Methane is an Odourless Gas

Cassini's view of Titan on November 29 (click to enlarge)It’s that time of year again: time for Brian Thomas to recycle the news stories of the year in a rapid-fire format. First up are the astronomy topics.

If the moon was formed over four billion years ago by some colossal impact as secularists assert, then it should be dry as a bone. The violent impact would have melted all the minerals and thus would have ejected any water from its magma. But this year researchers reported discovering water within the minerals of some moon rocks. Not only does this refute the molten moon narrative, but it supports Scripture’s recent and watery lunar origins.

The Moon is mildly damp: see this post for more details. To quote the apostle Peter:

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were transformed from water, but a little bit was left behind because He wasn’t paying much attention. And when He saw this He left it there, because it would screw with people when they saw it.

Continue reading

Arguing Over The Moon

A different giant impact, but an illustration of the conceptHow did the moon form? Nobody quite knows with absolute certainty. The creationists think they know – Goddidit – and they think that any other attempt at the answer is baloney. Hence Moday’s article from Brian Thomas, Impact Theory of Moon’s Origin Fails, which opens:

Secular scientists used to regard the planetary collision theory as a triumph in explaining several of the moon’s specific arrangements. But newfound facts severely debilitate this lunar impact origins theory.

According to this new theory, an early Earth collided at a glancing angle with a planet that was one or two times the mass of Mars. Some of the debris launched into orbit around Earth and somehow collected to form the moon. This could explain the moon’s peculiar orbit and some of its other properties. But, as Bob Jones University astronomy professor Ron Samec noted, recent studies refute even this origins scenario.

Primarily we’re talking here about the “[giant] impact hypothesis” – which is not “new,” being first proposed in 1975 – but Thomas quickly veers off into older, more obviously false theories. Continue reading

Standing out of Water and in the Water

Troctolite 76535The Moon, as we are increasingly discovering, is slightly damp – much more so than we thought 40 years ago, when we were “there” (as Mr Ham might say). Of course, anything is greater than nothing, but how it got there remains an open question if only for the moment. A conference abstract presented at the recent European Planetary Science Congress gave the results of a study on some lunar rocks – namely troctolite 76535, described elsewhere as “without doubt the most interesting sample returned from the Moon,” and norite 78235, which they actually found to be more useful – that they say supports the notion that there was water in the original material that first formed the Moon.

Brian Thomas’ article is called Water in Rocks May Support Moon’s Bible Origins. He seems to have recently run out of unused titles that involve absolute statements: His article on Monday on the planthopper “gears” only went so far as to say that they “might have evolutionists hopping mad,” whereas I expected him to cry that they completely and utterly proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the Earth is 6000 years old and created by the Christian God worshipped by American fundamentalists, in line with his usual hyperbole. Regardless, his uncertain headlines match for once his weak position on both issues. Continue reading

The Magnetic Field of the Moon

Strength of the Moons magnetic fieldUnlike the Earth the Moon lacks a global magnetic field (though it does still have a field of sorts) but evidence from rocks brought back by the Apollo missions shows that this was not always the case. We haven’t seen an article on planetary magnetism from the ICR in some time now, but they used to be quite common. Brian Thomas’ latest, The Moon’s Latest Magnetic Mysteries, breaks the silence.

The topic is a recent paper in PNAS, “Persistence and origin of the lunar core dynamo” – the paper is not open access, but a conference abstract on the same subject is available as is a Phys.org article. The methodology is quite interesting: Continue reading

YOM 2013: Selected Highlights

The Flammarion engravingYour Origins Matter returned from it’s holiday break a more than a week ago now, and it’s about time that I took a look.

The first post was about the end of the world, and wasn’t very interesting. The second – Have you been feeling hot or cold lately? – is much more so. It first challenges a piece of climate research on the grounds that it is based on “millions of years,” before breaking out some of the standard tropes (with a creationist bent): Continue reading

Perfectly Suited for Life (as we know it)

The universe, what is known of it, is vast beyond measure.  It is estimated that there are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe with each containing about 100 billion stars each.  Among all of those stars, one medium sized star hosts eight or nine planets, one of which we call home – Earth – a tiny speck of dust in a measureless universe.

That’s the opening of the latest post to appear on the ICR’s Your Origins Matter website, What’s So Special About our Blue Planet? The planet Earth being perfect for life – and that there is none like it in the universe – is a common creationist argument. You’d think, then, that the author of this YOM article could have done some research and not just written down what sounded about right. “Eight or nine planets” indeed – we can’t have those astronomers telling us what is and isn’t a planet now can we? Continue reading

The Magnetic Field… of the Moon

Planetary magnetic fields – particularly that of mercury – are a recurring topic for DpSUs. Thursday’s article, when it eventually appeared, was called What Magnetized the Moon?

In mid November in Nature there were two papers discussing possible causes of the Moon’s long-decayed magnetic field, along with another article about both papers. Curiously, Brian Thomas only discusses one of these papers.

Strength of the Moons magnetic field Continue reading