Answers in Genesis: Pluto Is Young!

We’ve been expecting this. It’s from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo). They just posted Pluto’s Surface Is Young!

AIG’s author is Danny Faulkner. Here’s their biographical information about him. They say he taught physics and astronomy until he joined AIG. His undergraduate degree is from Bob Jones University. His article is an excellent illustration of what we call the Creationist Scientific Method:

1. Select a conclusion which you hope is true.
2. Find one piece of evidence that possibly might fit.
3. Ignore all other evidence.
4. That’s it.

Danny has written this sort of thing before, for example, AIG: Spiral Galaxies Prove a Young Universe. A few excerpts from his new article should be sufficient. The bold font was added by us:

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015, NASA released the first close images of Pluto recently taken by the New Horizons space probe. What the photos revealed was a shock to conventional uniformitarian scientists who believe in a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system.

The scientists were shocked — shocked! What did they find? Danny tells us:

Over the past half century, planetary scientists have become accustomed to finding many impact craters on the surfaces of bodies in the solar system. However, from the preliminary photos of Pluto’s surface, these scientists have found far fewer craters than they expected. Earlier wide-field views of half of Pluto’s surface seem to indicate a few craters, but the first close-up region examined appeared to have no craters.

No craters? Egad! Let’s read on:

Craters appear to be the results of collisions with smaller bodies. Most scientists think that the solar system formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, so they interpret craters in terms of their accumulation during that time.

Danny goes on at length discussing craters. We’ll skip that until we come to this:

With the exception of Io, every surface on solar system bodies that we had examined, planets, their satellites, asteroids, and even comets, appear to have impact craters, suggesting to most planetary scientists that they all have great age.

We don’t know why Danny bothered to mention that, because then he ignores it as he focuses only on Pluto:

Compounding this problem for a 4.5-billion-year age for the solar system is the fact that Pluto is located in a particularly crowded part of the solar system. Pluto orbits the sun in a region with many other large objects that are too small to be planets and are also orbiting the sun. … Therefore, Pluto ought to be undergoing impacts today at a higher rate than most other objects in other portions of the solar system.

Now we’ll skip to the end:

We may yet find a few craters on Pluto’s surface, but those would be inconsequential to the conclusions that we can draw. It is very clear that Pluto is young, far younger than the billions of years generally assumed.

Uh, not quite. It’s surface appears young, but there are a few possible explanations for that. This is the last of it:

While this is unexpected and hence unexplainable for evolutionists, this is something that we might expect if the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible indicates. The preliminary results from the New Horizons space probe are good news indeed for the recent creation model.

Yes, Pluto is good news for creationists. The rest of the solar system — and the universe — is bad news, but they don’t want you to think about that.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Pluto Is Young!

  1. Hysterical! For the YEC crowd there must be some common brain defect or trauma that causes them to ignore what the entire universe is telling them.

  2. It reminds me of a used-car dealer who tries to convince me that this car is really quite new because the right front fender doesn’t have as many dents and rust as the rest of it, as long as you don’t look too closely.

  3. Danny Faulkner walked into an assisted living complex, saw a resident’s visiting grandchild playing in the lobby, and determined it was a day care center.

  4. Danny Faulkner found a penny with the year “2009” on it, and he concluded that money was invented less than a decade ago.

  5. This reminds me of the time that John Morris claimed that the fact that Niagara Falls is less than 10,000 years old proves YEC. The fact that there are things on earth (and in the solar system) that formed at different times seems to be too complicated for them to understand.

  6. While this is unexpected and hence unexplainable for evolutionists,….

    What *might* unexplainable by biologists, is explainable by planetary geologists. What is unexplainable is for someone who says he taught physics and astronomy to confuse the two – unless that is, he got bought his degree from Bob Jones Univ.

  7. We may yet find a few craters on Pluto’s surface, but those would be inconsequential to the conclusions that we can draw. It is very clear that Pluto is young, far younger than the billions of years generally assumed.

    While this is unexpected and hence unexplainable for evolutionists, this is something that we might expect if the universe is only thousands of years old as the Bible indicates. The preliminary results from the New Horizons space probe are good news indeed for the recent creation model.

    Not really. Pluto isn’t nearly young enough; 100 million years (Pluto’s new estimated age) is a far cry from 6,000.

  8. So, the rest of the universe is billions of years old, but the sky fairy created Pluto de novo only a million or so years ago? I’m almost convinced, Danny boy.

  9. waldteufel

    Eric, I don’t think the evidence obtained to date says that Pluto is only 100 million years old. Rather, the data suggests that the areas of Pluto devoid of craters might be caused by geology that has relatively young age that may have removed craters, much as geologic forces have done on Earth.
    A lot of work remains to be done in order to determine the age of Pluto.

    Still, you are right that none of the evidence points to a 6,000 year age, which of course is laughably stupid.

    Whenever I read anything by the unctuous and ignorant Danny, I feel the need to take a shower.

  10. waldteufel

    When I saw Danny’s laughable scribblings about Pluto today, my first thought was that our esteemed Curmudgeon would be on this like a chicken on a Junebug. Sure enough, he was!

  11. Dave Luckett

    Says Danny: “Pluto is located in a particularly crowded part of the solar system.”

    Is this true? I suspect that it isn’t. Danny is simply showing that he has no clue about the sheer scale of the outer solar system. That is, there may be quite a large number of Kuiper or transplutonian planetismals and what not, but they’re distributed over a volume that makes everything from Jupiter on in look like a fishtank compared to an ocean.

    Perhaps someone versed in the, you know, actual facts would care to enlighten us?

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    I was trying to think of the ultimate expression of stupid to post in honor of Danny Faulkner, then I remembered this from A Fish Called Wanda:

    Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
    Otto West: Apes don’t read philosophy.
    Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.

  13. Good comments like the fender and the day care center. I’ll add another one. Dwarf planet Ceres was also imaged this year (The only dwarf planet in the asteroid belt) Ceres does have those intriguing white spots, but you wouldn’t mistake it for a young surface. You notice Danny doesn’t write about that one.
    Of course working for Ken Ham this is an obligatory piece required to earn his salt.

  14. RevReinard:

    The fact that there are things on earth (and in the solar system) that formed at different times seems to be too complicated for them to understand.

    When you’ve staked your entire intellectual, religious and social life on the premise that God created all things at once, it is too complicated (or at least inconceivable) that things formed at different times. Sawing off the branch you are sitting on, no matter how rotten, is hard to do.

  15. But doesn’t our planet have fewer craters than Pluto? Doesn’t that mean that the Earth is ….younger than….I think I’ve just shot my foot.

  16. Ham believes the stars, planets, etc. were all made on the same day. The implication that Pluto is younger than other bodies in the solar system, no matter how much younger, contradicts Genesis.

    Faulkner claims that Pluto is young, thus a problem for “evolutionists”, but he does not then apply that conclusion to the heavily cratered bodies – like the moon. In fact, he details the scientific explanations for surfaces around the solar system that are devoid of heavy cratering. He does a pretty decent job of it. He also cites various arguments as to why those arguments do not apply to Pluto. So we’re left with the conclusion that Pluto seems younger than all these older moons and planets. Ergo, it wasn’t created on the same day. Ergo, Genesis is false.

    Sort of a strange argument for someone at AIG to make.

  17. I think that the point is that science is unreliable in reporting the age of things. Science can’t differentiate between 100 million and 4 billion years. So why believe it when it says that it’s more than 10,000 years? If only one can destroy any standard of truth, then we’re reliant on the YEC reportage of the Word of God.

  18. Welcome to the “It’s consistent with a young earth” argument. As someone noted, Henry Morris launched this kind of argument when dealing with Niagara Falls and the Mississippi River delta. Why have YECs found it compelling? ANSWER: They needed a lot more “evidences” for their “100 Evidences for a Young Earth.”

    Google it sometime. They are “filler material” for every YEC’s list of evidences.

    I’ll add one of my own: “My great grandfather was born in 1850. This is entirely consistent with a young earth.”

  19. @Dave Luckett, I suspect you’re on the right track. Objects in the Inner Solar System (for the sake of this argument, that means everything from Neptune inward) would be subject to far more collisions than objects in the Kuiper Belt for several reasons. One, there’s a lot more stuff in the Inner Solar System . Two, the large planets’ gravitational fields pulls some of that stuff in where it will collide with the satellites of those planets. Three, if the current theory for the formation of Earth’s moon is correct — that another planet-sized object collided with the young Earth, splashing off all kinds of material that would eventually coalesce to form the moon — a lot of that material would have been blasted throughout the entire Inner Solar System, but very little would have made it way out to the Kuiper Belt. Four, as you mentioned, the density of objects in the Inner Solar System is much greater than out in the Kuiper Belt. As comets fall inward toward the Sun, collisions are much more likely the closer in they get.

    So, in short, we can’t judge the age of Pluto’s surface by comparing cratering rates with objects in the Inner Solar System. Think of it this way — if a small plane crashes in Chicago, there’s a high probability it will hit a building. However, if it crashes in eastern Colorado, there’s not much chance of it hitting any structure at all.

  20. The whole truth

    Pluto’s “heavily-cratered terrain”:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722014337.htm