Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Itís Official: Saturnís Rings Are Young
Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | January 3, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Posted on 01/03/2018 8:03:59 AM PST by fishtank

It’s Official: Saturn’s Rings Are Young

January 3, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

There’s no stretching the truth any more. Cassini data have led all the ringmasters to the conclusion that the rings of Saturn are not billions of years old.

For over 15 years, Creation-Evolution Headlines has reported the tug-of-war between planetary scientists on the age of Saturn’s rings (e.g., 2/12/02). Indications that the rings are much younger than Saturn’s assumed age (4.5 billion years) go back to the Voyager missions. Several lines of evidence pointed to youth, but planetary scientists tugged back at the evidence, inventing ways to keep the rings billions of years old. Now, they have given up. Reality won the match: the rings are young!

Paul Voosen reports in Science Magazine, “Saturn’s rings are solar system newcomers.”

(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: rings; saturn

Dr. Larry Esposito enjoying Cassini’s first view of Saturn’s rings, July 1, 2004 (photo by David Coppedge)

Article image and caption

1 posted on 01/03/2018 8:03:59 AM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Given the fact that they’re not terribly stable, and we can see them being formed, I’m shocked that they were ever claimed to be ancient.


2 posted on 01/03/2018 8:08:02 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

The so called young rings theory dates the formation to 100 MM years ago. Seems a lot older than the young creationist behind this the linked site claiming the universe is under 10,000 years old.


3 posted on 01/03/2018 8:12:55 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“Seems a lot older than the young creationist...”

Well, to be fair, that is a lot older than all of us :P


4 posted on 01/03/2018 8:17:28 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

It only makes sense.

The rings were formed much later than the planet.....................


5 posted on 01/03/2018 8:21:28 AM PST by Red Badger (Road Rage lasts 5 minutes. Road Rash lasts 5 months!.....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Seems a lot older than the young creationist behind this the linked site claiming the universe is under 10,000 years old.

The site has its own dictionary of special words to use when describing real science. Example:

evillusion, n.: Darwin’s brand of science, the result of superstitiously confabulating in the absence of evidence, to create the illusion of scholarship. Source: 7/27/07. Etymology: a contraction of evil + illusion. Pronunciation: pronounced the way the British say evolution.

https://crev.info/darwin-dictionary/


6 posted on 01/03/2018 8:23:28 AM PST by Simon Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Not doubting this, but do “planetary scientists” also worship the gods who tell us that WE are raising the temperature of the earth?


7 posted on 01/03/2018 8:26:00 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

So I’m going to go out on the limb here, and predict Earth will have rings within 40 years.


8 posted on 01/03/2018 8:32:47 AM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“Scientists” claim a lot of things for which there is no evidence.


9 posted on 01/03/2018 8:37:43 AM PST by Seruzawa (TANSTAAFL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Because the Sun said to Jupiter:

“If you like it, then you’d better put a ring on it.”


10 posted on 01/03/2018 8:45:54 AM PST by Fido969 (In!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa
"“Scientists” claim a lot of things for which there is no evidence."

Name five...

...and include evidence other than some CREVO mindbarfs...
11 posted on 01/03/2018 3:58:09 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias | "Islamists": Satan's assassins | "Moderate Muslims": Useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Planets are rare in this universe.
Comets are dirty snowballs.
Unicellular life is simple.
Mental illness is caused by brain chemical imbalaces.
The Piltdown man is real.


12 posted on 01/03/2018 5:56:24 PM PST by Seruzawa (TANSTAAFL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Hmm - Uranus also has rings...


13 posted on 01/03/2018 6:15:30 PM PST by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts FDR's New Deal = obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Seruzawa
"Planets are rare in this universe."

How many galaxies could Moses see? [Two] How many can Hubble see?

Scientists are continually improving our instrumental ability to "see" things within God's universe that were beyond our range of vision. Are you finding fault with those accomplishments?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Comets are dirty snowballs.

Aside from the quibble over "dirty snowball" vs "snowy dirtball" (varying ratio of water to soil) -- what is your evidence to the contrary?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Unicellular life is simple."

Compared to multicellular life, it certainly is.

Compared to an inanimate grain of sand, it is not. Who was it who developed the imaging and analytical techniques to provide that insight? ...scientists...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mental illness is caused by brain chemical imbalaces" [sic].

Looked at the behavior of a meth/coke/LSD. etc. addict lately?

And ...your evidence that the statement is untrue is...?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Piltdown man is real."

A hoax a century ago that fooled some people. Debunked, BTW -- by ...scientists...

~~~~~~~~~~~~

It would appear that your problem is that ...scientists... are far more intellectually honest than you are... Do you have the honesty to reply?

Tread carefully! you're dealing with a physical chemist, with a B.S. in biology -- who believes that Genesis 1:1 is absolutely and literally true...

14 posted on 01/03/2018 7:21:35 PM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias | "Islamists": Satan's assassins | "Moderate Muslims": Useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

Uranus is his boyfriend on the side.


15 posted on 01/04/2018 9:02:17 AM PST by Fido969 (In!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Actually, I think the purpose of his post was to describe many times that “scientists” have been wrong.

But, you are a smart guy. You’ve told us you’ve got BS.

So I’m sure you knew that.


16 posted on 01/04/2018 9:07:28 AM PST by Fido969 (In!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson