As a quick follow-up to my last blog posta reader wrote in and their comment was published on the Creation. You mentioned that Titan has fewer impact craters than would be expected.
I would suggest that the reason for the few craters is Saturn, which with its much higher gravity, would draw the various comets meteors etc away from Titan.
In answer to your question, no it does not. This would be committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent, as explained in Logic and Creation.
The explanation for lots of craters on the moon is a brief intense swarm of meteoroids, travelling on parallel paths, probably during the Flood year. This is supported by ghost craters, evidence of rapid succession of impacts, and by the fact that 11 of the 12 maria are in one quadrant, evidence that the major impacts occurred before the moon had even moved far enough in one orbit month to show a different face to the swarm.
See On the origin of lunar maria and A biblically-based cratering theory. In my original blog post, I said there were two alternative ideas to cratering that would save the creationist idea behind this article:. The alternative is that the Relative age dating techniques from nasa calibration stuff is off, and radiometric dating is wrong.
With the crater population of Titan, that means Titan can only be, oh, around years old.
Except that it was discovered in Or, the entire crater calibration stuff is completely Relative age dating techniques from nasa. By Jonathan Sarfati claiming that the lunar cratering is unique and special, it means that the cratering calibration is way off because cratering chronology is BASED on the Moon.
Because the crater chronology doesn't show it, if you use a consistent chronology across solar system bodies. We can use samples from the Moon to correlate crater densities with absolute ages and get a model for how many craters of a certain size equals a certain age.
It also has very few impact craters. Because, if Titan is young because Relative age dating techniques from nasa has few craters as he is agreeing with, then the Moon and other bodies must be much older under that same crater chronology system.
To get to point B, he Relative age dating techniques from nasa accept A. He thinks B is true, but he does not think A is true. Hence the confusing cognitive dissonance he just ignores. Nancy Atkinson, a reporter of Universe Today among other thingsinterviewed me last-minute last week about lunar and martian craters.
Link to Days of Astronomy page. These are two very different planetary bodies. So how do the two compare in the crater department? With us to give us some blow by blow insight is Stuart Robbins, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder and the Southwest Research Institute, and he also works with the CosmoQuest Moon Mappers citizen science project.
This is a bit of a longer episode. Is it worth doing? I wanted to do it initially to get interaction between me and the listeners.
But participation has been around 1 for each. So if you have any opinion regarding the Puzzler, please let me know in the Comments to this post.
That view vanished in the s when spacecraft showed it to be a planet with a surface temperature far above the boiling point of water, the clouds full of sulfuric acid, and the atmosphere so heavy that the surface pressure is the equivalent of being under 1 km of ocean on Earth. There are just under craters on Venus, and statistically Relative age dating techniques from nasa are distributed randomly over the planet, no region being older nor younger than another to the accuracy of crater age dating.
And then, based off of the crater density, the surface age of Venus was estimated to be million Relative age dating techniques from nasa 1 billion years old the agreed-upon number today is about million.
Note that a pretty good, definitive paper on this is found in the Journal of Geophysical Researchvol. E10, from in an article by Roger Phillips et al. That brings us to the Institute for Creation Research article I cite at the beginning of this post. This is actually true.
There are many, many things wrong with this argument, but for Relative age dating techniques from nasa sake of my promised brevity, I will only address two. The first should be obvious: For creationist arguments, the goal is to get the age of the solar system down to years or so. Second, and this is more subtle, he is still relying upon an argument from crater age dating.
This has been calibrated from the Moon. Finally, I want to end with two comments on the last paragraph of the article. Geologists had already figured out Earth was at least on the order of millions of years old before Darwin ever presented his theories on evolution. Geology in terms of figuring out how old things are has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution.
It has much more to do with basic physics, such as heat transfer, collision rates, gravitational perturbations, etc. Now that I have that out of my system … second, a more philosophical point: Who is he to say whether someone can or cannot think something? Science works by lots of people coming up with lots of different possible explanations based on the observations.
They Relative age dating techniques from nasa then test those explanations by making predictions for further observations, and those observations should be able to rule out some of the explanations and still allow others. Then the process repeats until hopefully one is left that explains all the observations.
If none do, then a new hypothesis must be built that can explain all the observations, and then be further tested. However, there are ways that it can be. One would be sending ground-penetrating radar to Venus to peer within its crust and determine heat flows. Another would be to find fissures across the planet that could be outlets for the resurfacing material. A third would be to actually date material on the surface and to dig down within the crust and date that material, as well.
How can astronomers say that Mars had recent volcanism? Or that the surface of the moon Io is younger than 50 years?
The answer is one of the basic tools of comparative planetology: Impact craters are ubiquitous throughout the solar system — every single solid body has craters on its surface except for the moon Io because its surface is so young due to the incredible amounts of vulcanism.
Impact craters form when an impactor — like an asteroid or comet — hits the target surface of a planet or moon.
The impact occurs at high speed, and the final crater depth, diameter, and shape are effectively determined by the surface gravity, the mass of the impactor, and the velocity of the impactor.
There are craters of other origins, such as pit craters or caldera craters at the top of volcanoes.