Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mercury. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mercury. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, January 27, 2014

Marvels of Young Mercury

Evolutionary planetologists used their observations filtered through presuppositions and assumptions, giving us a view of the planet Mercury as a big chunk of rock. Some of those assumptions made sense, since Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun.

When it comes to cosmology and cosmogony, however, Mercury is a rather recalcitrant messenger. Instead of being a hot ancient rock, it is showing signs of a much younger planet than was previous expected. This is no surprise to biblical creationists, but causes discomfort to evolutionary scientists. Especially when creationist predictions are affirmed.
In 2011 the Messenger spacecraft began orbiting Mercury, using its suite of sensors to study Mercury’s chemistry, magnetism, atmosphere, geology and landscape. Being the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury is subject to space weathering (heating, micrometeoroid bombardment, radiation, and solar wind interaction) of extreme intensity so evolutionists anticipated Mercury would be “an old burned-out cinder”. But the evidence reveals otherwise, calling into question Mercury’s supposed age of millions of years.
Here are just some of the evolution-contradicting findings.
You can read the rest of this bad news for evolutionists at "Mercury: More Marks of Youth". 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Planet Mercury Confirms More Creationist Predictions

Artist's conception of "Messenger" approaching Mercury — NASA
Screen shot of typical atheistic "logic" in action:
Red herring, abusive ad hominem and outright lie (disproved in this article, among others).
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made successful predictions about Mercury as well as Uranus and Neptune. It turns out that he was recently proved right with another prediction about Mercury. His starting point? The Bible.
NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft is continuing to produce surprising new evidence that Mercury’s magnetic field is as young as the Bible says. Since March 2011 the spacecraft has been in a near-polar orbit around Mercury. By now it has orbited the planet nearly a thousand times, repeatedly passing over the entire surface. Swooping low over the northern volcanic plains, the spacecraft discovered that the planet’s outer crust in that region is strongly magnetized. The strongest magnetization coincides with a broad topographic rise near the center of those plains. That leads the analyzing team to believe that the magnetization comes from basalt solidified from lava flowing up out of the deeper crust throughout the plain.
The crust magnetization is nearly vertical, just as is the planet’s overall magnetic field in those high latitudes. But MESSENGER found that the magnetization is opposite to the direction of today’s field, indicating that Mercury has reversed the direction of its field at least once in the past. The team of analysts says this
“ … implies that the magnetization is a remanent [remaining, permanent] magnetization acquired [in the past] when Mercury’s magnetic field was of the opposite polarity, and possibly stronger, than the present field.”
In contrast, the above result vindicates one of two scientific predictions about Mercury’s magnetic field made by a biblically-based creationist theory.
Read the rest of "Mercury's Crust is Magnetized", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Mysterious Mercury

Cosmologists and cosmogonists propose hypotheses, theories and models about the universe and the solar system. Those who persist in using an evolutionary basis keep finding flaws in their models that need to be explained away. Otherwise, they may have to actually admit that the facts support the biblical creation model far better, and with much less fuss, than an evolutionary model. In fact, Mercury supports creationists' predictions.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington
Mercury, the smallest planet and closest to the sun, presents perplexing puzzles that provoke pique among evolutionists. That is, Mercury does not act like it is supposed to act.
The smallest planet of our solar system holds some big mysteries for secular astronomers, and it continues to delight creationists. Mercury is only 38 percent the diameter of Earth, making it the smallest and least massive of the eight planets. It is the innermost planet of the solar system, orbiting the sun at a distance of only 36 million miles. That is nearly three times closer to the sun than Earth is. Mercury is a solid, rocky world, with only a trace of an atmosphere. It has mountains, valleys, plains, and craters—lots and lots of craters! In appearance, Mercury resembles a 40 percent larger (in radius) version of the moon. But when it comes to creation research of the early solar system, Mercury provides many interesting clues. The unusual characteristics of this world make for an intriguing study.
You can read the rest of "The Solar System: Mercury", here

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Unexpected Activity on the Planet Mercury

Mercury is supposed to be a dead rock orbiting the sun. There should not be any activity there, no surface features forming, no outgassing of volatile materials, right? Well...
NASA's Messenger spacecraft mission to Mercury has given scientists the opportunity to learn more about the properties of the solar system's innermost planet. After supposedly billions of years since its formation, the planet should be dead, or geologically inactive. New data from Messenger, however, show that Mercury remains active and is still generating surface features. 
Before the Messenger data acquisition, astronomers observed that the sunny side of Mercury is hot enough to melt lead, and like other rocky objects in the solar system, many craters pockmark the planet's surface. In early 2011, Messenger carefully maneuvered into orbit and took photographs with unprecedented detail. 
Images of the planet's surface revealed unusual, irregularly shaped hollows or depressions with rounded edges that were comprised of material so bright that many showed "high reflectance halos." Researchers hadn't expected to find such highly reflective features, which "appear fresh and lack superposed impact craters, implying that they are relatively young," according to the report published in Science.
 Read the rest of "Mercury's Surface Looks Young" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 2, 2014

Conversation With Dr. Russell Humphreys on Magnetic Fields

Here I am, back behind my unregistered assault keyboard, providing resources to creation-affirming science (plus some theological and philosophical) articles.

On Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart interviewed Dr. D. Russell Humphreys about magnetic fields, emphasizing those of Earth and Mercury. Dr. Humphreys made predictions from a biblical creationist viewpoint which were confirmed — much to the dismay of evolutionary scientists. He has also studied the decay of Earth's magnetic field.

Artist concept of the MESSENGER spacecraft in orbit around planet Mercury. Credit: NASA
The confirmed predictions of Humphreys fit well with a biblical creation model, and defy proponents of an old universe. Decaying magnetic fields support a young universe, and unsupportable "theories" such as the "dynamo" are conjured up in order to cling to their belief in an old universe.
Boy do the atheists have a problem: Real Science Radio co-host Bob Enyart interviews physicist Russ Humphreys on the Earth and Mercury's rapidly decaying magnetic fields, and on Dr. Humphreys' fulfilled predictions about the magnetism of the distant planets Uranus and Neptune. With Earth losing 10% of it's magnetic field in just the last 150 years, and Mercury's even faster drop, materialists have to appeal, once again, to claims of wildly coincidental occurrences to explain our observation of such rapid loss on planets that are allegedly billions of years old.
You can read the article and listen to the audio at "Earth & Mercury's Decaying Magnetic Fields".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, October 28, 2011

Decay of Mercury's Magnetic Field Supports Creation

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys used the creation model and embarrassed evolutionists by accurately predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. His prediction for the magnetic field of Mercury was also correct.
Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year. 
If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist? 
In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which "is about 1% that of the Earth."
A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5. He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.
Read the rest of "Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Mercury Top the Dinosaur

The dinosaur called Mercuriceratops gemini has been discovered in a well-populated dinosaur graveyard called the Dinosaur Park Formation in Alberta, Canada. Unlike the Roman character Mercury, this one was not named because it was a messenger of the dinosaur gods. Rather, it has frills on its head that reminded people of the wings on the head of that particular Roman.

A dinosaur called Mercuriceratops gemini has been causing unwarranted evolutionary speculation. What is more interesting than the dinosaur is the story of the fossil graveyard itself.
Mercury by Evelyn de Morgan
As is so typical of evolutionary paleontologists, they see evolution instead of variation. In fact, even though most of the creature has not been recovered (only some skull bones), there is already speculation as to the purpose of the frills on the head. What is more interesting than this less-than-frilling relative of Triceratops is the story that the massive boneyard itself reveals.
Sporting wing-like frills on the side of its head, Mercuriceratops gemini, like its winged messenger namesake among the gods of classical mythology, is said to deliver a new chapter to the evolutionary history of horned dinosaurs in North America. The fossil record of this diverse group of big Cretaceous herbivores just got more diverse, surprising many evolutionists searching for the hidden evolutionary message in the twin finds.
You can finish reading by heading over to "Mercuriceratops Delivers a Message from the Past".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Active Solar System Defies Deep-Time Proponents

Here's something to cogitate on. According to evolutionary reckoning (presuppositions, circular reasoning, making stuff up and so on), the solar system evolved billions of years ago. Based on that time frame, the planet Mercury, Earth's moon, assorted satellites throughout the solar system should be inactive rocks. 

Not hardly. There are signs of "recent" volcanic eruptions even by evolutionary time scales. Worse for evolutionary scientists, other celestial objects are being recalcitrant toward "deep time". Observed evidence shows a young solar system. Naturally, the scientists make assertions and excuses without plausible models, or just ignore what they see, in order to cling to an ancient universe. To see their bad news, saddle up and ride over to "Mercury, Moon May Still Be Erupting".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Troublesome Venus

As most people know, Venus is the planet closest to Earth, and second from the Sun. For thousands of years, people have looked at it in admiration and wonder. Like the moon, Venus goes through phases. Unlike the moon, Venus appears to have different sizes during its phases. Galileo documented this effect, which began the overthrow of the geocentric (the Earth is stationary and everything orbits it) systems of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and the establishment of the heliocentric (Earth orbits the Sun) system that we have today.

NASA/NSSDC Photo Gallery
From an evolutionary cosmology perspective, Venus is a very naughty girl, what with confusing scientists and all. Scientists thought that she was very similar to Earth, and called a "twin". Well, an evil twin. She rotates the wrong way, has a toxic atmosphere and is the hottest body (no, not that way, I mean literally hottest) in the solar system. Creationists are not bothered in the least by the contrary "behavior" of Venus.
Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet in the solar system. Its axial tilt is only three degrees, so there are no seasons on Venus. Since it orbits closer to the sun than Earth does, Venus orbits faster and completes a circuit every 7.4 months. But its day is much longer than Earth’s. Venus rotates once every eight months, so its day is actually longer than its year. This is the sidereal day—the rotation of Venus relative to the stars. What is even more intriguing is that Venus rotatesbackward. All eight planets orbit the sun counterclockwise, as viewed from the solar system’s North Pole. Most of the planets also rotate counterclockwise, but Venus is the exception. On Venus, the sun would rise in the west and set in the east—although it would be difficult to see the sun in such overcast skies.
Secularists do not have a good explanation for the backward rotation of Venus. In the secular scenario, the solar system is supposed to have formed from the collapse of a rotating nebula. The natural expectation of this would be that all planets would rotate in the same direction at about the same rate, and they would all have very little axial tilt. Venus is the worst offender to this concept, since it rotates exactly the opposite of what the evolutionary models require. But we expect such diversity in the biblical view.
The backward rotation of Venus causes its solar day to be much shorter than its sidereal day—a unique phenomenon in the solar system. Recall that the solar day is the average time from one sunrise to the next as viewed from a planet’s surface (e.g., 24 hours for Earth). This is different (and normally slightly longer) from the sidereal day because planets orbit the sun and not the stars. Since Venus rotates in the opposite direction, its solar day is reduced to 3.8 months. Strangely, this is shorter than Mercury’s solar day, even though Venus physically rotates slower than Mercury.
It should be your desire to read "The Solar System — Venus" in its full context.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, April 6, 2018

Impact Craters and the Genesis Flood

We see impact craters on the moon, Mars, Mercury, and a few on Earth. Not much of a view of Venus because of its dreadful atmosphere and conditions, and not much to smack into in the gas giants. Their moons have some. Oh, and Pluto. Can't forget that one. Creationary scientists as well as those of the secular persuasion are trying to understand why so few are seen here, but the "Late Heavy Bombardment" myth is being put out to pasture.

There are far fewer impact craters on Earth than on other planets
Crater Lake image credit: Freeimages / John Vician
Some creationists propose that there were two bombardments, one at creation, and another at the time of the Genesis Flood. Our focus is on the latter, and much of the information about craters and basis is gained from examining the moon. To determine this particular model, the dynamics of velocity, size, composition of asteroids and such have to be considered. Then, factor in what happens when an impact is made and a crater or basin is formed.

Obviously, biblical creationists reject radiometric dating and deep time that are axioms for secular scientists. Impacts may have been one of the trigger events to open up the fountains of the great deep (Gen. 7:11). At any rate, during the Flood, there would have been less scarring of the earth's surface, and geological activity would have erased many of the signs of the impacts. Here, let's take a look at the article:
The moon is the standard by which to estimate the number of craters on the earth. The number of craters greater than 30 km by evolutionary age categories is about 1,900. Scaling to the earth and considering the greater gravitational cross section results in 36,000 craters greater than 30 km. Based on very larger craters on the moon and Mars and the size frequency distribution on the moon extrapolated to the earth, about 100 craters greater than 1,000 km in diameter and a few up to 4,000 to 5,000 km in diameter should have occurred on Earth. This tremendous bombardment must have occurred very early in the Flood, tailing off during the rest of the Flood with a few post-Flood impacts. Such a bombardment would be adequate to initiate the Flood. The evidence for such an impact bombardment very likely can be found in the Precambrian igneous rocks and suggests that the Precambrian is early Flood.
To read the rest of this impactful article about a new model-in-process, click on "How many impact craters should there be on the earth?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Keeping the Solar System in Balance

Even though none of the theories of solar system formation actually work, cosmologists tend to favor the nebular hypothesis, where everything formed from the same hot gas. It swirled, the sun and planets formed — and questions are raised. One of the most obvious problems is the way some of the planets act: Uranus is tipped on its side, effectively rolling in its orbit, and Venus has a retrograde rotation (goes in the opposite direction as the other planets). There are more problems and questions, but the public is given the sanitized version that sounds true, even though there's no evidence for cosmic evolution. Recent discoveries are mighty unfriendly to the concept.

Recent discoveries show the already weak idea of cosmic evolution to be even more unlikely.
Solar nebula image credit: NASA
Studies of other solar systems get cosmologists and astronomers a mite consternated, since things they've found are way out of whack and not conducive to life. Our solar system has a right friendly sun, the moon is unique in relation to the Earth and sun unlike other moons, plus the whole shootin' match is kept in balance. Why did God create those gas giants way, way out there? They actually help.
For decades it has been somewhat of a mystery to secularists as to why our solar system is structured the way it is: the four gas giants—Saturn and Jupiter, composed mainly of helium and hydrogen, and Uranus and Neptune—orbiting far away from the sun, and the four smaller rocky planets, the terrestrials—Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars—orbiting much closer to the sun.

Astronomers are puzzled that other recently discovered planetary systems look so different from ours. One evolutionist stated, “There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected.” Indeed, for the secular astronomer, basic planet construction is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
To read the rest, click on "The Perfect Balance of Our Solar System".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 19, 2015

Further Findings Fluster Space Scientists

Recent discoveries in the solar system are giving fewer answers and raising more questions than secular scientists would like to deal with.

Mankind has always wondered about what's up yonder in the night sky. Hans Lippershey patented the refracting telescope, and it was tweaked by other early astronomers. The wonder increased as celestial objects were brought into focus (heh!), Isaac Newton made a practical reflecting telescope, others kept on improving until we got to the huge telescopes in observatories. Not good enough, we had to put the things up into the final frontier. Also, we sent probes to other planets so we could get a gander at them from images sent back.

But you know us, we still want to know more. Improvements in technology have led to better telescopes and more ambitious space probes. Unfortunately for long-age astronomers and cosmologists, the more we learn about the universe, the more it acts far younger than they want it to. Our solar system is also recalcitrant toward secular views, as more questions are raised than answered.

Now we are learning that Mercury has huge cliffs, asteroids Ceres and Vesta are not acting they way they're supposed to, the rings of Saturn were troublesome enough to try to explain (lousy explanations, by the way). Yes, plenty of things are troublesome to secularists, but biblical creationists are not at all perplexed — probably because they don't reckon to make excuses for when the data show a young, recently-created universe after all. You can read about these items and more by clicking on "Solar System Puzzles Needing Explanation".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Giant Impact, Secular Miracles, and Bad Science

There are several secular models for the formation of the moon. Co-accretion (condensation) concept is that Earth and the moon were formed at the same time from the same nebula that formed the rest of the solar system. Another is the fission (spin-off) idea, where a molten Earth threw out a chunk of matter before it had cooled, and that became the moon. Then there's the giant impact hypothesis, where some cosmic wanderer about the size of Mercury smacked into Earth and the debris formed the moon, which was lassoed by gravity and yee haw, we got us a moon! None of these fit the data.

There are several secular models for the formation of the moon, but none of them fit the data. Disingenuous secular scientists are cheating the data to keep the giant impact hypothesis going.
If the impact had happened, maybe it looked like this. Image Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech
Of the three main cosmic evolution failures, the least dismal failure is the impact hypothesis. Rather than give credit to the Creator, some owlhoots getting grant money spin yarns to keep that idea going. Problem is, they're being disingenuous. They invoke their version of miracles, and they tamper so much with the data, it has no basis in reality. Then this stuff is passed off as "science", and gullible anti-creationist tinhorns point to it and say, "See? Science is smrt! Yahyuh!" It happens far too often.
You can’t get Earth’s moon from a planetary collision without quasi-miraculous tweaks to the models.

Science TV shows often make the moon’s formation look simple: a body flies into the Earth, breaks it up, and out of the pieces the Earth-moon system forms. This accident of nature was unique to the Earth, since it didn’t happen for the other three rocky planets. Viewers of the animations may not be aware that the simple picture is false. Specifically, the materials making up Earth and the moon are too similar to be explained by some third body, which likely would have been composed of different materials.

A recent paper in Nature by Israeli and French astrophysicists reveals what secular naturalists are up against trying to explain Earth’s moon by purely physical processes, without design.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Moon Origin Models Require Cheating". 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, November 13, 2014

"Man in the Moon" Has No Impact

The big area on Earth's moon that has often been called the "man in the moon" is getting cheeky. Evolutionists have their noses out of joint because the long-held belief that this area it is the result of an impact crater is being discarded. Instead, it is now thought to be the result of volcanic activity. This moon, as well as other satellites and the planet Mercury, are showing signs of a young solar system. But evolutionary theories require long ages, so secular scientists are trying to find a way to save face and keep their "deep time" presuppositions. Reckon they can't stand to admit that the evidence shows the work of the Creator, and that he did his creating much more recently that has been cherished in their worldviews.
The theory of how the largest impact basin on the moon was formed has been turned upside down.

Oceanus Procellarum, the large dark feature often called the “Man in the moon,” has a new story to tell lunar geologists: “I’m a volcano.” In a surprise reversal, scientists are saying that the huge basin is “not an impact crater” (Nature News). “Gravity data suggest flats of volcanic basalt formed from tectonic stretching,” the subtitle reads: in other words, a large volcanic plume created most of the maria on the near side of the moon. Oceanus Procellarum is 17% of the lunar surface, constituting most of the near side visible to Earth.

Scientists working data from NASA’s GRAIL orbiter (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory), which measures gravity anomalies on the moon, knew they had found something odd when the outlines of the basin looked a bit rectangular rather than circular. The results, published in Nature, “revealed anomalies buried beneath the plains’ basalt surface, which the authors interpret as valleys where the crust of the Moon has been stretched and thinned, a process that on Earth happens as tectonic plates move apart.”
You can read the rest by clicking on "Lunar Impact: Major Moon Basin Was Not a Big Hit".


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 27, 2012

Darwin Day was a Yawner

Despite the efforts of atheist and evolutionists to get religious celebrations in honor of Papa Darwin and to have their philosophies into the churches, "Darwin Day" (February 12), it seemed to go largely unnoticed. There were individuals who used the day as an excuse to assert their opinions as fact and to present bad science as conclusive proof of evolution, and there were those of us who stated that we have the right to disbelieve in the alleged "science" of evolution. People did not really care.
Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809, but not many people celebrated "Darwin Day" on February 12 this year. One Texas columnist lamented this lack of festivity, as well as polls showing that 40 percent of Americans believe in creationism and about a third of Texans believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
In an opinion piece for the San Marcos Mercury, Lamar Hankins wrote: 
I look to the consensus among experts to decide what is true…. Evolutionary biologists and those in related fields understand that the theory of evolution is indeed proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Since I am not a biologist, I think it is rational to accept the scientific consensus that evolution is true.
You can read Lamar's opinion, and the rest of "Why 'Darwin Day' Passed without Fanfare", here.      

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!