Venus: Hothouse Planet (or Venus vs. Uniformitarianism)

Astrobiology Magazine ^ | Aug 16, 2004 | Henry Bortman

[GodGunsGuts]

...Now, fast forward to more recent times on Venus. We've begun to understand the story of its surface evolution largely due to the Magellan mission in the 1990s. The biggest surprise of Magellan was that the surface seems like it's all the same age. That's what I'm calling the second great transition. Something changed on Venus 600 or 700 million years ago to make the surface all the same age.

If you use the word catastrophic it rubs some people the wrong way, but something dramatic happened on Venus which wiped out almost all signs of an older surface. The planet got re-paved, basically, 600 or 700 million years ago...

[GodGunsGuts]

A short commentary on the above excerpted from the Institute for Creation Research website:

One idea never considered is that the missing 90% never occurred. The twentieth century has seen the revival of catastrophism in Earth geology and the discovery of "young" features like Saturn's rings and the geysers of Enceladus. Secular scientists are even exploring the possibility that gas giants like Jupiter could form in mere thousands of years. Earlier reasons for trusting the opinions of Lyell (a lawyer) have eroded away.

Should scientists be allowed to infer histories that are indistinguishable from myth? If it were not that Darwinian evolution requires vast ages (as if that would help), many of the features observed by the space program would be considered young. The planets have no obligation to Charles -- Lyell or Darwin.

*David F. Coppedge works in the Cassini program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

http://www.icr.org/article/3389/

[GodGunsGuts]

ping

[fishtank]

BFLR = bump for later reading

[billybudd]

Wait a second, 700 million years? That’s complete BS. The universe, earth and planets all, was formed 5,000 years ago. Those bobble-headed physicists are wrong again - they rely way too much on incorrect telescopes and formulas, they should look more to the Bible for empirical data.

[GodGunsGuts]

See:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

[Coyoteman]

Your link to an article from the Institute for Creation Research, commenting on a science article in Astrobiology, makes it seem that the ICR is doing science.

Lets look at what type of "science" they are doing. Here, from their webpage, is what they believe:

Tenets of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.

If they want to believe this way, fine. But they shouldn't try to call it science--that would be a lie.

It's pure apologetics.

[GodGunsGuts]

Richard Dawkins, one of your high priests from the Church of Darwin, disagrees with you:

“I do have one thing in common with the creationists. Like me they will have no truck with NOMA and its separate magisteria.”

“The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question...The methods we should use to settle the matter...would be purely and entirely scientific methods.”

—Richard Dawkins

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf

[gcruse]

And what’s all this I hear about a metric system? If God had intended us to go metric, Jesus would have only had ten disciples.

[GodGunsGuts]

==And what’s all this I hear about a metric system? If God had intended us to go metric, Jesus would have only had ten disciples.

Hmmm...even under the metric system the number would still be twelve disciples. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here :o)

[rickdylan]

Venus is the thing which keeps me from being a complete YEC. Venus at least appears to be ballpark for the sort of 6000 - 10000 year age which people used to deduce from biblical chronologies. Mars and Earth do not look like that and you’d assume they were significantly older.

[GodGunsGuts]

Food for thought (excerpt):

Conclusions and Implications

There is no longer any doubt that the surface of Mars has in the past been covered by huge volumes of water which spread over vast areas. These resulted from cataclysmic outflows, which were also responsible for catastrophic erosion of channels and valleys, on a scale far greater than anything comparable on Earth, and deposition of sedimentary strata. It appears that much of this water still resides near the Martian surface in permafrost and as ice. Mars has in the past also experienced huge volcanic eruptions and vast lava outpourings across its surface, perhaps on a greater scale than those on the earth.

There is an irony in the obvious parallels with the earth. Most geologists today vehemently oppose any suggestion that in the earth’s past there were cataclysmic outbursts of water that flowed catastrophically across its surface as the global Genesis Flood, even though planet Earth is still 70% covered in water. Yet they are equally adamant that the surface of nearby planet Mars has in the past been cataclysmically covered in water, even though most of its surface is now dry. However, the evidence on both planets is the same — landforms carved and sedimentary strata deposited catastrophically. Obviously their conclusions are based on a belief in uniformitarianism (”the present is the key to the past”), not the evidence which is consistent with the Bible.

http://www.icr.org/article/3151/

[GodGunsGuts]

Here’s another article I find very interesting re: YEC VS. DE dispute:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261

[metmom]

So we start with singularity. All the matter that composes the universe compressed into the size of a walnut (or so scientists speculate). And there is sat for some undetermined amount of time until it let go and expanded to the the size of the universe in a trillion trillionth of a second, moving faster than the speed of light (which is impossible but we won’t let details get in the way).

But if time and space didn’t exist yet, how do we know how big it was since there was no space to fill?

And how do we know how long it sat there unexpanded if time didn’t exist yet?

And why did it remain unexpanded for as long as it did?

Then why did it expand?

And where did it come from to begin with?

If a simple black hole has enough gravitational pull that no light can escape it, then how did the gravitational pull of all the matter in the universe manage to let go and expand?

So this universe then assembled itself into an orderly law abiding system, in direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So what caused the laws that operate it to be set up? And how can it violate those laws?

Then life allegedly arose from non-living material, all on its own, then evolving into a complex self-reproducing entities. Consciousness and thought, emotions and will, all had their origin from randomness and chaos.

This isn’t science either. Looking at the universe and rewinding backwards like a video tape is a pretty poor excuse. Not to mention that it’s not testable, not reproducible, not observable, can’t be run as an experiment in a lab.

And scientists mock creationists?

[gcruse]

” moving faster than the speed of light (which is impossible but we won’t let details get in the way).’

There’s no limit on the expansion speed of space.
But, don’t let that get in the way.

[metmom]

There’s no limit on the expansion speed of space. But, don’t let that get in the way.

I guess that conclusion would have to be arrived at in order for the scientific creation account to work. Convenient. Make up an answer for any complicating factor to excuse it.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

And what’s all this I hear about a metric system? If God had intended us to go metric, Jesus would have only had ten disciples Apostles.

[GodGunsGuts]

Very good points. BTW, did you check out Editor_Surveyor’s link re: Dr. Humphreys’ book on Creationist cosmology? He posits that light may have at one time traveled much faster than today. I haven’t read the book yet (it’s now on order), but I have been looking into it on the Net, and it would seem that ToE/Big Bang/OEC proponents have been unable to refute it yet. I’ll let you know my thoughts on the subject once I read it. All the best—GGG

In case you’re interested, here’s a couple of links to the book and the controversy:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446

http://www.icr.org/news/44/

[bert]

Meanwhile on earth they still hunt reasons to support their belief in pure unadultrated myth.

[FoolNoMore]

“Venus at least appears to be ballpark... Mars and Earth do not look like that and you’d assume they were significantly older.”

I would like to respectfully say that you cannot know what a planet would look like at a particular age without making a great many assumptions.

[editor-surveyor]

" Those bobble-headed physicists are wrong again - they rely way too much on incorrect telescopes and formulas"

They relied only on a good guess about what position would get them the grant they needed to continue their "research."

"...they should look more to the Bible for empirical data."

There are no empirical data in God's word, only truths.