First Paper On Pluto Reveals More Complexity

“At 4.5 billion years old, scientists did not expect to find an active dwarf planet, but New Horizons captured a trove of evidence upending this belief.”

-ABC News

“The practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience

-Philosopher of science Karl Popper’s scientific epistemology

When declaring an unfalsifiable theory in this case planet evolution is pseudoscience. The amazing discoveries which have been found so far are a prime example. Evolution always sounds better in story format because one can come up with all kinds of conclusions which are not necessarily true or on the right path, but when it comes to direct observations it is falsified.

The first paper reveals more complexity and a lesson on how a “belief” is in the process of trying to be rescued from evidence that contradicts it. You see scientists who believe in evolution assume or shall I say estimate that Pluto is currently 4.5 billion years old. Many of the secular scientists predicted that Pluto was way past its prime because of its assumed age, so they believed that Pluto would be nothing more than a cold and lifeless planet but still interesting to explore! When New Horizons flew by and was able to start downloading its data (currently only 15 percent has been downloaded so far) we find that the direct observations of Pluto was far from that! So says Alan Stern who is the principal scientist on the New Horizons project, “Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years…there’s not big enough typeface to write that in.”

New Horizons was also able to capture some amazing data of Pluto’s moons which also doesn’t agree with the assumption of billions of years old. Nix and Hydra have bright surfaces, this presents a major problem for the belief in billions of years old because there is a lot going on externally such as radiation darkening, the transfer of darker material from Charon via impacts, impacts with dark Kuiper Belt meteorites. The evidence suggests youth not old age. It will to be interesting the various stories they will come up with to try to preserve billions of years old that defy common sense.

Pluto has 3-kilometre-high ice mountains, pretty spectacular!  This indicates that Pluto is geologically active, but this presents a major problem for the old age assumption once again, where is the energy that can be sustain over billions of years coming from to create these ice mountains? This is when the storytelling begins, you have one idea that suggests (with no evidence) that uranium is present on Pluto. What do you think is strange about this idea that considers radioactivity as the energy source that supposedly been working over billions of years? Well if the radioactivity is heating the plains why are the ice mountains which are next to it, not affected by it?  Here is an experiment for you, take a piece of ice and place it next to heat and see what happens, then you know I mean :)

The conclusions to keep it so old is not science rather just a belief that they think needs to be preserve otherwise the rest of their theory in other areas of evolution go down too. Pluto is not 4.5 billion years old! Neither are its moons! The new data coming in from New Horizons confirms the Bible more than planet evolution!


2 thoughts on “First Paper On Pluto Reveals More Complexity

  1. there is plenty of energy coming from the sun to cause changes in ices that are generally gasses at anything except very very cold temps. We also do not know what the center of Pluto consists of, and you try to claim, without evidence that there aren’t any radioisotopes on Pluto, a baseless assumption that is nothing more than a hoped for gap for your god to fit in.

    Considering that Christians do not agree on when the earth was created, and no creationists have evidence to support their claim over each others, can you explain why I should believer your version? Your bible didn’t even know that there were other planets, and rather amusingly claims that the moon gives off light like the sun, so discoveries about the solar system show nothing in the bible being true.

  2. Have you heard about an exciting new interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 that, for the first time, aligns modern science with the bible and does not believe in evolution. It is called “The Darkness Theory” by Andrew Louf. The entire theory is only 5 pages long and it is free at:

    Here is a summary of Louf’s new theory:
    When the earth was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, our planet was on the verge of its first sunrise and sunset, but according to Genesis 1:2, the earth was placed into “darkness” and that first sunrise/sunset did not occur. For the next 4.5 billion years, the earth rotated around the sun in “darkness.” Louf believes that according to Genesis 1:2, “the Holy Spirit hovered” over the surface of the earth providing our planet with all of the light and sustenance it needed. During this period, God created the complex and robust forms of life we find in the fossil record. According to Louf, evolution never happened and its theory is worthless. Then after 4.5 billion years, it was time to lift the “darkness.” Therefore, a few thousand years ago, over a period of six 24-hour days, portions of the seas, land, plant, and animal life were released from the control of the Holy Spirit and given over to the natural forces of the universe. With success each day, God declared, “It was good.” On the sixth day, God created Adam and Eve and gave them dominion over the earth. This makes total sense to me and I have never heard of it before.

    “The Darkness Theory” seems unique because it satisfies all of the requirements I have been looking for:
    1) It is the most literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 (ie. “darkness” means “darkness”),
    2) There are seven 24-hour days that occurred a few thousand years ago,
    3) Completely denies the existence of evolution, and
    4) Science (old earth) is accepted, as long as evolution is rejected

    This makes more sense to me than any other theory I have read.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s