Earth- The second Venus?

[Nintii]

This topic is a bit difficult for me as i believe in a young earth theory ... and I quote:

 

"Venus vs. Uniformitarianism .......................... by David F. Coppedge

 

Imagine a world with no oceans where it rains lead. So stifling hot that human visitation is inconceivable, the planet Venus is curiously similar to Earth, yet profoundly different. Venus has a sultry atmosphere, supersonic winds, a mountain higher than Everest, volcanic flows that look like pancakes, and about a thousand craters -- but no plate tectonics and only a weak magnetic field. Our ideas about Venus have made an almost complete about-face since 1960 when many hoped it was a lush, tropical world that might host exotic life. This hellish world now poses a serious challenge to uniformitarian views.

 

The idea that started Darwin down the slippery slope was uniformitarianism: "the present is the key to the past." Reading Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology aboard the HMS Beagle, Darwin was impressed by the vision of slow, gradual changes over vast ages. Everywhere he visited on his voyage, he interpreted geological evidence through this lens. Applied to biology, it became a focal point of his theory of natural selection. The slow accumulation of gradual changes, in fact, became a motif of his entire worldview. Can uniformitarianism be extended to the other planets?

 

Venus has been explored by an armada of spacecraft since 1961. The mission that most revolutionized our view of Venus was the US program Magellan. Between 1990 and 1994, the orbiter mapped 98% of the surface with radar, revealing features that astonished scientists. Uniformitarianism? Lyell need not apply. Craters, mountains, and volcanic features all appear to be the same age. Planetary scientists, believing in long ages, have been forced to infer that the first 90% of the planet's history is missing!

 

In an interview in Astrobiology Magazine (8/16/2004), David Grinspoon called this the biggest surprise of Magellan. "If you use the word catastrophic it rubs some people the wrong way," he said, "but something dramatic happened on Venus which wiped out almost all signs of an older surface." Nobody knows what could have happened to resurface an entire planet. R. Stephen Saunders, in The New Solar System (4th ed.), made the same astonishing admission. "The geologic rule of unformitarianism -- 'the present is the key to the past' -- does not apply to Venus . . ." he said.

 

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".

Edited February 14, 2012 by Nintii

[Jeoshua]

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.

 

And this reveals the source of that blurb: An Darwin doubter and anti-intellectualist christian website. Such a snippy aside in an otherwise decently thought out article reveals the true intent behind the entire endeavor: To call Darwin a fraud. It is especially unwelcome here, in planetary physics, to attempt to attack someone who talked merely about the evolution of biological species on Earth, and made no serious attempts to get into astrophysics or Aphroditology (study of Venus similar to Geology).

 

And it's hate on "secular science" is abhorrent.

 

Let's not start a religious debate about Darwin here, this is about something entirely separate, I just wanted to say that "Mr" Coppedge's opinion is now utterly dead to me.

[Keanumoreira]

i wish Earth had rings. you know how cool it would be to look up and see giant rings around the planet! :teehee:

 

Actually, it does, just not in the way you'd think. There's a place miles above the Earth where a ring of derelict satellites exist, just thousands of them orbiting our planet every day. Which is why, sometimes, the media reports bizarre occurrences where space junk has fallen from the sky, and they come up with the crap that it's a crashed spaceship of some kind. As if aliens were dumb enough to crash into Earth hundreds of times in one year.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Keanumoreira

[hoofhearted4]

i wish Earth had rings. you know how cool it would be to look up and see giant rings around the planet! :teehee:

 

Actually, it does, just not in the way you'd think. There's a place miles above the Earth where a ring of derelict satellites exist, just thousands of them orbiting our planet every day. Which is why, sometimes, the media reports bizarre occurrences where space junk has fallen from the sky, and they come up with the crap that it's a crashed spaceship of some kind. As if aliens were dumb enough to crash into Earth hundreds of times in one year.

 

i always think its funny how people think Aliens crashed here. if they have the tech and knowledge on how to cross deep space at most likely FTL speeds, then im sure they can land a space craft on earth.

[mythicdawnmaster]

well, i am hoping aliens are friendly :happy:

[RitualBlack]

well, i am hoping aliens are friendly :happy:

 

Is man friendly :laugh: ?

[hoofhearted4]

well, i am hoping aliens are friendly :happy:

 

Is man friendly :laugh: ?

 

touche

[Thor.]

This thread confueses me :confused: o_O

 

 

I like the world of the worlds aproach to Desease and death of Aliens, do to the fact their ammune system wouldn't be able to handle our common cold :teehee:

Edited February 15, 2012 by Thor.

[Nintii]

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.

 

And this reveals the source of that blurb: An Darwin doubter and anti-intellectualist christian website. Such a snippy aside in an otherwise decently thought out article reveals the true intent behind the entire endeavor: To call Darwin a fraud. It is especially unwelcome here, in planetary physics, to attempt to attack someone who talked merely about the evolution of biological species on Earth, and made no serious attempts to get into astrophysics or Aphroditology (study of Venus similar to Geology).

 

And it's hate on "secular science" is abhorrent.

 

Let's not start a religious debate about Darwin here, this is about something entirely separate, I just wanted to say that "Mr" Coppedge's opinion is now utterly dead to me.

 

For a start, the ONLY ONE mentioning anything about religion here is you ... so let's kill cow right now - please refrain from ALL such references, thank you ...

and as for my sources, whether it be from a Christian, Hindu, Moslem or Jew is quite irrelevant just as long as you STICK TO THE FACTS and when refuting an arguement,

you do it purely from a scientific point of view and refrain from "fear tactics" ... that is so unscientific and too emotional.

 

Secondly, Darwin was wrong on a ton of stuff, do your homework please.

 

Thirdly, don't use terms like "secular science" science is science unless of course you believe that there is a Christian way of adding two plus two and a Moslem way and

then a fancy secular way ... that's pretty hilarious to me.

As long as you stick to the FACTS, that's what matters.

Also not everyone in the scientific field agrees with each other ... just stop and inhale that for a bit .............

AND whatever view point I espuse will be from a DIVERSE "scientific" viewpoint and as to the "personal beliefs" of the real and genuine QUALIFIED scientists that I choose

to quote from is quite irrelevant ... it's their qualifications and expertise in their fields as scientists that matters to me and so trying to make their personal beliefs an issue

is a smoke screen and a waste of time.

 

Fourthly, don't tell me where to post, if the heat in the kitchen is to hot for you then ........... fill in the blanks.

 

Fifthly, it will always be really fantastic to debate with someone who isn't afraid to be challenged.

 

Lastly, neither did I want to start a debate on Darwin here, I was merely stating a point of view different from the usual norm.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Nintii

[SubjectProphet]

How about this: the thread is off topic, please get back ON TOPIC.

 

Unless you think Aliens will end the world. >.> <.<

 

And please, no arguing.