 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 07/09/2007 2:46:31 PM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at astrobio.net ...
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/
ping
BFLR = bump for later reading
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.
Lets look at what type of "science" they are doing. Here, from their webpage, is what they believe:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism
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.
“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
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)
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.
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/
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261
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?
” 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.
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.
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
Meanwhile on earth they still hunt reasons to support their belief in pure unadultrated myth.
“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.
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.
Fascinating article, thanks.
As he says, the modeling is primitive, and there are too many variables to do more than hypothesize. But I find the idea the plate tectonics requires water to lubricate it quite provocative.
No way to know if it’s true without more evidence, but it’s an interesting idea, that the planet may have seized up at some point, and then passed the point of no return.
I agree this can not be tested by science. However current understanding of physical laws support much of it.
First the universe could not have always existed. This follows from the second law of thermodynamics combined with the apparent finite amount of energy in the universe. Now like anything science discovers, this foundation could be wrong, but both are pretty much considered "settled science". So the current state of science implies the universe did not always exist (although it appears to be extremely old).
From this it follows the universe must have started as a result from something outside of its own physics -- which means something that transcends it.
Now as far as we know, that might mean invisible pink flying unicorns...except that there is no sense in assigning them a color or shape -- concepts projected from non-transcendence...so such imaginings are better left to naturalist apologetics.
==No way to know if it’s true without more evidence, but it’s an interesting idea, that the planet may have seized up at some point, and then passed the point of no return.
It also makes me wonder what different amounts of water lubrication does to the rate of tectonic movement.
I was thinking while I read it, don’t let algore read this article. It makes the other catastrophe scenarios from global warming pale by comparison! Never mind sweating polar bears and penguins, what happens when the tectonics seize up and a million volcanoes all go off at once?
If he reads this, we’re liable to be subjected to another movie and another Live Earth concert.
Oh, that's right. Nobody can remember how to spell it.
Thanks for the ping!
Hey, not bad. Ends in “y” though. :’)
Fred, SM, Berosus, will ping the list, but you must see. :’)
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
I’m not sure how the second law of thermodynamics impacts this issue, but if you’re referring to the idea that energy cannot be created or destroyed, that implies that the universe has been around forever. If the universe didn’t always exist, it would have required creation of energy at the beginning of time.
You are twisting these statements greatly. You obviously have not studied Mars in *any* detail. Yes, it is likely that Mars had a northern ocean at one time and that it had from 10-70% of our atmospheric pressure (it now has about 0.7%). The convenient fact that you omit is that it was stripped away when the magnetic field of Mars failed about 3.5 billion years ago. You also cite lava flows when you know that those flows give evidence of the history of Mars over billions of years. The history of Mars is divided into three epochs by the obliteration of craters by lava. Once the magnetic field failed and the atmosphere was stripped away the weathering on Mars effectively stopped. Areas that have high crater density are the oldest features while areas that have little crater density are the youngest.
Are you just making things up as you go along?!? Just so they support your conclusions?? We have plates boundaries under oceans! What are oceans again? Do they have any water? And what do subduction zones do?
There are a couple of issues with this statement that perhaps only a physicist would recognize. First you imply that you can separate time from space. You cannot do that. In order to measure time you must measure two events and the speed of some constant propagator between them (like a laser beam reflected off a mirror a set distance away and returned to a detector). This requires you to be able to calculate the distance between the points and the trajectory of your beam of light. The idea of time has no meaning without being able to do this simple experiment. 'Before' the Big Bang has no physical meaning since it would be a 0-D coordinate system. Therefore it is really meaningless to say that something was 'added' at the beginning of the universe because that implies that there was a time before that you could do the comparison with.
Second, when you talk about the conservation of energy you actually mean is that if you have some object and you measure the energy over all of it and sum it up, then you will measure the same energy later if it is undisturbed. This is more complicated in quantum mechanics, but it still applies on average. Again, the Big Bang doesn't violate this because you can't do a measurement before the Big Bang to do a comparison. It doesn't make sense physically or mathematically.
The second law is that entropy always increases. That means energy will always become less and less usable until no energy will never be used again, a concept called heat-death.
Its the first law that says energy can not be created or destroyed.
So now we have a finite (although extremely large) amount of energy in the universe. There is no way in the universe to make more. The energy is always becoming less usable with use. It is always in use. It is not yet reached the inevitable state of equilibrium when it is used up.
If the laws of thermodynamics are correct, the universe though very ancient could not have always existed. Period. There is no escape, and it is not a matter of opinion. If you want to believe that the universe always existed, then you must believe there is some kind of exception to the laws of thermodynamics.
Who knows? Maybe there is. But the amusing part is that so many naturalists and atheists claim to base their beliefs on scientific evidence.
and what's a hundred million years here or there...if it doesn't fit, adjust the model.
-----------
http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_03/chaos_creation_10.htm#chaos_creation_10_9_
THE HEAT OF VENUS ----------------------
The great heat of Venus is predictable from its recent origin and subsequent collisions and encounters. The theory that its miles-deep clouds set up a "greenhouse effect" on its surface, heating it to over 600 Celsius, will not stand examination; little of the Sun's heat (perhaps 2%) reaches the surface, and the planet rotates upon its axis so slowly that an exceedingly cold mass would prevail on the night side for long periods of time; yet the heat is uniform throughout [11] .
No matter how many books and articles may be written on the subject of the heat of planet Venus, disdaining Velikovsky, the fact remains that he had before 1950 read nearly everything that ancient and modern sources said about the planet and decided -- indeed, was compelled to decide -- that it was hot, whereas, try as they may, those who have chosen to make an historical issue of the heat of Venus, have been hard-pressed to find any chain of opinions in modern scientific circles which affirmed that Venus was warm. Nor is if far from the truth to claim that the great heat of Venus has been the leading light pointing to the many surprises that the exploration of the solar system has since displayed.
The myth of Phaeton is famous: the inexperienced youth, who was let to drive the chariot of the sun across the skies, was burning up the Earth until Zeus, implored to help, dispatched him into the sea with a thunderbolt. Dwardu Cardona puts the case succinctly, citing the originals : "That the myth of Phaeton describes a shifting of heavenly bodies, we know from Plato. That Phaeton was comet or a "blazing star", we know from Cicero. That this "blazing star" became a planet, we know from Hesiod. And that this planet was the planet Venus, we know from both Nonnos and Solinus." [12]
Venus was not the first body to appear before astonished humans as a comet. Any body that intrudes upon an atmosphere may look like a comet. It can acquire horns as it brushes through the air, and trail turbulent gases behind it. This was especially yrue before the age of Jovea, for then the magnetic tube of Solaria Binaria was dense. Today, the gross eccentricity of motion of a comet heightens its electrical activity and brings a variety of visual forms even in "near-empty" space Planet Venus even now displays to astronomers a fan-like tail sunwards and a "comet-like tail" swept by solar winds into space [13] ...
Thanks! About to ping another one.
I don’t know why you are getting your nose all bent out of shape. I was simply wondering what would happen to the rate of tectonic movement with more vs. less water lubricant. My speculative question was based on the following:
There may be something episodic that happens on Venus, in contrast to Earth’s steady plate tectonic recycling. Earth’s tectonics are lubricated by water in a lot of subtle ways, but Venus is much drier and instead you could have this “stop and start” action.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/venus-04k.html
Everything was smaller then. There was about twenty pounds of mass, but we shouldn't call it matter since we don't have a clue what matter is aside from something substance is made of and that is philosophy not physics.
You did not read my post. Or you did not understand it. Read it again. It does not say anything of that sort. All that it says is that time is defined *after* t=0 (as in that any function that uses time as a variable is defined--t=0 is just a number). It doesn't say anything about being able to use t=0 or t<0 in functions. Don't think you can bring up quantum mechanics to confuse me. I have studied quantum mechanics for many years. You don't escape anything by claiming that you could do it on a 'quantum scale.' This sounds silly to me. Zero is zero. When I say 0-D I don't mean and a 'little' bit of 3-D so we have room for a tiny experiment. I mean 0-D. If you don't make that distinction then you would obviously have wavepackets that have various components that spatially extend to infinity.
The whole business of matter always existing is kinda mind-boggling as well; to me it implies that we are all Sisyphean in nature without even knowing it.
I'm not sure what temporally infinite might mean here.
If the universe was created at some point, the energy would have had to be created too.
Yes, which implies it was a supernatural event.
Conversely if we reject the notion that natural law can be violated by a supernatural event, then we are left having to assume there is a natural exception to either the first or second law. The first law insists that energy always existed, and the second law insists that it could not still be usable if it were. But such an assumption would be based on a naturalistic faith, not on science.
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.