there is a 3d law, much less what it is.)

  12. While we’re waiting for Michael to come up with more creationist fodder, here’s a new development to ponder.

    A team of neurologists has grown human stem cells into neurons which, on a matrix, organize themselves, without any external or genetic guidance, into recognizable structures and properties of embryonic brains. They have no blood vessels, so infused nutrients can only penetrate about 4mm, limiting the size of the proto-brains.

    The scientists will use these structures to study brain development, and to do experiments on developmental defects. Lancaster MA, et al. “Cerebral organoids model human brain development and microcephaly,” Nature doi:10.1038/nature12517.(2013)

  13. One has to wonder why the Dishonesty Institute waited two years to discuss these supposedly earth-shattering papers

    I just found the answer, in another creo blog. The reason for the delay is that the DI couldn’t find a publisher willing to take on this book. Hm.

  14. Come on, Michael! We await with shotguns at the ready fro the next trap you release into the air. Her is more grist for the mill—.

    > CEH claims (8/22) that chemistry cannot explain the origin of life, because chemical laws were different on the primitive earth. Oh, really???
    > CEH (9/11) displays his lack of understanding of basic chemistry by quoting an article that cyanide was involved in origin of life because it is so poisonous. He probably forgets that ordinary table salt is composed of a poisonous gas and an alkali metal so strong it explodes when mixed with water. Oh well, what can you expect?
    > CEH exults in a letter to Nature rebuking PZ Myers’ theology. Well, I do too. Like our friend Chazing, he has no qualifications in this area, and he speaks out of turn.
    > CEH is surprised to learn that plants and animals use electricity. No one who knows any biology would be4 surprised, although the sensitivity can be astounding. A shark, for example, can sense a flashlight battery whose electrodes are placed in the water hundreds of miles apart. So this proves creationism, right? Wrong.
    EN&V once again fells the simplistic “tree of life.” The one that evolutionary biologists have considered obsolete for decades. Keep trying, guys.
    > EN^V tries (9/10) to convince us of intelligent design because the spiceosome is “like a machine,” and everyone knows that humans design “machines”..(Here’s another one fro you: Stevie Wonder is God. God is love. Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore….) This post is way over Michael’s head, technically.
    > Not much in Aig’s News to Know recently. On Aug 29, paleontologists have reclassified 3 dinosaur species as a single species. Just goes to show you can’t trust them scientists…..

  15. The Discovery institute’s search for martyrs has revived an old candidate. Seven years ago, Bryan Leonard was to defend his PhD (science education) dissertation on teaching evolution by the “objective” method (that is, slanted toward creationism) at Ohio State University. His PhD review was “rescheduled” for irregularities in the choice of members and for Leonard’s apparent violation of research ethics.

    The revival comes in the context of OSU’s Steve Rissing’s advocacy of teaching more evolution in Ohio classrooms. As usual, Casey Luskin, DI’s attack hamster, overblows the case. It was Rissing who instigated the charges against Lwonard.

    BTW, Luskin claims that Leonard was “ultimately cleared of Rissing’s repugnant and contrived charges “. This is false. Although no disciplinary proceedings were brought, Leonard’s “rescheduled” dissertation review is still on hold SEVEN YEARS later. In other words, the whole thing was swept under the rug.

    Good subject for a post, Michael. Easy to shoot down.

  16. Mark Armitage may have to wait in line to be the DI’s next martyr. They have resurrected–if that’s the right word—another candidate for martyrhood. Bryan Leonard of OSU is being revived for the role as we speak.

  17. Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt[1] has been reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal.[2] The reviewer, Charles R. Marshall, is Director of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley. Here is the summary—

    But when it comes to explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Darwin’s Doubt is compromised by Meyer’s lack of scientific knowledge, his “god of the gaps” approach, and selective scholarship that appears driven by his deep belief in the role of an explicit designer in the history of life.

    As one example of Meyer’s’ systematic failure of scholarship, Marshall notes—

    For instance, while I was flattered to find him quote one of my review papers, —although the quote is a chimera drawn from two very different parts of my review—he fails to even mention the review’s (and many other papers’) central point: that new genes did not drive the Cambrian Explosion. His scholarship, where it matters most, is highly selective.

    From the way Meyer’s material is presented, Marshall assesses the purpose of the book thus—

    Then I realized that the book’s subtext is to provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular.

    How about it, Michael? When will we have your own review of Darwin’s Doubt?[3]


    [1] HarperOne, 2013. (Note that HarperOne is Harper’s division for religious books. Harper did not publish Darwin’s Doubt as a scientific work.

    [2] Marshall, “Where Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship,” Science 341:1344 (20 Sept. 2013)

    [3] I must confess I have not completely finished an analysis of the book either. I got sidetracked by the arrival of Arthur Wallace’s book The Origin of Animal Body Plans (Cambridge University Press 1997), which relates the real story of the Cambrian and other “explosion” in animal forms. This is a major work that predates Meyer’s by 16 years. But Meyer did not even mention it, much less critique it. Selective scholarship again.

  18. I misspoke in calling Zimmer’s NYT article a “review.” As Michael noted, it does not even mention Darwin’s Doubt. As to “countering” Meyer’s arguments, dozens of peer-reviewed papers every year do that very nicel. And, despite David Coppedge’s claims in Creation Evolution Headlines, these papers have not proliferated in response to Meyer’s book. There has been a steady stream of such papers for several decades. Even earlier, Wallace’s book The Origin of Animal Body Plans contains references going back many years before its 1999 publication date.

    As to reviews of Meyer’s book, I noted earlier that Science magazine carried a review by a prominent paleontologist whom Meyer quoted. John Farrell reviewed it in his blog, “Why Evolution Is True.” Gareth Cook reviewed it in The New Yorker—“Doubting Darwin’s Doubt.” Nick Matzke in The Panda’s Thumb. Donald Prothero at Amazon. By far the most complete review,, chapter by chapter and verse by verse, is an ongoing work at Smilodon’s Retreat. So far, only the prolog and the first chapter are complete. But very detailed, showing specific errors of fact and logic

    Happy reading..

  19. MIchael, I posted the above comment in the wrong place. Delete this copy if you like.

    ==== Upson Downes, a/k/a/ Olorin.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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