Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Because you might actually learn something.
Babbelings...that's funny...
Is this the first time anyone ever explained punctuated equilibria to you? Of course it's "differentiation by small mutation." All scientific theories of evolution involve "differentiation by small mutation"; punk-eek is not all that different from classical darwinism in that respect.
My post 203 involved both albedo and the infrared flux meters which were carried to Venus' surface by probes, all measurements basically telling the same story as noted. Your claim, two or three posts later was to have destroyed that entire line of argument a year prior and anybody would interpret that as meaning the claims that albedo and ir flux measurements supported Velikovsky. Your claiming that you were arguing against anything else amounts to speaking in weasel language.Let's just examine the logic you offer here. You refer to a rather fantastical narrative by Velikovsky in which Venus moves from outside earth's orbit to inside, causing all manner of destruction on earth. You have discarded a few Velikovskian points along the way: 1) Venus ejected from Jupiter, although you seem to have urged it in your T.O. days, and 2) insects came from to Earth from Venus.
You offer (continuously in your recurring spam message) rather indirect evidence: items which you feel will show that Venus is emitting primordial heat and thus is young. Thus, apparently, everything Velikovsky and you say is true, although you've already had to discard some amount of Velikovsky.
You're now saying that I can't claim to answer you unless I address those very albedo/IR flux data. That any claim to have answered you amounts to deliberate, shameful, blatant fraud.
Naah!
Your catastrophic version of events can't have happened. I answered you with links that address all your points and raise other issues, like Venus's thick crust. I never said I would bite on your micro-proof. That would amount to taking a distraction, lunging at the matador's cape.
I have specifically stated that I have never bought that little piece of the theory, and I do not know of anybody who does. Velikovsky claimed that insects MIGHT exist on Venus and the point is so miniscule that only a nitpicker's nitpicker would even mention it.
There is no specific evidence that Venus has a thick crust at all. Seismic readings would be needed to make such a claim and be honest about it. The claim is only made because some assume that a thick crust would be necessary to support the observed topography, while others have theorized that topography may simply be being thrown up faster than it can settle back in, due to the heat and subsurface energetics of the planet.
That's just ridiculous. You're saying the mountains are on thin crust but they're replenished by what amounts to vulcanism. They're basically riding on convection and bubbles?
The Russians put a lander on Venus. We have pictures. It's a rock and a hard place. And we know it isn't all that volcanic. You need something that makes Io look like the moon. Read over that link.
Then again, you don't have to read it. It's the stuff they hammered at you to no avail for a decade or so at TalkOrigins before you decided to come spam preach to us instead.
From: medved@access1.digex.net (Ted Holden)
Subject: Venus: Another piece of the big picture
Date: 6 Aug 1994 22:52:47 -0400[ ... ]
I claim that empirical evidence involving Venus is being doctored and falsified at every turn because it does not fit with scientists' pre-conceived ideas involving the age of our solar system, and because it does not match any of the logical requirements of Carl Sagan's "super-greenhouse" theory.
[ ... ]
Which is astonishing on the face of it, even aside from the clear statement by Taylor that the Pioneer Venus data is significantly more accurate than any prior measurement, and the clear implication that any and all past readings should simply be tossed.
Mr Holden's opinion is entirely based on these two critical points. The first point, that the data are being faked in order to avoid any possible agreement with Mr. Holden's own pre-conceived notions, is nothing more than a bald assertion. To ignore facts simply by claiming that the opposition are deliberate liars is really the last refuge of a scoundrel anyway, and I have no intention of addressing the matter, other than to assert with equal conviction that this claim is blatantly false.
The second, and far sneakier point, almost seems to make sense, and could easily trap the unwary. I will only mention in passing that if Taylor [F.W. Taylor, in chap. 20, Hunten, et al. (1983)] really had meant to imply that all data prior to PV should be "tossed out", then he could easily have said so more directly, or in fact, since he was the lead author of the paper in question, he could have simply done it. But he didn't do it, nor did he say it, nor did he imply it. We don't need Mr. Holden to tell us what Taylor "really" meant.
Obviously, this has been discussed many times before ...
This already creates a new problem, for, as Taylor himself pointed out all the way back in Hunten et al. (1983), so much heat transported through the crust should cause slumping in large topographic features. PV, and prior Earth based radar measurements, were not consistent with such an internal heat source. He also realized that to provide such heat through volcanism was inconsistent with our knowledge of volcanism on the Earth. This lead Taylor to openly reject the idea, long before Mr. Holden had come up with it (Hunten et al. (1983), P. 658).
[...]
Another constant claim is that the Magellan images show a "fresh, young" surface on Venus, and this supports the claim of "awesome" volcanism. This claim, however, also does not stand up to examination. Here, see for instance, Schaber et al. (1992). They mapped a database of 874 craters over 89% of the surface of Venus. The craters ranged from 1.5 to 280 kilometers in diameter, and are randomly distributed over the surface. Of these, 62% are pristine, and only 4% are embayed by lava flows. If Venus were subject to current "awesome" volcanism, or if it was even in the fairly recent past, it is hard to explain why only 4% of its surface craters would be embayed. See also Strom et al. (1994), and Bullock et al. (1993).
Mr. Holden derisively complains about scientists and their "resurfacing fairy", and insists that the obvious real explanation is a Velikovskian young Venus. However, this is seen to be just another bald assertion, once again unsupported by facts, or the reasonable interpretation of facts. The studies cited here clearly explain the logic and methods behind their determination of the age of the resurfaced areas, through cratering statistics. Anyone in doubt can read and judge for themselves.
In short, the surface features of Venus are all consistent with what one would expect to see on an old Venus. The tell-tale signs of a young Venus are not there. No help for the Velikovskian so far, but the worst is yet to come.
Now, you may not agree with what's been presented, but don't say your points haven't been addressed.
Gads! All those craters on a planet so young. And so little vulcanism to wipe them out!
Funny, the earth, moon, and Mars took their most massive hits 4 billion years ago when there was still a lot of loose debris from the formation of the solar system. You'd almost think Venus is an old, stony-crust planet with exactly the same kind of history.
Suppose Venus really were "young". Suppose it were molten only a few thousand years ago. What would it look like now? Probably about the same, molten. However, we know that Venus is not molten now, because our landers, and Soviet landers, have landed on a solid surface. Furthermore, we know from the extensive topographic relief long since verified by Earth- and spacecraft-based radar, that the crust of Venus is thick. It must be, anywhere from 30 to 70 km thick (Baisukov et al. (1992)), in order to support visible relief. Is it possible for Venus to cool so much, so rapidly, between then and now?
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.