Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Do :)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Sam Patterson on August 8, 2002 20:39:29 UTC

Me: "Voyager 2, during it's pass of Uranus, recorded that Uranus's magnetic axis was about 60 degrees tilted from it's rotational axis. The reason it unknown."

You: Ah, the good old argument from ignorance. Please realize that saying "We don't know why thing X happens" or "Theory Y doesn't explain all observations" is far, FAR away from saying "Creationism is correct." There's a lot of stuff we don't know, and saying "God did it" only pushes the problem further back. When a scientist proposes a theory, he is immediately subjected to scrutiny from all sides. But all a creationist has to do to explain Uranus' magnetic axis is say: "God did it." Why did he do it? "Because he wanted to." Why did he want to? "He moves in mysterious ways." Sorry Sam, this is not an argument."

You are right. That would not have been much of an arguement. But why didn't you read the next paragraph? They go toghether!

"Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earth's magnetic field is not decaying is because of the Earth's rotation, creating a 'dynamo' effect (This is my understanding). But this theory can not be used for Uranus's magnetic field because the rotational and the magnetic axis's are so far apart."

The point was that Uranus's magnetic field should not exist, or should be MUCH weaker, because there can not be a 'dynamo' effect. You only read half the arguement!

"Many fragments would have been sucked back into the planet. Also, it's perfectly possible that its moons formed from orbiting asteroids, etc."

Titania is the largest moon of Uranus. It is about 50% ice. I just looked up a whole lot of info about asteroids, and I found asteroids rarley have ice, and when they do it would not be anywhere near 50%. So Titania would not have been an asteroid.

KC2GWX 73's

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins