User Tag List

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3456789 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 196

Thread: Real Science Radio's List of Problems with Solar System Formation

  1. #76
    Over 1500 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,677
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 234 Times in 171 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    140339
    [C]lose-up images of the edges of fractured plains called Sputnik Planum reveal the nitrogen glaciers. At Pluto's frigid temperatures—about -235 °C, 38 degrees above absolute zero—water ice is too brittle to flow. But nitrogen can, which means the features must be made of nitrogen, says William McKinnon, a team member and a planetary scientist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. “To see evidence for recent geological activity is really a dream come true,” he adds.

    Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-air-on-pluto/

    This "recent geological activity" helps to explain the lack of craters on Pluto's surface. They've been covered up by ice flows.

  2. #77
    Over 1500 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,677
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 234 Times in 171 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    140339
    Quote Originally Posted by alwight View Post
    When all the data has been examined let's just see what they conclude rationally instead of jumping to any YEC type pre-conclusions?
    Speaking of which, it will take from now until around November 2016 for the New Horizons satellite to finish broadcasting all of the data it has acquired from Pluto.

  3. #78
    Over 1500 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,677
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 234 Times in 171 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    140339
    Quote Originally Posted by Jefferson View Post
    Just a few months ago, the International Astronomical Union used an image of Pluto that represents the expectations of secular astronomers depicting a heavily cratered body grimy from sweeping up billions of years of space dust. Again though, the predictions of old-earth astronomy failed.


    What’s most interesting about this new range is that we’re finally seeing the craters that have been oddly absent inside Tombaugh Regio. The lack of craters within the light heart is indicative of curiously young terrain freshly-resurfaced within the past 100 million years. In sharp contrast, these new cratered mountains look more on order of billions of years old, with layers of craters, some partially infilled with brighter material. Best of all, the distinction between light, smooth, young terrain Tombaugh Regio and this newly-photographed dark, cratered old terrain is sharply defined, lending credence to the idea that some active geological process is taking place within the heart.

    Source: http://space.io9.com/newly-discovere...ose-1719669805

  4. #79
    Over 1000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,463
    Thanks
    633
    Thanked 462 Times in 282 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    260821
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    They don't rule out billions of kilometers, but they might indicate that its distance from the sun was once much less.

    Their existence indicates instability, non-equilibrium. The driving forces behind geological reworking require proximity to a large neighboring body or deformation from the spherical for the body that is active.

    Pluto is a long way from anything that could generate geological processes on it.

    However, if it formed recently — as the evidence indicates — the "surprises" facing the evolutionists all but disappear.
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    The surface is younger than previously supposed. The surface, not the whole planet. Much like the way most of the earth's ocean floor has been dated to within 125 million years even though the earth is estimated to be 5.4 billion years old. This is because the ocean floors have been subducted, carried down into the mantle and recycled. Likewise, the surface of Pluto has been covered over by fresher layers due to geological processes.

  5. #80
    Over 1000 post club way 2 go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,463
    Thanks
    633
    Thanked 462 Times in 282 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    260821
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post

    looks like great evidence for the Walt Browns hydroyplate theory

  6. #81
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,021
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 493 Times in 339 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208417
    Quote Originally Posted by alwight View Post
    There is currently much interested speculation about the lack of craters on Pluto, I'll agree none of which seriously involves the notion that the universe began 6000 years ago (the global scientific conspiracy perhaps?). When all the data has been examined let's just see what they conclude rationally instead of jumping to any YEC type pre-conclusions?
    but, but, but, the scientists were surprised. Therefore Genesis is shown to be scientifically accurate again.

    Or something like that.

  7. #82
    Silver Member 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,977
    Thanks
    769
    Thanked 2,319 Times in 1,491 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    953679
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post

    This "recent geological activity" helps to explain the lack of craters on Pluto's surface. They've been covered up by ice flows.
    The recent geological activity may indicate the planet is only thousands of years old. If it was billions of years old the core may be cool with no geogical activity.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 14th, 2017),Tambora (July 29th, 2017)

  9. #83
    Silver Member 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,977
    Thanks
    769
    Thanked 2,319 Times in 1,491 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    953679
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    but, but, but, the scientists were surprised. Therefore Genesis is shown to be scientifically accurate again.
    That would be a false conclusion Jonah. A better conclusion would be that secular predictions were wrong, therefore their hypothesis may be wrong.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 14th, 2017),Tambora (July 29th, 2017)

  11. #84
    Over 1000 post club Tyrathca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,038
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 188 Times in 134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    66725
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    That would be a false conclusion Jonah. A better conclusion would be that secular predictions were wrong, therefore their hypothesis may be wrong.
    Well duh, that's exactly what the scientists think. The question then becomes why it is wrong and by how much. You however seem to jump from A secular hypothesis is wrong therefore ALL secular hypotheses are wrong therefore your poorly thought out hypothesis with no detail or predictive power should be considered likely over other secular hypotheses.

  12. #85
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,021
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 493 Times in 339 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208417
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    That would be a false conclusion Jonah. A better conclusion would be that secular predictions were wrong, therefore their hypothesis may be wrong.
    Well, I am glad you agree that the condition of Pluto is not support for the accuracy of your reading of Genesis.

    But if that is what you think, why bother to post what you did? Your interest has been shown to have little to do with scientific accuracy but much to do with your desire/need to find the Genesis story to be 100% true.

  13. #86
    Silver Member 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,977
    Thanks
    769
    Thanked 2,319 Times in 1,491 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    953679
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Well, I am glad you agree that the condition of Pluto is not support for the accuracy of your reading of Genesis.
    Pluto is consistent with God's Word... and consistent with Walt Browns hydoplate theory.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 14th, 2017),Tambora (July 29th, 2017)

  15. #87
    Silver Member 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,977
    Thanks
    769
    Thanked 2,319 Times in 1,491 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    953679
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrathca View Post
    You however seem to jump from A secular hypothesis is wrong therefore ALL secular hypotheses are wrong therefore your poorly thought out hypothesis with no detail or predictive power should be considered likely over other secular hypotheses.
    Nope..... many secular hypothesis and theories are correct. However they are wrong if they contradict God's Word.

    And actually, Pluto is consistent with Walt Browns hydroplate theory and predictions he made. The Carbon monoxide 'lake' fits well within his theory. Pluto has been a big surprise to the secularists...it did not match their expectations.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 14th, 2017),Tambora (July 29th, 2017)

  17. #88
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,021
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 493 Times in 339 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    208417
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Pluto is consistent with God's Word... and consistent with Walt Browns hydoplate theory.
    Reliance on your version of "God's Word" is missplaced faith, reliance on Brown's hydroplate theory is simply irrational.

  18. #89
    Over 1000 post club Tyrathca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,038
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 188 Times in 134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    66725
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Nope..... many secular hypothesis and theories are correct. However they are wrong if they contradict God's Word.
    That is your assumption. It's not even a hypothesis, you've just admitted that even if you are wrong you'll ignore it.

    And actually, Pluto is consistent with Walt Browns hydroplate theory and predictions he made. The Carbon monoxide 'lake' fits well within his theory. Pluto has been a big surprise to the secularists...it did not match their expectations.
    Suuuuure it does.... do actually have a reason for saying that other than "sounds sorta related - "lake" & "hydro" see! - plus it's creationisty" ? Where can we find these Pluto predictions by Walt Brown? (Google didn't help). Any description that uses some physics?

  19. #90
    Silver Member 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    4,977
    Thanks
    769
    Thanked 2,319 Times in 1,491 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    953679
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrathca
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    Nope..... many secular hypothesis and theories are correct. However they are wrong if they contradict God's Word.
    That is your assumption. It's not even a hypothesis
    Of course not a hypotheses. It's a belief based on evidence. It's like our belief that our heart will take the next beat.*

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrathca
    you've just admitted that even if you are wrong you'll ignore it.*
    Apologies that you didn't understand. I said no such thing.*

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrathca
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days
    And actually, Pluto is consistent with Walt Browns hydroplate theory and predictions he made. The Carbon monoxide 'lake' fits well within his theory. Pluto has been a big surprise to the secularists...it did not match their expectations.
    Any description that uses some physics?
    "So how did carbon monoxide form on Pluto? Walter T. Brown of the*Center for Scientific Creation*gave an answer today. According to theHydroplate Theory, all trans-Neptunian objects, like all asteroids, comets, and meteoroids, formed from water, rock and mud from earth. A breakout of a subcrustal ocean about fifty miles below ground threw out vast amounts of this material – perhaps as much as four percent of the mass of the earth. The mud and rock included uprooted trees and shrubs from the forests of the early earth.

    "Pluto and its largest moon Charon formed when a swarm of water, rock and mud*accreted*to form these two objects. All such accretions released kinetic energy as heat. The heat on Pluto (and on Charon) eventually caused “slushy geysers” to erupt to the surface. Some of these geysers produced the 3500-meter (11,000-foot) mountains at Pluto’s equator.

    "But the heat, says Brown,*also*burned the uprooted trees, shrubs, and other vegetable matter that accreted with the other matter (water, rock and mud) to form Pluto. And of course, that burning needed oxygen. Oxygen came from one or both of two sources. Either it escaped from earth with the solids and liquids, or formed when water vapor dissociated in the sunlight of the inner solar system. But burning in a confined space yielded carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.

    "When that gas broke out onto the surface (on Tombaugh Regio), it condensed, then fell as rain into a basin in the heart shape. Then it froze. The published photo shows contours of ever-increasing amounts of carbon monoxide as one approaches the center of the lake. One would expect precisely that when looking down on a lake; the contours in fact show its depth.

    "As of the time of posting, the*New Horizonscontrol and investigation teams have*not*tried to explain the carbon monoxide. They merely describe it. How they will try to explain it, the world must wait and see."

    http://www.examiner.com/article/carb...oxide-on-pluto
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 14th, 2017),Tambora (July 29th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us