New Papers Continues To Show Titan’s Youthfulness

The assumption of old age concerning Titan and the predictions that proceeded from it, here are the facts, they were wrong about a global ocean; they were wrong about huge lakes of liquid ethane; they were enormously surprised to discover sand dunes on Titan but what about geology?

They are still gathering data from this amazing moon, and once again it doesn’t look good for old age assumptions. Scientists hoped to find volcanoes but a new paper concludes that Titan gets its geology from the outside, instead from the inside. If this is found to be true then its implication consists of the surface features being created by wind, impacts and weather rather than active geology.

The hopeful cryovolcano announced last year was challenged by Moore and Pappalardo, authors of the new paper. Could the evidence be pointing to a geologically dead world on Titan? Planetary scientists previously have had an age conundrum with Titan.  They know that the methane in the atmosphere is destroyed and converted to other compounds in a one-way process. This puts limits on the age of the atmosphere which indicates a far less 4.5-billion-year age assumed for the solar system. This is why they hoped to find a reservoir of methane under the surface which would erupt in cryovolcanoes to replenish the atmosphere.

In another paper from the same source, it analyzed Titan’s equatorial sand dunes. These dunes, covering about 12.5% of the surface, were a surprise when discovered, because scientists were expecting large lakes or even a global ocean.  Scientists also doubted that the winds were strong enough at the surface to move particles around.  Dunes also exist on Mars, Venus, and of course, Earth, but on Titan, the average 300-foot-high dunes are nearly1.9 miles apart, and getting farther apart at higher latitudes.

Unlike the silica sands on Earth, the particles in Titan’s dunes are thought to be composed of hydrocarbon dust and ice precipitated out of the atmosphere.  All together, they constitute the largest known reservoir of organics on Titan, because the combined area of dunes is about as large as the United States. The dunes infringe upon the theories of Titan’s age.  Because for one, they are among Titan’s most youthful features; for another, they indicate a lack of persistent liquid on Titan’s equator, even though liquid ethane should have been raining onto the surface throughout Titan’s history!

The presence of dunes implies that much of Titan is extremely dry. If spread out evenly over the globe, the particles in this largest reservoir of organics (larger than all the observed lakes combined) would fail to cover Titan with the predicted accumulation of hydrocarbons that must have been produced in the assumed 4.5-billion-year age of the moon.

Whispers Of A ‘Thrilling Tale’ In Santa Fe?

The media and secular scientists alike claim that observing things in the present make a “huge” impact of what went on in the past! However, when does observable reality imply about unobservable reality and is this unobservable reality created by scientists really real?

Secular scientists believe in a global catastrophe while creationists believe in one as well, however both have different interpretations of the data of what exactly was the global catastrophe. Creationists say it was the flood, while secular scientists have created their own story

“Scientists are currently studying the Santa Fe impact structure to determine when this event took place. Right now they can only say the meteorite struck sometime between 1.2 billion and 330 million years ago. Certainly it happened far enough in the past for the impact crater to be completely altered or eroded.”

“Complicating the question is the “Great Unconformity”, an event that wiped about a billion years of history out of the geologic record of this region. The disappearance of these tons of rocks was due to erosion — seas receded, and the newly exposed rocks wore away through wind, rain and other weathering processes. Then the seas flooded in again and sediments began forming new layers. The result is that a 330-million-year-old rock layer now lies directly on top of rocks that vary between 1.2 and 1.6 billion years old, depending on the location.”

Wait a minute, did this Great Unconformity only happen in a region around Santa Fe? It’s pretty  obvious throughout the Grand Canyon as well, where underlying rocks, even tilted sediments, were planed flat as a pancake over a vast area. Also there are new sediments  that lie on top of this clear boundary, sometimes with huge boulders embedded in the sandstone.  Whatever caused a violent shearing force to underlying igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks covered a wide area.

Even heavily biased for evolution, Wikipedia states, “Geologist John Wesley Powell called this major gap in the geologic record, which is also seen in other parts of the world, the Great Unconformity.” What caused it? The Milwaukee Evolutionist League attempted to refute the idea that the “Great Unconformity” was evidence for a global flood, recorded in the Bible.

They claim in 2005…

“Only a glacier can plane off rugged, jagged mountaintops with such level precision,” the writer, who calls himself “SaganJr,” said.  “A massive enough glacier can literally bulldoze over rock, leveling off everything in its path.”

On the contrary, this is a very poor explanation of what happened in the past! Where are the valleys, like Yosemite?  Where are the moraines?  Where are all the millions of meteors that supposedly fallen in a billion years ago, and why were none of them large enough to end the ice age? Where are numerous gullies, channels and faults running through the Great Unconformity that were verify such an hypothesis? Also, if the whole world were a mountain covered with ice, the glaciers would have no place to slide and plane off the surface. The evidence suggests sediments quickly became deposited, which indicates a flood not an ice glacier which in turn verifies the Bible!

Faint Young Sun Paradox Hasn’t Been Rescued

In a stellar evolutionary model, one is to imagine a faint sun only being able to keep the earth at below freezing and wouldn’t warm up for another 2-3 billion years while assumptions in geology claim that water was plentiful and not frozen about 3-4 billion years ago! This problem has riddled scientists for decades.

In 1972, Carl Sagan and George Mullen hypothesized a “super” greenhouse effect that would have prevented the earth from freezing. So scientists began to look for evidence confirming it but a new study found evidence to the contrary…

“A team led by earth scientist Minik Rosing of the University of Copenhagen analyzed iron-bearing rocks in southwestern Greenland that were 3.8 billion years old. They focused on two minerals, magnetite and siderite, that can provide a bellwether of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Too much CO2, and magnetite can’t form, whereas the opposite is true for siderite.”


“Based on the ratio of the minerals, the team reports in tomorrow’s issue of Nature that CO2 levels during the Archean could have been no higher than about 1000 parts per million—about three times the current level of 387 ppm and not high enough to compensate for the weak sun.”

The articles goes on to say, that it’s premature to discard the greenhouse hypothesis, claiming temperatures back then were at least as high as they are today. The greenhouse hypothesis is the only mechanism known to man that could keep the planet warm, there is none other so naturally they would hang on to it. Also, scientists who are caught in up the evolutionary story tend to act as if they know this or that, but there is no basis for any of it, but rather say it’s a “long chain of further refinements of our understanding.” Did you see much understanding of what they are talking about and how close they think they are to rescuing their theory? To have a chain of understanding there must be solid links!

Paper Suggests: Uniformitarianism May Be Inadequate

Geologists have believed the ancient ocean levels rose and fell in cycles as ice sheets retreated and advanced which was caused by changes in earth’s orbit. Horton and Poulsen two geologists attempted to model this process and guess what? They couldn’t get the model to work! High fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide was required to get rid of the ice sheets each time.

In the paper called; “Paradox of late Paleozoic glacioeustasy” global sea levels would have had to alternate by 100 meters or more to produce the beds but in their model that couldn’t get it to raise more than 25 meters. The problem comes in when their paradigm is based on 326 to 267 million years ago in conditions that were “primed the late Paleozoic paleoenvironment for glaciation.” In this time frame, carbon dioxide levels were low which throws the model way off.

They continue to explain…

“The ice sheets of Gondwana left not only direct geological evidence of continental glaciation, but also indirect sedimentary signatures of their waxing and waning,” they said.  The presence of North American deposits that appear cyclic “has been used to infer that late Paleozoic depositional environments were largely controlled by glacioeustasy.”

Now if this is the explanation they have set their sights on, fluctuations in global sea level would be up to 200 meters high which is drastically higher than what global warming alarmists have been predicting for our future.  Another part of the puzzle, can sea level changes of that magnitude be forced by orbital cycles?  Horton and Poulsen set out to try and answer this very question. In the next section of this paper, they go through the methods they used for their model.

Huge “increases in excess of 2000 ppm were required to cause substantial melting of Gondwanan ice sheets.” This is real interesting considering the hype over the level of carbon dioxide at 384 ppm which  is supposedly causing the end of the world through man-made global warming.  “The dynamic response of continental ice sheet volume to our prescribed transient orbital insolation variations is modest,” they said.

What does that mean? It means that orbital forcing does not have a significant impact because it was unable to produce sea levels at a 100 meters or more!

“Our simulation of late Paleozoic glacial conditions presents a paradox.  While our simulation of large (>100 m sea-level equivalent) continental ice sheets is in good agreement with sedimentological evidence of Gondwanan glaciation, our orbitally driven ice-volume changes are ~10 m, much smaller than the late Paleozoic glacioeustatic variations implied by both cyclothems and isotopic analyses.  The absence of significant continental-scale ice sheet ablation in the face of changing orbital insolation poses a significant challenge to our current understanding of late Paleozoic ice sheet dynamics.”

As a result what is happening to the “Pleistocene glacioeustasy theory?” It was supposed to be better understood and have some sort of agreement with orbital and atmospheric factors. With a caving outlook on Unitarianism, but appeal to it happened because it happened. In other words, it’s circular reasoning.  They also discounted the “energy balance model.”

“Simulations using an energy balance model (EBM) coupled to an ice sheet model indicate that orbital insolation variations alone can produce repeated ~100 m sea-level fluctuations (Hyde et al., 1999).

We cannot say with certainty why our results differ from those using an EBM; however, we suspect that differences in the paleoboundary conditions and/or the treatment of ablation and precipitation rates in the calculation of mass balance over the ice sheet might be responsible.  For example, unlike our model where precipitation over Gondwana is explicitly calculated, EBM precipitation rates are based on prescribed modern precipitation rates (Hyde et al., 1999).

Predictions of equilibrium ice sheets made using GCM–ice sheet models with fixed (nontransient) orbital conditions have also been used to infer large late Paleozoic glacioeustatic fluctuations (of as much as 245 m; Horton et al., 2007).

However, our new results indicate that these estimates are too large.  The reason is straightforward: in the fixed-orbit experiments, there is no preexisting ice sheet to influence the final mass balance.  In contrast, in our transient experiments, the preexisting ice sheet (simulated during the previous orbital step) has a substantial influence on local conditions due to temperature-elevation and ice-albedo feedbacks.  Orbitally driven insolation changes are not large enough to overcome these local ice sheet effects; consequently, orbital changes produce only small ice-volume fluctuations.”

Horton and Poulsen firmly believe they experimented with a reasonable model but unable replicate the paradigm. Even though models have limitations trying to explain a vast amount of complexity, but an orbital signature should have appeared somewhere in the simulation.

The only explanation left was non-uniformitarian – something that runs against the grain of the prevailing viewpoint in the science of geology.  What we have learned from the jargon and math and computer skills,  geologists and planetary scientists, atmospheric scientists understand very little.  So overall, are we gaining more understanding and are better off using uniformitarianism. The answer is, no!