RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation

User Name

Well-known member
Pluto is not heavily cratered

It's lightly cratered. The predictions were that it would be heavily cratered.

220416_plutocraters_2.jpg


220416_plutocraters_1.jpg
 

gcthomas

New member
Nope. It's lightly cratered. The predictions were that it would be heavily cratered.

Darwinists love making post-fact predictions.

Here's an actual prediction from scientists, made a couple of years before the New Horizons pass, not the post-fact biblical-fundy made-up misrepresenting "predictions":

From Impact and cratering rates onto Pluto (full paper here)
Sarah Greenstreet, Brett Gladman, William B. McKinnon

"1.1.3. Triton
Triton, Neptune’s major moon, is the closest body to Pluto for which we have crater counts (from the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby). Triton’s general characteristics (size, mass, and surface composition) are extremely Pluto-like. Triton is also a geologically active body, and thus lightly cratered, and so should record only recent impacts from the scattering KBO population."


It seems that actual scientists had determined that there could be a lot of surface recycling and therefore Pluto would not be as heavily cratered as the dead Moon, especially with the lower flux of cratering bodies that far out.

(Do you get ALL your science from Christian apologetics sites, Stripe? That would explain a lot …. Notice that the lead author is the name on the image that you presented as evidence from the IAU)
 

gcthomas

New member
Here's an actual prediction from scientists, made a couple of years before the New Horizons pass, not the post-fact biblical-fundy made-up misrepresenting "predictions":

From Impact and cratering rates onto Pluto (full paper here)
Sarah Greenstreet, Brett Gladman, William B. McKinnon

"1.1.3. Triton
Triton, Neptune’s major moon, is the closest body to Pluto for which we have crater counts (from the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby). Triton’s general characteristics (size, mass, and surface composition) are extremely Pluto-like. Triton is also a geologically active body, and thus lightly cratered, and so should record only recent impacts from the scattering KBO population."


It seems that actual scientists had determined that there could be a lot of surface recycling and therefore Pluto would not be as heavily cratered as the dead Moon, especially with the lower flux of cratering bodies that far out. Interestingly, the moons, which are not subject to the same resurfacing processes, all turn out to have the heavily cratered surfaces that all give ancient dates for their formation. Why not include the moons in your claims? Worried that would undermine your case?

Charon, Pluto's heavily cratered moon:
Charon_Flyover-still.jpg


(Do you get ALL your science from Christian apologetics sites, Stripe? That would explain a lot …. Notice that the lead author is the name on the image that you presented as evidence from the IAU)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Here's an actual prediction from scientists, made a couple of years before the New Horizons pass, not the post-fact biblical-fundy made-up misrepresenting "predictions":

From Impact and cratering rates onto Pluto (full paper here)
Sarah Greenstreet, Brett Gladman, William B. McKinnon


That paper made no prediction at all about the likely nature of Pluto's cratering. In fact, it hedged its bets:


Thirty-km-diameter and smaller craters should be observed by New Horizons, even if Pluto is as geologically active in degrading and erasing craters as Triton.



Weak, GC. Weak.

Do you get ALL your science from Christian apologetics sites, Stripe?
Feel free to point to one resource I've referenced. :thumb:

Notice that the lead author is the name on the image that you presented as evidence from the IAU

Even if I had presented anything, so what if it's the same guy?

Is this seriously all you guys can come up with?

Pluto was predicted to be heavily cratered and scientists expressed surprise when it turned out to be otherwise. Meanwhile, creationists are on the record saying that it would not "look billions of years old."

 

gcthomas

New member
That paper made no prediction at all about the likely nature of Pluto's cratering. In fact, it hedged its bets:


Thirty-km-diameter and smaller craters should be observed by New Horizons, even if Pluto is as geologically active in degrading and erasing craters as Triton.



Weak, GC. Weak.

This prediction, of seeing craters of 30km and less is a prediction, given suspected conditions.

Shall we see what was observed?

Try here, first hit for "pluto crater distributions"
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-06.PDF



Recently it could be shown (Scholkmann, Prog. in Phys., 2016, v. 12(1), 26-29) that the
impact crater size-frequency distribution of Pluto (based on an analysis of first images
obtained by the recent New Horizons’ flyby) follows a power law (α = 2.4926±0.3309)
in the interval of diameter (D) values ranging from 3.75 ± 1.14 km to the largest determined
value of 37.77 km.
A reanalysis of this data set revealed that the whole crater
SFD (i.e., with values in the interval of 1.2–37.7 km) can be described by a truncated
Pareto distribution.

my emph

Looks like the prediction was an accurate one! Can you give me the crater size distributions that creation "scientists" had predicted? Or were they so loose they they can be moulded to fit whatever observations turned up?

C'mon, Stripe. You said the predictions had been made, let's see the quantitative predictions and see how they fare against obs.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This prediction, of seeing craters of 30km and less is a prediction, given suspected conditions.
:AMR:

English, dude. English.

There was no prediction of how heavily cratered Pluto would be. They caged their model of impact frequency within the then-unknown quantity of Pluto's geological activity.

Learn to read, retract and engage sensibly instead of posting another link that I have to wade through.
 

gcthomas

New member
You're in over your head, sonshine.
English, dude, English! ;)

This discussion has nothing to do with crater size distributions.
Oh, but it does, since the largest craters tend to be the oldest. You only have to see the patterns of overlapping to see that. Older surfaces have larger craters, and whenever you make claims of the age of a planetary surface then the crater size distributions are the only game in town.

Unless you subscribe to the uneducated and reverse-engineered attempts at science of Brown and the YECs.

A qualitative prediction is no prediction at all. If no measurements can be made to compare to the prediction then it isn't really science — it leaves too much wriggle room for the anti-science nutters.

So, Stripe, you haven't yet produced any quantitative figures on the alleged YEC claim of a predicted age of the Pluto surface and the measurables that would let you in at the top table. Still picking up the sciency-looking scraps from the floor?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Oh, but it does.
Nope.

You've invented a straw man to beat up.

Your argument is that Pluto is heavily cratered. It's not.

A qualitative prediction is no prediction at all.
Oh, really? Did you just make that up?

If no measurements can be made to compare to the prediction then it isn't really science.
Luckily we can compare the claims to each other. :up:

You haven't yet produced any quantitative figures on the alleged YEC claim of a predicted age of the Pluto surface and the measurables that would let you in at the top table.

I have claimed what I have claimed. When you're ready to deal with what I have said, then you might be in a position to suggest what I should say.
 

gcthomas

New member
Nope.

You've invented a straw man to beat up.

Your argument is that Pluto is heavily cratered. It's not.

Oh, really? Did you just make that up?

Luckily we can compare the claims to each other. :up:



I have claimed what I have claimed. When you're ready to deal with what I have said, then you might be in a position to suggest what I should say.

Can you link to the YEC claim and prediction, please, so that it can be compared?
 

gcthomas

New member
What are all these dots?

PIA20154-Pluto-MapOfOver1000Craters-20151110.jpg

Yup, the ice flow regions are crater free (ie none larger than a few hundred metres, so the flowed material moved around 150 000 to 250 000 years old) while other parts with mountains called penitentes are a few tens of millions of years old from the crater counts, with the rest much older.

What the YECs hang on to is the phrase 'young', which for a planetologist can mean 'less than a billion years old' or 100 000 years old depending on the context. NO SCIENTIST has claimed with evidence that the planet as a whole is consistent with a 6000 year age.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yup, the ice flow regions are crater free (ie none larger than a few hundred metres, so the flowed material moved around 150 000 to 250 000 years old) while other parts with mountains called penitentes are a few tens of millions of years old from the crater counts, with the rest much older.

What the YECs hang on to is the phrase 'young', which for a planetologist can mean 'less than a billion years old' or 100 000 years old depending on the context. NO SCIENTIST has claimed with evidence that the planet as a whole is consistent with a 6000 year age.


Nope.

When you've learned to respond to what we say rather than making up things to argue with, get back to us.


Can you link to the YEC claim and prediction, please, so that it can be compared?
Try OP.
What are all these dots?

PIA20154-Pluto-MapOfOver1000Craters-20151110.jpg
Craters.

We know, we know. You want to believe this is what was expected.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

gcthomas

New member
Why won't you tell us precisely what YEC's predicted we'd find? Is it because there are NO measurable predictions made, and all your hot air is just your usual attempt to cut and run?

I predict: Stripe will refuse to offer a detailed prediction and will cut and run. As he always does.


:dog::wave: Bye!
 

gcthomas

New member
Because you refuse to engage with what has been presented.

You're not interested in a conversation; you're here solely to protect your precious religion from criticism.

You're a troll.

:dog::wave: Bye!

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

Yup. My prediction came true of course. Stripe is unable to hold up his end of any technical discussion, and naturally his dishonest claims that the answers to questions are earlier in the thread have been exposed again. His problem is that this is all he ever does. He never responds clearly to questions, never clarifies his points and he runs away when he is exposed for his empty rhetoric.

Please, Stripe, never change. You are always so amusing. :)
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yup. My prediction came true of course. Stripe is unable to hold up his end of any technical discussion, and naturally his dishonest claims that the answers to questions are earlier in the thread have been exposed again. His problem is that this is all he ever does. He never responds clearly to questions, never clarifies his points and he runs away when he is exposed for his empty rhetoric. Please, Stripe, never change. You are always so amusing. :)

Oh, you're not leaving?

Great. Got a rational response to OP yet?
 

gcthomas

New member
Well done, you responded exactly as you always do — what a laugh! Oooh, you are so funny. :)

And still the silence on the question: you said that creationists had made a more accurate prediction than the real scientists. What was that prediction? It hasn't been detailed in this thread yet, and I am now convinced that you fabricated the claim for rhetorical effect.

Just be honest, Stripe. There was no detailed creationist claim about Pluto's surface age, was there?
 
Top