Seventh Planet News and Free Fire Zone

The lack of creationist news naturally makes people seek news about the Seventh Planet — the one that dare not speak its name. Very well, never say that your Curmudgeon failed in his task.

Here are excerpts from three relatively recent articles we found at PhysOrg, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

We’ll start with this one, which appeared in January: How did Uranus end up on its side? We’ve been finding out. They say:

Uranus is arguably the most mysterious planet in the solar system – we know very little about it. So far, we have only visited the planet once, with the Voyager 2 spacecraft back in 1986. The most obvious odd thing about this ice giant is the fact that it is spinning on its side.

Unlike all the other planets, which spin roughly “upright” with their spin axes at close to right angles to their orbits around the sun, Uranus is tilted by almost a right angle. So in its summer, the north pole points almost directly towards the sun. And unlike Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune, which have horizontal sets of rings around them, Uranus has vertical rings and moons that orbit around its tilted equator.

So what caused this situation? We’re told:

Our simulations (see above) show that a body at least twice as massive as the Earth could readily create the strange spin Uranus has today by slamming into and merging with a young planet.

Now you know. Their next article is What does Uranus sound like? Hey — this is no joking matter. They say:

Paul Byrne is a planetary geologist and an assistant professor in NC State’s Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences. Because Byrne studies how (and why) planets look the way they do, we figured that he’d be a great person to talk to about what Uranus might sound like. And we were right! Basically, it would sound windy.

Enough of that. Here’s one more, which appeared in June: Astronomers see ‘warm’ glow of Uranus’ rings. That one tells us:

The rings of Uranus are invisible to all but the largest telescopes — they weren’t even discovered until 1977 — but they’re surprisingly bright in new heat images of the planet taken by two large telescopes in the high deserts of Chile.

Now you know there are rings around the Seventh Planet. And please, let’s have no jokes modeled on those old “Ring around the collar” commercials. You can do better than that. And if you like, you can click over to PhysOrg and read the articles in their entirety, to satisfy your hunger for news of the Seventh Planet.

Now we’re declaring another Intellectual Free-Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, or even astrology, theology, mythology, and sociology — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

The comments are open, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2019. 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

6 responses to “Seventh Planet News and Free Fire Zone

  1. The creacrappers from Dutch Logos.nl produce gibberish regarding falsifiability.

    https://logos.nl/intelligent-design-benard/

    One Ard Tamminga (apparently a biologist, philosopher and product of the Dutch Second Reformation) has written an essay about the question: ID, science or pseudo-science? Conclusion: ID is not a good alternative to ET (evolution theory). The Dutch YECers of course don’t like it.

    It’s the last paragraph that interests me; it’s quite long, so I provide only a translation.

    “His [Tamminga’s] most important objection against ID is that she supposes that the absence of an evolutionary explanation is an argument for the correctness of ID. In my view that’s an important statement, because in the following argument Tamminga betrays the lack of options to falsify ET. See, Behe build his concept of ID as a falsification of ET as a reaction to Darwin’s statement that

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

    Well, says Behe, I know such structures, so ET as a model for the origin of complex life-forms must be rejected. Oh no, says Tamminga, the fact that we don’t have any idea how irreducible complex systems arose evolutionary is not an argument pro ID, because that’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam. According to Tamminga one always can argue for ET, that it holds in some yet uncomprehended way. So ET has been immunized for falsification and has become a pseudoscience.”

    Apparently the author does not understand the difference between “demonstrated that it’s not possible” and “uncomprehended”. Also Behe must be proud to be a mascot of Dutch YECers.

  2. “uncomprehended” translated. What happens to Stephen Meyers books.

  3. @FrankB
    that it holds in some uncomprehended way
    That is a descripton of ID.
    We never are told how Intelligent Design results in anything. Never. In anything.
    “Intelligent Design” is defined, so to speak, that there is a better explanation than naturalistic evolution. But the advocates never get around to showing some interest even in speculating what an alternative (let alone better) explanation would look like.
    For example, might not Intelligent Design make use of natural processes, like, say, oxidation and reduction . Or maybe descent with modification? (Indeed, doesn’t the concept of “design” mean that there is account taken of natural laws?)

  4. Michael Fugate

    Here’s another one on the current administration’s pushing a conservative Christian agenda
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/william-barrs-wild-misreading-of-the-first-amendment

  5. “Have you ever lied, stolen or used God’s name in vain?” a message on the back of one of the bills reads. “If so, you’ve broken God’s law. The penalty for your crimes against God is death and eternal hell because God is holy and just.”

    The other bill ― which again, Ham wants you to give to little kids on Halloween ― warns against lust, which it says is “the same as committing adultery.”
    Does anyone have a recommended recipient for these?