Four Evidences of Cosmic Youth ("more empirically justifiable to infer young ages than old ages")

Astronomers and planetary scientists routinely talk in millions and billions of years. Three recent science news reports raise questions about how to fit apparently young objects into a vast timeline.

1) Lunar burps: The moon is passing gas, reported Science News). This explains the long history of observations of lunar transients, or bright flashes observed from Earth on certain parts of the moon. Arlin Crotts (Columbia U) believes the flashes come from the decay of uranium that escapes through cracks, but mentions the possibility that volcanism is still active.

2) Flinging rings: Saturn’s G-ring has been explained in an announcement from Jet Propulsion Lab (see also) Science Daily). A persistent ring arc in the outer bright rings, confined by the moon Mimas, gets swept by the magnetic field, flinging particles into the tenuous G-ring. (The G-ring lies between the thin F-ring and the broad E-ring fed by the Enceladus geysers; see 07/11/2006). The original paper in Science1 says, “The dust-sized particles that dominate this ring’s optical properties should erode quickly in Saturn’s magnetosphere, yet there was no direct evidence for larger source bodies that could replenish the dust and no clear explanation for the concentration of such bodies in this one region.” The article and original paper do not mention how long this has been going on, but presumably the material would have long been depleted well before millions of years, because collisions in the arc are steadily being ground to dust by collisions.

3) Bursting moons: Speaking of Enceladus, a recent paper in Icarus2 said that tidal flexing cannot explain the heat coming out of this small moon, either now or in the past:

"The heating in Enceladus in an equilibrium resonant configuration with other saturnian satellites can be estimated independently of the physical properties of Enceladus. We find that equilibrium tidal heating cannot account for the heat that is observed to be coming from Enceladus. Equilibrium heating in possible past resonances likewise cannot explain prior resurfacing events."

Meyer and Wisdom said that the neighboring moon Mimas, about the same size but closer to Saturn, experiences 11 times as much tidal heating but shows no sign of activity. In their conclusion, they wondered that both Io (at Jupiter) and Enceladus (at Saturn) are both so active:

"But it is curious that one has to appeal to nonequilibrium tidal oscillations or episodic activity to heat both Io and Enceladus (Ojakangas and Stevenson, 1986). If the fraction of time spent in an active state is, say, of order 20%, for each satellite, then the probability that both are found in an active state today is only 4%."

Cassini will fly by Enceladus at very close range on March 10 and even sample particles in the plume; see announcement in Space.com.

4) Veil unveilings: Portions of the wispy Veil Nebula in Cygnus have been photographed in detail by the Hubble Space Telescope. This highly-distended nebula is the remnant of a supernova explosion long thought to be tens of thousands of years old (see 02/16/2001). Now, a press release posted by Science Daily claims the explosion “could have been witnessed and recorded by ancient civilizations” as recently as 5,000 years ago.

Every once in awhile, it bears repeating: it is more empirically justifiable to infer young ages than old ages, because the observation-to-assumption ratio is much higher. You can take an observed phenomenon and extrapolate it backward from the present a bit – that is reasonable. But to start with an assumption of billions of years and then try to fit a short-lived phenomenon into it lowers the observation-to-assumption ratio by many orders of magnitude. Would it be reasonable to observe a sparkler for 5 seconds, and then claim it has been burning for 100 years? We think science should tether itself to the observations rather than run amok like a stray dog.

1 Matthew M. Hedman, Joseph A. Burns, Matthew S. Tiscareno, Carolyn C. Porco, Geraint H. Jones, Elias Roussos, Norbert Krupp, Chris Paranicas, and Sascha Kempf, “The Source of Saturn’s G Ring,” Science, 3 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 653-656, DOI: 10.1126/science.1143964.

2 Jennifer Meyer and Jack Wisdom, “Tidal Heating in Enceladus,” Icarus, Volume 188, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 535-539.

what a brilliant rebuttle- absolutely brilliant! obviously you missed the point- go ask your teacher to explain it to you if you find it too difficult to understand

Oh I get the point. Creationists love putting their ignorance on full exhbitionist display. Doesn't matter if they don't have any knowledge about the fields they vainly try to 'criticize'. "Knowledge be damned, anchors away and full steam ahead! I saw it on answersingenesis and it supports the Genesis mythology, so it must be TRVE!"

I hate to break this to you, but anyone who's ever taken a decent science class past the high school level reads your posts and their jaws drop in the utterly overconfident stupidity on display. Spend a half dozen years reading real science books, and maybe you can have something to contribute. Until then, you're still learning.

You wouldn't tell a janitor how to clean a toilet. You should leave science to the pros, too. They know it much better than you.

Hint- Taunts do nothing to increase your reputation- they just shed light on the fact that you apparently are incapable of discussing hte subject on the level Dan and others are-

You don't understand. I'm not here to "debate" science. "Debating" science in a "discussion forum" is useless. Science is far too technical in this day and age to made or broken on a "political discussion forum". You have a major discovery? Go submit it for peer review. Ever wonder why the number of peer-reviewed science journals over at least the last half century supporting young-earth creationism is exactly

It's because it is junk science and apologetics that can't hold muster under scientific scrutiny. If you're really not afraid of debate, you would submit these great "discoveries" that supposedly "demolish" mainstream science for peer review - instead you hang them out like fishing lines in a forum where the full body of evidence isn't available to utterly annihilate your ideas, which it already has done over and over and over and over again in the various sciences, were all the technical details to be used against you, which can't possibly be done in a forum like this.

Hint- Taunts do nothing to increase your reputation- they just shed light on the fact that you apparently are incapable of discussing hte subject on the level Dan and others are-

The level Dan is? You're defending someone who claims general relativity disproves a helicentric solar system, yet when pressed, can't even answer a basic layperson's question about the theory? Smilies What, young-earth-creationism isn't stupid enough, you want to join the geocentrism club, too?

Take it for what it’s worth (which no doubt you’ll fail to see and continue on with hte kiddie insults)

Ad hominem is appropriate when confonted by a sufficient level of ridiculousness. I'm satisfied to expose the lack of scientific knowledge shown by people who defend archaic ideas. You don't look like you need much help with that, though. I don't insult others personally, only the stupidity of defending ideas that have been LONG discredited, and the stubbornness of those who defend them. Kiddie insults are appropriate for kiddie science.

Another brilliant rebuttle- Wow- you are truly amazing! You’ve rebuttled Dan’s questions brilliantly!

The "rebuttle"[sic] is out there in thousands in science books. I even gave a good "hint" as to where to start looking. Do your own research, and stop pretending you know something until you do.

[[Go submit it for peer review. Ever wonder why the number of peer-reviewed science journals over at least the last half century supporting young-earth creationism is exactly
]]

That is a flat out lie- are you a liar ok-now?

[[If you’re really not afraid of debate, you would submit these great “discoveries” that supposedly “demolish” mainstream science for peer review]]

Oh I’ve submitted articles here many many times refutting the nonsense proposed by Christian haters- but alas- the articles submitted are completely ignored, and the folks simply devolve into petty childish insulting such as yopu’ve done repeatedly.

[[Ad hominem is appropriate when confonted by a sufficient level of ridiculousness]]

Gee- a weally big word for childish behavior! I’m impressed

[[The “rebuttle”[sic] is out there in thousands in science books. I even gave a good “hint” as to where to start looking.]]

The debate is still ongoing and both sides have points- the fact that you prefere one point doesn’t solidify the point as concrete. In your mind it might- but oh well, that’s your close-minded biased problem. Formulations that work on paper yet lack experiential factual data are fien and dandy but far from actual fact.

That is a flat out lie- are you a liar ok-now?

Now who's resorting to petty insults? Please, point me to the vigorously peer-reviewed articles supporting young-earth-creationism. I'm all ears on this one, and I can't wait to see what you turn up.

Did it occur to you that maybe this says something about the level of scientific acumen in the submission, or are all the scientists "Christian haters", part of a massive conspiracy to destroy religion? Perhaps you're just not as good at science as you think. That's okay - we're all good at different things. Learning your strengths and weaknesses is part of finding your place in the world.

The debate is still ongoing and both sides have points- the fact that you prefere one point doesn’t solidify the point as concrete.

Science as whole knows better. There are thousands of scientific articles supporting evolution, and the theory, while being corrected in places here and there (like a gardener prunes a tree), still stands tall (the tree hasn't been chopped down, despite the ardent political attempts to do so). Like I said, contribute to the body of scientific work, or remain marginal. Your special religious ideas don't get affirmative action where scientific analysis is concerned.

In your mind it might- but oh well, that’s your close-minded biased problem.

Right - I'm 'close-minded' in the regard that I demand science conform to a cumulative body of knowledge and data. I'm certainly not so open-minded my brain falls out. Are you open minded? Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis? You can't just cry "bias" in science - you actually have to do hard work to back your point up.

"Close-minded" is an insult, by the way (just like "liar"). I don't mind at all, but I'm just pointing out that you might want to jump off the high-horse where "childish insults" are concerned.

Formulations that work on paper yet lack experiential factual data are fien and dandy but far from actual fact.

Science agrees. That's what peer review is for. Evolution survives because it rigorously survives the required consistency between different analyses.

Do you still want to defend GourmetDan's insight into the geocentric universe, or are you letting that one go?

[[(like a gardener prunes a tree), still stands tall (the tree hasn’t been chopped down, despite the ardent political attempts to do so). ]]

Lol- yeah, pointing out biological impossibilities is ‘trying to chop the tree down’ Sorry- but the ‘tree’ fell on it’s own

[[Now who’s resorting to petty insults? Please, point me to the vigorously peer-reviewed articles supporting young-earth-creationism. I’m all ears on this one, and I can’t wait to see what you turn up.]]

Plenty available to you with a simple search.

[[Did it occur to you that maybe this says something about the level of scientific acumen in the submission, or are all the scientists “Christian haters”, part of a massive conspiracy to destroy religion]]

Nope- the obvious however did occure to me and that is that opposing scientific evidneces are simply ignored and waved away as though they don’t exist- time and time again- thanks for playing

[[Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis?]]

Not at the expense of ignoring impossibilities I’m not- which apparently some are willing to do- but alas- only the ‘real scientists and advocates of ‘true’ science’ are those who do so eh?

[[Evolution survives because it rigorously survives the required consistency between different analyses.]]

Wrong- but you’re welcome to your opinion- Evolution science survives at hte expense of ostracising htose who have different opinions- Macro-Evolution science is nothign more than an a priori belief with absolutely zilch in the department of evidnetiary fact to support it.

[[Do you still want to defend GourmetDan’s insight into the geocentric universe, or are you letting that one go?]]

I never supported geocentrism,, nor do I support any other unknown in regards to the issue- I do however support the fact that opposing views have valid points that can’t simply be brushed away because you prefere your own set of assumptions that can’t be tested. As you full well know, there are studies that differ in hypothesis that hold valid plausibilities

[[I’m just pointing out that you might want to jump off the high-horse where “childish insults” are concerned.]]

Sorry, but calling someone who lies a liar isn’t childish- it’s pointing out fact if indeed that was your position which I asked you about.

[[Are you willing to entertain theories that contradict the first seven chapters of Genesis?]]

Forgot to add- As well I’m not willing to trade a superior faith for a failed faith that relies on biological impossibilities and feels the need to ostracize those who don’t toe the line and is nothign but a faith that leads to nowhere scientifically- Contrary to what you might beleive, time does not heal all wounds, and no amount of time can overcome the biological impossibilities of MACRO-evolution. Not willing to suspend sensibility in order to adhere to it- sorry.

"GourmetDan doesn't know what he's talking about. You can see that on this thread where he demonstrates that he doesn't even know what the curvature of a cone is, something you learn on Day 1 or 2 of a basic general relativity class; yet he strangely feels qualified to lecture people on the significance of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which ties directly into relativity. (He gets that wrong, too.)

ok_now uses the increasingly lame tactic of raising arguments without showing their relevance to the point being discussed. Does the curvature of a cone have anything to do with the heliocentric/geocentric discussion? None whatsoever. Yet ok_now thinks that he must only raise the question without showing the relevance. When asked to produce it, he falls silent because he knows there is no relevance.

"(Hint: try M-M in a rapidly accelerating reference frame, and you won't see the same result)",

What ok_now doesn't understand is that even if 'frame dragging' is confirmed, GR is still consistent with geocentrism. After all, was Einstein speaking of heliocentric and geocentric CS being equivalent in a non-GR model? Is frame-dragging the prediction that invalidates the equivalence of geocentrism with heliocentrism. No. Einstein was speaking of them being equivalent in a GR model, complete w/ frame-dragging. Unless, ok_now is arguing that frame-dragging invalidates GR, which I don't think he is doing. This is just one of the many ways that ok_now proposes irrelevant arguments simply because he doesn't understand the problem.

And ok_now gets M-M wrong too. It doesn't 'tie directly into relativity'. Relativity was developed after M-M and was forced to incorporate it because we supposedly 'know' that the earth moves in spite of evidence that it does not.

Airey's Failure likewise returned a null result for the supposed motion of the earth. Think maybe that's because the earth isn't moving? Nah, we 'know' it is because we believe it is. No other reason, as Einstein and Hoyle recognized and were not afraid to admit. Unfortunately, others are not so secure in their character.

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.