Jump to content


Photo

Titan


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

#1 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 05 January 2007 - 07:07 AM

This morning I saw a news article on the yahoo website:

http://news.yahoo.co...an_070103193516

In the article was the following, which I found interesting...

Titan's atmosphere is also rich in methane, although the source for this vast store of hydrocarbons is unclear.
Methane, on the geological scale, has a relatively limited life. A molecule of the compound lasts several tens of millions of years before it is broken up by sunlight.
Given that Titan is billions of years old, the question is how this atmospheric methane gets to be renewed. Without replenishment, it should have disappeared long ago.
A popular hypothesis is that it comes from a vast ocean of hydrocarbons.
But when the US spacecraft Cassini sent down a European lander, Huygens, to Titan in 2005, the images sent back were of a rugged landscape veiled in an orange haze.
There were indeed signs of methane flows and methane precipitation, but nothing at all that pointed to any sea of the stuff.


Notice the article states, "Given that Titan is billions of years old"... They assume something that is unproven, and proceed to make predictions based on that assumption which are later shown by direct observation to be false. Now astronomers which fixate on a billions of year old solar system must invent new theories to account for Titan's methane, just as ancient astronomers invented epicycles to allow for their continued believe that the sun revolved around the earth.

#2 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 January 2007 - 12:44 AM

A very interesting article. But more of a problem for planetary formation theory than the theory of evolution I think.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2007 - 02:51 AM

A very interesting article.  But more of a problem for planetary formation theory than the theory of evolution I think.

View Post


Anything that puts into question the timeline in which evolution requires to happen, does pose a problem for it. Unless there is evidence that can be shown that "all" evolution happened in less then 10 million years.

#4 HSetterfield

HSetterfield

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Interests:my husband's research, our family, our animals, gardening, baking, reading, people...lots of stuff!
  • Age: 58
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • southern Oregon

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:22 AM

Mainly the article is discussing the possibility of evidence for a methane cycle similar to our water cycle here on earth. Thus the age of the Titan is moot.

Jason does have a point, however, regarding the questions it could pose for the formation of planets and moons in the first place.

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 January 2007 - 02:18 PM

<snip> Notice the article states, "Given that Titan is billions of years old"...  They assume something that is unproven, and proceed to make predictions based on that assumption which are later shown by direct observation to be false.  <snip>

View Post


No it’s perfectly consistent with ‘current’ theories of the age of the universe. Unless there is contrary evidence, science will use the most current theory, for the building of hypothesis. Destroy the foundational theory, and all them built upon it will also fall.

Re Titan – given that all previous knowledge was gained telescopically, it’s no wonder difference are being discovered now that we have actually gone there Cassini with the Huygens probe. I would have been more surprised if nothing was discovered than not.

Re titans Atmosphere - 98.4% nitrogen and 1.6% methane. From the wiki

The absence of ammonia and the presence of methane, although they should have a similar half life, indicates a source for methane on Titan. Clathrates (methane incorporated into ice), comets and a ‘Fischer Tropsch’ like synthesis are suggestions for the abundance of methane.


All of which is subject to ongoing investigation and the testing of ideas.

#6 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 07 January 2007 - 03:13 PM

No it’s perfectly consistent with ‘current’ theories of the age of the universe. Unless there is contrary evidence, science will use the most current theory, for the building of hypothesis. 


There is a lot of evidence that the solar system isn't billions of years old, yet, popular dogma would have the populace believe that everything fits perfectly with such an age. The existence of methane on Titan is another failed prediction of evolution. Evolution says the solar system is billions of years old. Thus, evolution would not predict the existence of methane in Titan's atmosphere. When it was found to exist, evolution "predicted" that a vast sea of hydrocarbons was feeding it. When a probe went there and found a barren landscape, another "prediction" of evolution failed.

#7 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:34 PM

...but a system of methane/hydrocarbon lakes both subterranean and above the surface were found, per the article.. :blink: ...composing a "honeycombed vast sea of hydrocarbons perhaps billions of yrs old" (my term) throughout the planet??

But a flyby by Cassini on July 22 last year has revealed, thanks to a radar scan, 75 large, smooth, dark patches between three and 70 kilometers across (two and 42 miles) across that appear to be lakes of liquid methane, scientists report on Thursday.

They believe the lakes prove that Titan has a "methane cycle" -- a system that is like the water cycle on Earth, in which the liquid evaporates, cools and condenses and then falls as rain, replenishing the surface liquid.

As on Earth, Titan's surface methane may well be supplemented by a "table" of liquid methane that seeps through the rock, the paper suggests.

Some of the methane lakes seem only partly filled, and other depressions are dry, which suggests that, given the high northerly latitudes where they were spotted, the methane cycle follows Titan's seasons.

In winter, the lakes expand, while in summer, they shrink or dry up completely -- again, another parallel with Earth's hydrological cycle.


...is this just all a game of who can grab the immediate spotlight, and perform a quick rhetorical victory dance over the fiendish foe of "evolution"?????

----Delete----

Edit: Your posts are becoming more personal than scientific.

#8 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 07 January 2007 - 07:31 PM

...but a system of  methane/hydrocarbon lakes both subterranean and above the surface were found, per the article.. :blink: ...composing a "honeycombed vast sea of hydrocarbons perhaps billions of yrs old" (my term) throughout the planet??
...is this just all a game of who can grab the immediate spotlight, and perform a quick rhetorical victory dance over the fiendish foe of "evolution"?????

View Post

A radar scan revealed "dark patches" which they believe are lakes of methane.
The article states:
They believe the lakes prove that Titan has a "methane cycle"

They have not proved that the dark patches are even lakes, let alone vast stores of hydrocarbons. This is wishful thinking. Again, they are willing to jump to conclusions because they refuse to consider the possibility that the paradigm in which they are stuck, that of a billions of year old universe, is erroneous. Despite the fact that a space probe landed on Titan and found no evidence of hydrocarbon lakes, they prefer to imagine the existence of a methane cycle not because the evidence points to it, but because they want to preserve their preconceived belief.
What this amounts to is selective filtration of evidence. They ignore the findings of a space probe because it does not fit into their paradigm.

#9 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 07 January 2007 - 09:34 PM

There is a lot of evidence that the solar system isn't billions of years old, yet, popular dogma would have the populace believe that everything  fits perfectly with such an age.  The existence of methane on Titan is another failed prediction of evolution.  Evolution says the solar system is billions of years old.  Thus, evolution would not predict the existence of methane in Titan's atmosphere.  When it was found to exist, evolution "predicted" that a vast sea of hydrocarbons was feeding it.  When a probe went there and found a barren landscape, another "prediction" of evolution failed.

View Post


While there is plenty of evidence that the rest of the universe is billions of years old. That is enough to infer that the solar system is old.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 January 2007 - 01:08 AM

While there is plenty of evidence that the rest of the universe is billions of years old.  That is enough to infer that the solar system is old.

View Post


I actually have no problem with how old things date. But can you prove that the actual time passed, that would confirm that date? All science has are dating markers, not time passage markers.

There is no time test, only an age test, correct?

So from this we can conlude:
1) You cannot prove that age dating equals time passage.
2) That time has always been a constant in how it passes.
3) That the dating markers were not influenced by a source which made then date older.

etc...

So from this we can also conclude that dating does not prove how much time has past, which means the bible time-line can be as correct as any other time-line.

unless you would like to show us a scientific test were age dating confirms actual time passage.

#11 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 08 January 2007 - 04:33 AM

I actually have no problem with how old things date. But can you prove that the actual time passed, that would confirm that date? All science has are dating markers, not time passage markers.

There is no time test, only an age test, correct?

So from this we can conlude:
1) You cannot prove that age dating equals time passage.
2) That time has always been a constant in how it passes.
3) That the dating markers were not influenced by a source which made then date older.

etc...

So from this we can also conclude that dating does not prove how much time has past, which means the bible time-line can be as correct as any other time-line.

unless you would like to show us a scientific test were age dating confirms actual time passage.

View Post


There are plenty of time tests using the speed of light and astronomical bodies to calculate the passage of time between one event and another. Age dating can be considered to be the same as time passed.

Time isn't a constant (but for the purposes of our local solar system we can safely ignore General Relativity) , but the speed of light is. It travels about 5.87849981 × 10^12 miles in a year. That gives us a good baseline for working out how old some stellar objects must be in order for the light to get to us.

The only thing I can't say for certain is that a supernatural being hasn't tampered with the passage of time.

I have a problem with Bishop Usher's chronology in that there are scant, if any historical documents to corrobirate it from before the time of Jesus.

I would think that the scientific tests into the speed of light and the observations of the surrounding cosmos would be proof enough.

#12 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:26 AM

While there is plenty of evidence that the rest of the universe is billions of years old.  That is enough to infer that the solar system is old.

View Post

Even if there was "plenty of evidence" as to the age of the rest of the universe, the extrapolation of that to the solar system depends entirely on the assumption of evolution, which is what we're debating. There is no reason to suppose that God could not have created this earth and the solar system at any point in time in the history of the universe.

#13 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 08 January 2007 - 08:56 AM

the extrapolation of that to the solar system depends entirely on the assumption of evolution,

View Post


I don't wish to be rude, but that really isn't true. The trouble is, of course, that the Genesis account stands contra to various areas of physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, geology and possibly a few other disciplines I haven't thought of here. Thus in order to argue effectively against creationism, one either needs to be a polymath or working with a group of scientists of mixed disciplines.

The age of the solar system is cosmology. At a stretch it might be called cosmic evolution but it has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

#14 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:51 AM

I don't wish to be rude, but that really isn't true.  The trouble is, of course, that the Genesis account stands contra to various areas of physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, geology and possibly a few other disciplines I haven't thought of here.  Thus in order to argue effectively against creationism, one either needs to be a polymath or working with a group of scientists of mixed disciplines.

The age of the solar system is cosmology.  At a stretch it might be called cosmic evolution but it has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

View Post


There is no known principle of physics, chemistry, biology or geology that can refute genesis unless you assume evolution to be true or make unproven assumptions in your quest to verify evolution.

Cosmic evolution has everything to do with Darwin's theory. If the earth can be proven to be only thousands of years old, Darwin's theory is false.

#15 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:54 AM

There is no known principle of physics, chemistry,  biology or geology that can refute genesis unless you assume evolution to be true or make unproven assumptions in your quest to verify evolution.

Cosmic evolution has everything to do with Darwin's theory.  If the earth can be proven to be only  thousands of years old, Darwin's theory is false.

View Post


And if solipsism can prove that the world exists as a figment of my imagination that would prove evolution wrong too but that doesn't make it a part of the same theory.

#16 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 08 January 2007 - 11:11 AM

And if solipsism can prove that the world exists as a figment of my imagination that would prove evolution wrong too but that doesn't make it a part of the same theory.

View Post

What is your point?

#17 Greyhound

Greyhound

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London

Posted 09 January 2007 - 12:38 PM

What is your point?

View Post


That one theory may impact on another does NOT make them the same theory.

#18 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 02:14 PM

Springer>
There is a lot of evidence that the solar system isn't billions of years old, yet, popular dogma would have the populace believe that everything fits perfectly with such an age.

Such is believed by yourself, but not by the scientific status quo, who, and lets be realistic here, are the ones that will need convincing.


The existence of methane on Titan is another failed prediction of evolution. Evolution says the solar system is billions of years old. Thus, evolution would not predict the existence of methane in Titan's atmosphere.


I don’t see how you can say cosmic evolution predicts the non-existence of anything, when geological processes are unknown. You are assuming that a statement like “methane can’t exist in it’s current state for longer than X number of years, because it will combine with Y” is some sort of universal prediction applicable universally to all geology – nothing can be further from the truth, such a statement is a chemistry fact to be taken under ideal circumstances in isolation. Geology is a dynamic system (and biology even more so) where other actions are taking place i.e. the formation of methane or any number of local chemical processes.




When it was found to exist, evolution "predicted" that a vast sea of hydrocarbons was feeding it. When a probe went there and found a barren landscape, another "prediction" of evolution failed.


No! now the hunt starts to figure out what the local geology is doing that is holding off a chemistry fact.

#19 Nominal

Nominal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Mansfield, Ohio

Posted 21 January 2007 - 06:34 AM

I actually have no problem with how old things date. But can you prove that the actual time passed, that would confirm that date? All science has are dating markers, not time passage markers.

Yes. Date values ("dating markers") are measurements of a given quantity of time that is assumed to have passed. This can be a theoretical value, since there is no way to measure "billions of years", or it can be a smaller, more maneagable period of time. Some medical case studies have now encompassed periods in excess of 20 years, or an experimental duration of nanoseconds or 14 minutes or whatever. the principle is the same.

There is no time test, only an age test, correct?

No. Not correct. An age test is also a time test.

So from this we can conlude:
1) You cannot prove that age dating equals time passage.
2) That time has always been a constant in how it passes.
3) That the dating markers were not influenced by a source which made then date older.

etc...

1.)Yes, age dating is assumed to be time passage as well.
2.) & 3.) ...are a bit vague & maybe could get into some quantum mechanics/ physics areas. I'll pass on this one.

So from this we can also conclude that dating does not prove how much time has past, which means the bible time-line can be as correct as any other time-line.

unless you would like to show us a scientific test were age dating confirms actual time passage.

<LOL> You can't be serious with that last one, but uh...yes I think you are! :rolleyes:
No, in terms of huge cosmological time spans, I guess you can't really "prove" it since "thousands-millions & bilions of years" are not tangible physical objects :)

#20 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 January 2007 - 01:15 PM

Yes. Date values ("dating markers") are measurements  of a given quantity of time that is assumed to have passed. This can be a theoretical value, since there is no way to measure "billions of years", or it can be a smaller, more maneagable period of time. Some medical case studies have now encompassed periods in excess of 20 years, or an experimental duration of nanoseconds or 14 minutes or whatever. the principle is the same.


Hence the word assumed. Date markers are what they are. They are not time markers. You cannot prove how much actual time has passed using date markers anymore than I can. For if date markers were so accurate, all date markers would have the same date. Because they would date back to their original source (big bang).

No. Not correct. An age test is also a time test.


Explain, in scientific terms. Why an abject does not leave date markers that date back to it's origins? It's because the said object has to cool to a certain temp before the date markers can actually form correct? So what about all that time it took to cool? Is not that a passage of time as well? Which would mean that the earth is older than it dates.

1.)Yes, age dating is assumed to be time passage as well.
2.) & 3.) ...are a bit vague & maybe could get into some quantum mechanics/ physics areas. I'll pass on this one.


<LOL> You can't be serious with that last one, but uh...yes I think you are!  :rolleyes:
No, in terms of huge cosmological time spans, I guess you can't really "prove" it since "thousands-millions & bilions of years" are not tangible physical objects  :)

View Post


It's funny how the dating of one thing is right only because it supports current views. But take the plutonium halos found in granite. No one really can explain it scientifically.

Also, if the earth were one big molten mass at one time. The whole surface of the earth would be volcanic rock. That's not what we see is it? Plutonium halos existing in granite rock is also evidence that it was never molten. Why? Explain how molten rock can cool down in less then 1 second (nano-seconds) to catch the halos "all" granite rocks have?

side note: For anyone who wants to see these halos. Just take a granite rock, break it, and where you see the dark spot. Take clear tape and stick it to the dark spot. Upon removal some halos will stick to the tape. Place tape on a slide and put under microscope. And you will see the halos.

This is why the old earthers and evolutionist hate this evidence. It cannot be controlled or denied. And all who want to see it, can easily do this.

Posted Image

The picture above is what is taught about early earth. And more or less, every planet has started out this way. So what we should have are a bunch of planets covered in lava rock. But that's not what we see is it? Not even our planet has, as the main rock, being lava rock.

In fact, how does all types of rock separate from a molten gooo that contains all of it, as it cools? I'd like to see that done in a lab. In fact if naturalists believe only what they see. Explain why that we only see lava rock coming out of volcanoes, and cooling as lava rock. When so many different types of rock exist?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users