Named, or called by some, "Darwin's Rottweiler".
Perhaps you may wish to re-think that particular, shoot-from-the-lip statement?
Posted on 08/07/2007 3:54:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Four Evidences of Cosmic Youth 08/04/2007
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.
No they don't. But, please, enumerate.
No they don't. But, please, enumerate.
Just think of all the sciences that would have to be "replaced" under a belief mandating nothing older than 6,000 years:
Geology, many branches of physics and chemistry, astronomy, various branches of biology, nuclear science, oil exploration... it goes on and on. a young earth would contradicts thousands of scientific findings. It would require either a trixster God who set up the universe just to fool all science and/or changes to basic equations like E=mc^2.
==The example you are trying to make is silly because the time dilation effect is seen between two entities Relative to each other
Ok, I’ll cut right to the chase. You are assuming the universe has no center. However, if the universe is bounded there is a net gravitational force towards the center. Moreover, observations of the universe tell us it is expanding away from our solar system, which suggests we are at or near the center of the universe. And since the universe is expanding that indicates that it is not in a black hole, for if it was the universe would be infilling, which, as mentioned above, is not indicated by the evidence. That means, according to Einstein’s theory of Gen. Rel., the universe must have expanded out of a white hole. According to Gen. Rel., time virtually stands still at the event horizon of the same, whereas distant objects in the universe could age billions of years. Thus, it is easily possible for the earth to be thousands of years old and distant objects of the observable universe to be billions of years old (relatively speaking), and yet both be the product of the same Big Bang event. Hence, it is theoretically possible for light from stars billions of lightyears away to reach the earth.
Named, or called by some, "Darwin's Rottweiler".
Perhaps you may wish to re-think that particular, shoot-from-the-lip statement?
You obviously don’t know your sciences...not a one of those is dependent on millions of years as the final basis for it area. In every instance, there is a logical explanation from the young earth position. Even the Big Bang is being discounted!
OK, lets take the one I know best: archaeology and radiocarbon dating. I have been doing these for 35+ years.
Please show me where they are wrong and the young earth idea (creation on October 23, 4004 BC or thereabouts) is correct.
Thanks for the ping!
We've already demonstrated that though, haven't we? Cherry pick the data points that support a 6,000 year old universe, hand wave away everything else, and there you go!
A few weeks back there was a poster here who claimed that scientists couldn't determine what the sun was made of, or that it was powered by nuclear fusion. Several people, mostly folks who now post on Darwin Central and haven't been banned over here yet, tried to point out some of the science that went into determining our current understanding of the nature of the sun, and tried to explain the basics of spectroscopy, but he just poo-pooed it and called it all "junk science."
No one had landed on the sun and brought back a sample, so we had no way of knowing what it was made of, and since the sun is so hot we never will land on it, we can never know. That was his contention. I guess it's only "science" when we confine ourselves to the observational methods and assumptions that were present in Biblical times - no credit to be given for any advances we may have made in observational tools in the 2,000 years since.
A few of the regulars on the evolution side of these threads came over to ridicule this guy's claims. Only a handful of people on the creationist side came over, and they basically agreed with him. I have to assume therefore that his opinion on modern stellar theory being based on "junk science" is the accepted opinion of FR's creationists.
This is the state of "scientific debate" on Free Republic today. Pick what you want, and discard the rest. Funny how we're told we can't do that with the Bible!
I still like the “small comets” best.
They totally eliminate any possibility of an age greater than 10,000 years.
It totally demolishes you, doesn’t it!
Increasingly good advice.
Radiocarbon dating is based on assumptions, such as the starting levels. It also assumes a uniformitarian history, and discounts catastrophic events. Lot's of controversy surrounding radiocarbon dating...wide ranges of conflicting dates, for instance. C14 dating - max: 10's of thousands of years...not millions.
Egyptology: all ancient dates were based on the writings of one priest - Manetho. Immanuel Velikovsky has demonstrated that his methodology was extremely flawed, and that current thinking is being revised. Donovan A. Courville places the age of the Egyptian dynasties somewhere around 2100 to 2300 BC, and no older.
Genetics: not dependent upon common ancestry. Genetics is used for improving breeding stock, for instance; and for developing heartier strains of crops. It is not dependent on millions of years.
And the beat goes on.
That works as long as you don't shoot any diagonals. (all rectangular layout)
You’re dead on!
And astronomers and geologists have known that the universe is older than 6000 years since long before Charles Darwin was a gleam in his mother's eye.
I love how creationists pretend that they're not against science per se, just "evolutionists," when in fact there's not one field of science they have any understanding of or use for.
They should be simply ignored, unless or until they attempt to regain political power over others.
That is why I asked you to show your math. You are seeing something in Einstein's work that he wasn't smart enough to see.
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.