6days
New member
That's not exactly what the articles said. They do suggest the planet looks young, but try find explanations to fit their belief system. (Much the same as Mary Schweitzer...'It looks young, but it can't be')
RSR's List of Problems with Solar System Formation
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
6days
New member
Yes... The key belief word there is "may". They may be correct. Or, it could be that internal heat from Pluto is still shaping the planet... causing it to look young, because it 'may' be young.
ah, but it is the story you are peddling.---Scientists are surprised ergo the God of Genesis. The universe is only a few 1000 years old. Total nonsense but still your goal
Jonah, sure, you could make that argument if it was just every once in a while that the scientists were surprised. But it's not just every once in a while, it's quite often.
Science is based on predictions. Predict X, perform Experiment A, observe Result X, and Prediction X is confirmed true.
However, if scientists Predict X, Perform Experiment A, and observe Result Y, then that means there prediction is most likely wrong.
And when it's over and over and over again that journal articles use words like "Jaw-dropping", "head-banging", "socks blown off", "eye-popping", "baffled", "shocked & stunned", then clearly something must be wrong with their basis for their predictions. Here are three examples:
"Unexpected . . . more than a little shaken . . . banging our heads against the wall"... all because their experiment failed to support Darwin's claims, and when they tried to disprove their own work, they failed, and their original research held up.
"No biologist had even the foggiest notion"
"Stunned and stumped . . . defied scientists' expectations . . . blew our socks off"
Journal articles are unlikely to use those particular words.
And, for the most part, experiments to test X actually result in confirming X. Cherry picking the results and discoveries that make scientists scratch their heads and rethink things is something creationists are really good at. But it does nothing to advance knowledge because there is no follow up by the creationists.
Which is why I linked to the ones that do. Did you not bother to read the linked articles?
Not in the above articles, which I don't think you bothered to read.
Jonahdog diggity has reached the pinnacle of knowledge. He can't be bothered with overwhelming evidence of a creator
Here's another one... "Horrendously different"
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463149a.html
OK, before we get bogged down in the weeds, what is the point of your post? this is not a trick question. I read the article and saw that it was a quote from something one of the scientists said in an interview. I also looked at the underlying research paper and did not see those words.
To show you that what the secular science world likes to think of as the theories of origin and history of the universe and life are, at best, faulty and unable to explain, and in some circumstances are shown to be completely the opposite of, what we observe.
And your point is? The fact of the matter is, the scientist wouldn't have said that what he saw was "horrendously different" to what he expected if his theory and the basis for it was correct.
Did you even read the Science article you posted? It noted the recent (then---2010) sequence of the chimpanzee Y chromosome, something that had not been done before. It turned out to be much different than the human Y chromosome, which was perhaps surprising since much of the rest of the human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very, very similar (#21 in both are almost identical). The article then goes on to discuss why that might be the case.
Surprising scientific discovery---imagine that.
Sorry it does not meet your Goddidit needs.
And, by the way, what you cited was more in the nature of a sciencey news article, not a description of an experiment. the experiment, the actual summary of the work done to sequence the chimpanzee Y chromosome is referenced at the end of the article to cited. Have you bothered to read that? I took a quick look thought it and did not find the language "horrendously different". Of course you could track down David Page, the person you quoted. I think he is still at The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT. If you show interest in his work, I'll bet he will be glad to talk with you, explain what he meant and fill you in on current research and other things that might surprise him.
Why don't you do that for some extra credit and report back.
Only because the overwhelming evidence is for natural causes, no need for a creator. Especially if you need to accept the Genesis creator.
BTW, the best image of Pluto:
Shows it to be mostly dark grey, and pocked by numerous impacts. Which is kinda remarkable, because it's essentially a huge comet, made mostly of methane, nitrogen, and other frozen gases. Which means gravity should be slowly erasing the craters.
It's been hit a lot. But then it's been there for billions of years.
Shows it to be mostly dark grey, and pocked by numerous impacts. Which is kinda remarkable, because it's essentially a huge comet, made mostly of methane, nitrogen, and other frozen gases. Which means gravity should be slowly erasing the craters.
It's been hit a lot. But then it's been there for billions of years.
Actually that is an image of Charon, but point taken just the same.
BTW, the best image of Pluto:
Shows it to be mostly dark grey, and pocked by numerous impacts. Which is kinda remarkable, because it's essentially a huge comet, made mostly of methane, nitrogen, and other frozen gases. Which means gravity should be slowly erasing the craters.
It's been hit a lot. But then it's been there for billions of years.
:darwinsm:You're right.
Pluto:
Darkened and pocked by craters, too.
Meanwhile:
Spoiler
And still no rational response to OP.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Moon is also pockmarked, and it's younger than Pluto. The moon is also dark grey. It only looks bright in sunlight compared the blackness of space.
The moon, however, is made of rock, and lacks enough atmosphere to cause erosion, while Pluto is made of frozen gases, and gravity slowly erodes the craters. Moreover, Pluto has a subsurface liquid water ocean that constantly reworks the surface of Pluto.
And now you know why the OP is such a clanker.
By way of reminder...
The best the Darwinists can do is: "But it's got craters and dark patches!"
one on the left
" represents the expectations of secular astronomers depicting a heavily cratered body grimy from sweeping up billions of years of space dust."
The best the Darwinists can do is: "But it's got craters and dark patches!"
(Stipe shows us an underexposed picture of the moon, and an overexposed picture of Pluto)
Nice try, Stipe.
Astronomers aren't Darwinists, Stipe. Maybe Newtonists.
It's got pockmarked surface from many impacts. But even more interesting, it turns out to have an unexepected liquid ocean below the ice on the surface. And that ocean continuously reworks the surface. This is why the Earth isn't pocked like the moon; the surface, over millions of years, gets moved around and the craters are eroded, subducted, and otherwise eradicated. The movement of the icy crust actually throws up mountains.
Here's a really close shot.
Notice the Mountains, which are very dark,because they are older than the area just beyond, which shows marks from movement of the crust, exposing fresh surface.
But scientists were surprised to see a liquid ocean in a small body not under the gravity of a large planet.
Maybe you can figure out something to do with that. Worth a try. But you might want to do a reality check on the story, next time.