Saturn moon Titan may harbor ocean below surface (Update)

Jun 28, 2012
This artist's concept shows a possible scenario for the internal structure of Titan, as suggested by data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Scientists have been trying to determine what is under Titan's organic-rich atmosphere and icy crust. Image credit: A. Tavani

(Phys.org) -- Data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft have revealed Saturn's moon Titan likely harbors a layer of liquid water under its ice shell. 

Researchers saw a large amount of squeezing and stretching as the moon orbited Saturn. They deduced that if Titan were composed entirely of stiff rock, the gravitational attraction of Saturn would cause bulges, or solid "tides," on the moon only 3 feet (1 meter) in height. Spacecraft data show Saturn creates solid tides approximately 30 feet (10 meters) in height, which suggests Titan is not made entirely of solid rocky material. The finding appears in today's edition of the journal Science.

"Cassini's detection of large tides on Titan leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that there is a hidden ocean at depth," said Luciano Iess, the paper's lead author and a Cassini team member at the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. "The search for water is an important goal in solar system exploration, and now we've spotted another place where it is abundant."

Titan takes only 16 days to orbit Saturn, and scientists were able to study the moon's shape at different parts of its orbit. Because Titan is not spherical, but slightly elongated like a football, its long axis grew when it was closer to Saturn. Eight days later, when Titan was farther from Saturn, it became less elongated and more nearly round. Cassini measured the gravitational effect of that squeeze and pull.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This artist's concept shows 'tides' on Titan raised by Saturn's gravity, as detected by NASA's Cassini spacecraft.

Scientists were not sure Cassini would be able to detect the bulges caused by Saturn's pull on Titan. By studying six close flybys of Titan from Feb. 27, 2006, to Feb. 18, 2011, researchers were able to determine the moon's internal structure by measuring variations in the gravitational pull of Titan using data returned to NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN).

"We were making ultrasensitive measurements, and thankfully Cassini and the DSN were able to maintain a very stable link," said Sami Asmar, a Cassini team member at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "The tides on Titan pulled up by Saturn aren't huge compared to the pull the biggest planet, Jupiter, has on some of its moons. But, short of being able to drill on Titan's surface, the gravity measurements provide the best data we have of Titan's internal structure."

An ocean layer does not have to be huge or deep to create these tides. A liquid layer between the external, deformable shell and a solid mantle would enable Titan to bulge and compress as it orbits Saturn. Because Titan's surface is mostly made of water ice, which is abundant in moons of the outer solar system, scientists infer Titan's ocean is likely mostly liquid water.

On Earth, tides result from the gravitational attraction of the moon and sun pulling on our surface oceans. In the open oceans, those can be as high as two feet (60 centimeters). While water is easier to move, the gravitational pulling by the sun and moon also causes Earth's crust to bulge in solid tides of about 20 inches (50 centimeters).

The presence of a subsurface layer of liquid water at Titan is not itself an indicator for life. Scientists think life is more likely to arise when liquid water is in contact with rock, and these measurements cannot tell whether the ocean bottom is made up of rock or ice. The results have a bigger implication for the mystery of methane replenishment on Titan.

"The presence of a liquid water layer in Titan is important because we want to understand how methane is stored in Titan's interior and how it may outgas to the surface," said Jonathan Lunine, a Cassini team member at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. "This is important because everything that is unique about Titan derives from the presence of abundant methane, yet the methane in the atmosphere is unstable and will be destroyed on geologically short timescales."

A liquid water ocean, "salted" with ammonia, could produce buoyant ammonia-water liquids that bubble up through the crust and liberate methane from the ice. Such an ocean could serve also as a deep reservoir for storing methane.

Explore further: NKorea launch pad expansion 'nearing completion'

More information: "The Tides of Titan," by L. Iess, et al., Science, 2012.

Related Stories

A water ocean on Titan?

May 05, 2011

Oddities in the rotation of Saturn's largest moon Titan might add to growing evidence that it harbors an underground ocean, researchers suggest.

Space Image: Rings, Titan and Enceladus

Apr 19, 2012

Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus hangs below the gas giant’s rings while Titan lurks in the background, in this new image taken by the Cassini spacecraft.   Faint detail of the tiger stripe mark ...

Is titan hiding an ocean?

Apr 19, 2011

Saturn's moon Titan just keeps throwing surprises at us. A multi-layered atmosphere thicker than our own? Check. A hydrologic cycle that relies on methane as the operating liquid? Check. Rivers, streams and ...

Cassini gazes at veiled Titan

Sep 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA's Cassini spacecraft will swing high over Saturn's moon Titan on Friday, Sept. 24, taking a long, sustained look at the hazy moon. At closest approach, Cassini will fly within 8,175 kilometers ...

Saturn Moons In Ghostly Specter

Mar 08, 2006

Ghostly details make this dark scene more than just a beautiful grouping of two Saturn moons, with Tethys on the left and Titan on the right.

Recommended for you

NKorea launch pad expansion 'nearing completion'

9 hours ago

A U.S. research institute says construction to upgrade North Korea's main rocket launch pad should be completed by fall, allowing Pyongyang (pyuhng-yahng) to conduct a launch by year's end if it decides to do so.

Mars, Saturn and the claws of Scorpius

15 hours ago

Look up at the night sky this week and you'll find Mars and Saturn together in the west. Mars stands out with its reddish colouring and you might just be able to detect a faint yellow tinge to Saturn. ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (22) Jun 28, 2012
yet the methane in the atmosphere is unstable and will be destroyed on geologically short timescales.

So if there;s no mega internal source for methane, it'll mean a serious re-look at the formation of solar objects is required. Hence the next statement regarding ammonia.
Deathclock
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 28, 2012
What? No... do you just make things up as you go?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (28) Jun 28, 2012
What? No... do you just make things up as you go?
Well they have to dont they? Their books tell them so little of any real value. Embellishment and extrapolation are mandatory.
Tewk
1.7 / 5 (3) Jun 28, 2012
Seems a wonderful place for a human colony.
Stitllams
3 / 5 (1) Jun 28, 2012
Would that water be useful to us in space, if so would it be worth the trouble getting it.
barakn
5 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2012
Well, Kevin, knowing that Titan's atmosphere 1.2x more massive than our own and over 98% nitrogen, with the rest mostly consisting of methane and hydrogen, you'd have to be an idiot not to expect ammonia to be there somewhere. But you know all about being an idiot, don't you.
mjesfahani
1.1 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2012
Always, Nasa is saying there might be water there but no evidence has beeb found. Every time they repeat the same thing.
CardacianNeverid
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2012
Always, Nasa is saying there might be water there but no evidence has beeb found. Every time they repeat the same thing -mjesfunny

Why not? Hydrogen and Oxygen are in the top three most common elements in the galaxy and the solar system. Water is not uncommon.
kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 29, 2012
@barakn,DeathClock,Ghost:
You guys are fully aware that when the first mission went out there, cosmologists where fully expecting a veritable sea of ethane, hundreds of meters deep because of their long age expectations. And found none.

Now there's a very big puzzle to explain why titan still HAS methane in the atmosphere because it should have vanished within about 10k years UNLESS a major source for it still exists on the moon.

Therefore there's now a frantic search for ANY kind of source for such methane, including the newly calculated existence of a water table which could POSSIBLY supply the ammonia to make methane.

If such water [and hence ammonia] is not found, someone will have a major headache to explain away.

But, you knew all that, of course.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2012
This is another good test of a thin subsurface ocean, added to the earlier tests by crust rotation [ http://www.scient...ns-crust @ 2008] :

"Last year, researchers reported that radar mapping of Titan by the Cassini spacecraft had found a peculiar shift in landmarks on the moon's surface of up to 19 miles (30 kilometers) between October 2004 and May 2007.

Now investigators say the best explanation is a moon-wide underground ocean that disconnects Titan's icy crust from its rocky interior.

"We think the structure is about 100 kilometers of ice sitting atop a global layer of water maybe hundreds of kilometers thick," says Cassini scientist Ralph Lorenz of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md."

"Writing in Science, he and his colleagues instead connect the geologic displacement to models in which Titan's atmosphere pushes against mountains on the surface."
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2012
As for habitability, this is good news, modulo the confirmation of an ammonia soak.

- There could be heat sources, either hydrothermal vents, cryovolcanism or convection breaking the inner ice analogous to how Europa's surface is now known to break into holes with floats at times.

- There could be minerals brought from the heat sources from below, as well as by break through impacts such as Menrva from above.

I assume the ammonia makes it difficult to imagine life despite this, since most chemical evolution pathways works best around neutral pH. But you can't rule it out either.

As for creationists, they shouldn't comment on science. Of course discoveries leads to new ones. Pitching in with conspirationists is even more ridiculous than the standard fare.
docmordin
5 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2012
So if there's no mega internal source for methane, it'll mean a serious re-look at the formation of solar objects is required.


Back when Voyager I passed by Titan, it detected an abundance of only 3%/mole fraction methane, which is sufficiently low to preclude the stable coexistence of liquid methane on the surface. Lunine, et al. ("Ethane ocean on Titan", Science, 222, 1229-1230, 1983) suggested that Titan's atmospheric methane may have broken down by a catalyzed photochemical reaction to ethane; the resulting ocean would consist of a 3:1 mixture of C2H6 and CH4.

(To explain, the dissociation steps of C2H6 involve loss of hydrogen by escape, with the postulated set reactions: 2CH4 -> C2H6 H2 and 2CH4 -> C2H6 2H. The intermediate molecule C2H2 plays the role of catalysis and shielding of C2H6 from photolysis. Furthermore, CH4 would break down at a rate of 1.5*10^10cm^-2/s and H/H2 would leave the atmosphere at 5.5*10^9 and 7*10^9cm^-2/s. The result is a 1km C2H6 ocean.)
barakn
5 / 5 (9) Jun 29, 2012
@barakn,DeathClock,Ghost:
You guys are fully aware that when the first mission went out there, cosmologists where fully expecting a veritable sea of ethane...
No, I wasn't aware. Cosmologists study the physical origins and evolution of the Universe and are not typically concerned with the details of one particular moon. It's quite telling that your understanding of science is so shallow that you get one branch of science confused with another. That aside, yes, many planetary scientists assumed that Titan's atmosphere was the source of the methane. But you're trying to convince us that seeking an alternative explanation is somehow a dirty, sneaky, underhanded, last-gasp thing to do. Which it might be, for a religious fundamentalist. But it is actually how science works - it's a strength, not a weakness. Science reacts to new information by reexamining and, if necessary, discarding hypotheses that don't fit and creating new ones.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2012
Always, Nasa is saying there might be water there but no evidence has beeb found. Every time they repeat the same thing -mjesfunny

Why not? Hydrogen and Oxygen are in the top three most common elements in the galaxy and the solar system. Water is not uncommon.


Liquid water is very uncommon indeed...which, reading his post, is what one would infer he meant...

As for creationists, they shouldn't comment on science.


Interesting. Are you threatened somehow by their comments on science? I can hardly see how you would be. However, such a statement reeks of some kind of fear...I'm baffled.
Anda
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2012
You're right Kevin. The reason for Titan's methane is because it is full of god shit... as your head. Ah and modernmystic's. And stop it please, I fear you so much :)
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2012
I don't believe in God...
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
Double post.
PhotonX
5 / 5 (7) Jun 29, 2012
kevintrs:
So if there;s no mega internal source for methane, it'll mean a serious re-look at the formation of solar objects is required. Hence the next statement regarding ammonia.
Nothing in this or your later quote suggests you read this bit: "Such an ocean could serve also as a deep reservoir for storing methane." Earth has trillions of tons of methane stored in ocean-bottom clathrates. Saying that we don't understand the mechanism of methane release on Titan is a far cry from saying there isn't a source.

@Modernmystic: "Are you threatened somehow by their [Creationists] comments on science?" It isn't that. It's that the signal-to-noise ratio plummets dramatically in almost all threads containing posts by kevintrs. It's annoyance, not fear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (16) Jun 29, 2012
Therefore there's now a frantic search for ANY kind of source for such methane, including the newly calculated existence of a water table which could POSSIBLY supply the ammonia to make methane.
Frantic. Frantic implies lack of patience yes? Seems to me it is religionists who lack patience. Scientists are content to gather evidence, formulate models based on that evidence, and adjust the model as more evidence is gathered.

Religionists take this process to mean that scientists dont know what theyre doing. Scientists are content to live with uncertainty. Religionists have GOT to know for certain, so much so that they had to fabricate explanations long ago that, despite their efforts, continue to crumble.

Impatience - a sign of immaturity. We now know exodus never happened. Archeologists tell us this based on the evidence. Think of all the sweaty brows of religionists FRANTIC to explain that.
a major headache to explain away.
Scientists LIKE headaches. You guys do not.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Jun 29, 2012
Religionists take this process to mean that scientists dont know what theyre doing.


Scientists would garner more respect if they didn't pretend they know things they don't. This happens quite regularly. Granted they admit mistakes and retract bold statements when proven wrong, however they erode their own authority by being too bold at times in their assertions.

Scientists are content to live with uncertainty.


Hogwash, most people piss their pants in the face of uncertainty...I would argue ESPECIALLY scientists. Why go about attempting to explain everything if you were OK just not knowing?

Religionists have GOT to know for certain, so much so that they had to fabricate explanations long ago that, despite their efforts, continue to crumble.


Agreed.

Scientists LIKE headaches.


Anyone who LIKES headaches is crazy, a masochist, or a liar. I'd say that there are some people who are "comfortable" with headaches and their ranks aren't limited to scientists.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2012
It isn't that. It's that the signal-to-noise ratio plummets dramatically in almost all threads containing posts by kevintrs. It's annoyance, not fear.


This I understand. If true a better statement IMO would have been-

"kevintrs, if you're not going to discuss science, and are more interested in hashing out religious dogma there are more appropriate venues on the internet than this website".

If everyone, and I mean EVERYONE did this he'd probably lose interest in agitating the general discourse. Granted he'd probably find another venue to try to get someone to agree with him. My guess is that he's quite unsure about his own beliefs on some level and, hence, needs people to reassure him that said beliefs are correct.

To meet such fears with belligerent attitudes and statements is almost certainly going to "fuel his fire"...

It also betrays fear about something in the responder too. A lot of projecting going on IMO.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
Scientists would garner more respect if they didn't pretend they know things they don't. This happens quite regularly

I see you're still full of shit. Scientists don't 'pretend' they know things that they do not - they make hypotheses which can be tested. You're ignorant of what scientists do. Instead, you read pop-sci headlines and often badly dumbed down, re-interpreted research and think that's how scientists behave. Rookie mistake.

Granted they admit mistakes and retract bold statements when proven wrong

That too is wrong. Admission of mistake would only be warranted if an error in experimentation or procedure was uncovered, not because a hypothesis or theory was proved incorrect. That is the scientific objective. And even in the former case, scientists are careful to ask for verification and fact checking by other scientists, as was the case with FTL neutrinos.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
Hogwash, most people piss their pants in the face of uncertainty

Scientists aren't most people - they're trained professionals who are well aware of the limitations of measurement and statistical analysis.

I would argue ESPECIALLY scientists. Why go about attempting to explain everything if you were OK just not knowing?

Boy, what a stupid comment.

Scientists LIKE headaches.

Anyone who LIKES headaches is crazy, a masochist, or a liar.

More example of ignorance or a lack of understanding of metaphor. Scientists are the types that love to unlock the workings of the physical world, whatever the discipline. This work is hard and requires skill, intellect, creativity and great patience - enough to give anyone a headache. But the bigger the headache, the bigger the potential scientific payoff. So yes, scientists do like headaches!
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2012
I see you're still full of shit. Scientists don't 'pretend' they know things that they do not - they make hypotheses which can be tested.


It wasn't too long ago that scientists were "sure" the atom was THE fundamental building block in nature. Until radiation was discovered there was no evidence to gainsay that assertion. The problem here is that they make pat statements about their tested hypotheses, apparently forgetting that they were in fact just hypotheses...

That too is wrong. Admission of mistake would only be warranted if an error in experimentation or procedure was uncovered, not because a hypothesis or theory was proved incorrect.


Or they made a statement of "fact" about their incorrect hypothesis. There's nothing wrong with the method, just its practitioners.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
Scientists aren't most people - they're trained professionals who are well aware of the limitations of measurement and statistical analysis.


They are trained professionals who are well aware of the limitations of measurement and statistical analysis...AND who piss their pants in the face of uncertainty...because they are in the end not Gods but people.

Boy, what a stupid comment.


I'm truly sorry you feel the need to belittle others constantly.

More example of ignorance or a lack of understanding of metaphor.


This is not meant as an attack, but I believe it's you who didn't understand the metaphor, or at least didn't address/understand the point I was making.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2012
As an aside, or more properly to the point of the article. I think it's very interesting they've discovered liquid water on Titan. It may very well be that the vast majority of any hypothetical life that exists elsewhere might indeed be on the moons of gas giants fueled not by photons spit out by stellar fusion, but by tidal heating.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
The problem here is that they make pat statements

Only the uninformed think that scientists make 'pat' statements. As I said before, if you read the actual scientific papers instead of pop-sci articles, you would know that.

There's nothing wrong with the method, just its practitioners.

LOL, someone has to prosecute the scientific method. Those are called practitioners. Having the scientific method without practitioners is as useless as your grasp of the method itself.

They are trained professionals who are well aware of the limitations of measurement and statistical analysis...AND who piss their pants in the face of uncertainty...because they are in the end not Gods but people.

WTF??! Are you insane?

I'm truly sorry you feel the need to belittle others constantly.

I do not. But sometimes a threshold of ignorance is reached where that becomes a requirement. Stop making silly comments on a science site.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
As I said before, if you read the actual scientific papers instead of pop-sci articles, you would know that.


"God does not play dice."
Albert Einstein

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
Lord Kelvin

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction"
Pierre Pachet

LOL, someone has to prosecute the scientific method. Those are called practitioners.


Huh?

Having the scientific method without practitioners is as useless as your grasp of the method itself.


So my "grasp" that the method is sound is incorrect? Please clarify.

WTF??! Are you insane?


I think it's quite sane to point out that scientists are people. Subject to the same foibles of all human beings.

I do not.


Yes, you do indeed. It's not meant as an insult, just an observation.

But sometimes a threshold of ignorance is reached where that becomes a requirement.


Disrespect is never a requirement.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
"God does not play dice."
Albert Einstein

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"
Lord Kelvin

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction"
Pierre Pachet

Seriously? You keep proving my point. Got any quotable quotes from Galileo?

So my "grasp" that the method is sound is incorrect? Please clarify.

No need to, what you have posted so far makes it clear enough.

Yes, you do indeed. It's not meant as an insult, just an observation.

What do I care if you insult me or not?

Disrespect is never a requirement.

Sure it is. The DunningKruger types deserve no respect. Respect is earned.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jun 29, 2012
Seriously? You keep proving my point.


If your point was...

Scientists would garner more respect if they didn't pretend they know things they don't.


Then yes I agree. I don't think this was your point though. Your point seems to be that scientists never make errors with respect to communication about the results produced by their occupation.

No need to, what you have posted so far makes it clear enough.


Which was what exactly?

What do I care if you insult me or not?


Clearly I can't speak to your state of mind regarding this. I include those qualifiers to make MY statements clear. IOW I care if you understand me clearly or not.

Sure it is. The DunningKruger types deserve no respect. Respect is earned.


If I have the desire to slap someone is it the same as if I actually do?

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 30, 2012
As for creationists, they shouldn't comment on science.


Interesting. Are you threatened somehow by their comments on science? I can hardly see how you would be. However, such a statement reeks of some kind of fear...I'm baffled.


Of course I'm not threatened as much as highly amused (try ROTFL) because their commenting is counterproductive. It is so highly inept (not knowing the science) and even if they would find something erroneous it would a) help science b) not show religion correct.

But aside from that I seriously think they shouldn't comment. We have free religion, free science and free expression -but we don't use free expression in church because it would be suppressing free religion if, say, hinduists argue their religion during a christian ceremony.

Similarly it hurts science if religious dimwits argue their religion instead of science on science blogs. It's not a threat but seen damage. Scientists are nicer, no quid pro quo - we wait for invitation.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (2) Jun 30, 2012
Oops, I should have read the thread before posting. I am sorry to have fed another troll. :-/

Too bad, the science is fascinating. The denialists, not so much. Hilarious, but as all good things you get bored eventually.

If they at least would comment _on_ the science once in a while instead of _at_ the science (and science envy is as stupid as penis envy)... That would be fascinating too.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Similarly it hurts science if religious dimwits argue their religion instead of science on science blogs.


How exactly can religious arguments hurt science? You say you're not threatened but you keep using language like you definitely ARE afraid or threatened...

Scientists are nicer, no quid pro quo - we wait for invitation.


You most certainly do not, and you all are just as disrespectful if not more so than religious people.
El_Nose
not rated yet Jul 02, 2012
@most people in this comment stream

kevin is right -- titan has a good amount of Methane and scientists have been trying to explain it for years... he happens to be educated on this topic -- as its been the subject of a lot of articles here for the last 4 years -- and scientists have not been able to explain the methane, it should have evaporated into space a few hundred million years ago.

Other articles support this -- do a search for yourself --- then come back and comment on this article once you understand the arguments
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 02, 2012
Scientists would garner more respect if they didn't pretend they know things they don't. This happens quite regularly
With religionists it happens all the time. I suppose this means they dont warrant any respect whatsoever.
It wasn't too long ago that scientists were "sure" the atom was THE fundamental building block in nature.
It wasnt too long ago that religionists were SURE that jesus was born in bethlehem. They are still SURE despite scientists having told them that bethlehem didnt exist when jesus was supposedly born. Scientists have by and large been able to change their minds in light of new info.

Religionists rarely do, except for apologists who struggle to accomodate. This is not respectable.

Typical religionist deception - Book of Abraham:

"It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smiths impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis] into a king and Osiris into Abraham."

-Perhaps romney will fix this if he is elected. But probably not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (15) Jul 02, 2012
kevin is right -- titan has a good amount of Methane and scientists have been trying to explain it for years... he happens to be educated on this topic -- as its been the subject of a lot of articles here for the last 4 years
So what Nose? His conclusions are spurious. Kev and MM and the rest learn just enough to justify their preconceptions, and they will discard what they have learned which refutes their beliefs. This is dishonest ergo immoral.
How exactly can religious arguments hurt science?
VD keeps posting that exerpt about religionists preaching to kids, that the loch ness monster proves that dinosaurs are still alive. This superstitious mindset only GROWS if permitted. It HARMS science by corrupting the minds of future scientists.

Angels and jinn are posited as real in gradeschools. By extension satan is also made real; as well as all those in his thrall, ie heathens, apostates, and infidels.

Religion should indeed be examined and taught as the pathology it is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (16) Jul 02, 2012
kevin is right -- titan has a good amount of Methane and scientists have been trying to explain it for years... he happens to be educated on this topic -- as its been the subject of a lot of articles here for the last 4 years
Scientists will explain these things. Religionists will NEVER explain them, and they THREATEN ongoing scientific efforts to do so. Superstition IS something to be very afraid of.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
titan has a good amount of Methane and scientists have been trying to explain it for years..

I don't know if you're aware of this: The reason why we do science is because we don't know everything.

Whenever we find something we can't (yet) explain it's a chance to learn. You know that word? 'Learn'? It's a bit different from 'making stuff up' (which is what those living in the Lala-land of religion do).
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Religion should indeed be examined and taught as the pathology it is.


I applaud someone for actually admitting this. I too agree that religion can be extremely damaging in too many ways to list here. That being said good luck getting rid of it. It would be worse than prohibition if you tried to ban it or curtail people's right to freely assemble and speak. I think illicit drug use is damaging too...I don't think it should be illegal.

What I was talking more about is that religious dogma has no argument to offer science with respect to almost every issue you care to name. Given enough time religion will go away on its own...it did for me.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Larsson quoth:

Scientists are nicer


Let's observe...

You know that word? 'Learn'? It's a bit different from 'making stuff up' (which is what those living in the Lala-land of religion do).


With religionists it happens all the time. I suppose this means they dont warrant any respect whatsoever.


Similarly it hurts science if religious dimwits...


...huh...

Kev and MM and the rest learn just enough to justify their preconceptions, and they will discard what they have learned which refutes their beliefs.


No indeed, I learned a lot more than that. Can you READ, I don't believe in God anymore.

However there are many atheists that do the same thing. Generally with human beings worldview comes first, then we rationalize from there...

To deny this doesn't help to solve "the problem"
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
It wasnt too long ago that religionists were SURE that jesus was born in bethlehem. They are still SURE despite scientists having told them that bethlehem didnt exist when jesus was supposedly born. Scientists have by and large been able to change their minds in light of new info.


Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe it would be better if scientists took to a more humble method of communication. How much respect does one garner for crying wolf...and then denying that you ever said wolf when everyone heard you loud and clear?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 02, 2012
Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe it would be better if scientists took to a more humble method of communication.
?? What are you talking about? You want scientists to be more POLITE when they tell religionists that their myths are not TRUE? 'Uh, ishmael, maybe you better have a seat, I have some bad news for you... would you like a tissue...'?

Religionists have been living lies. They intend to foist those lies on innocent people. They intend to stifle scientific inquiry because their lies make them feel good and they do not want to give them up.

Too bad. Like these guys, your monuments should be pulled down, with righteous indignation.
http://www.cbsnew...eritage/

Your superstition threatens the future of civilization. What about this merits civility?
http://www.jpost....d=276041
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 02, 2012
No indeed, I learned a lot more than that. Can you READ, I don't believe in God anymore.
Wait - what? Dude you ought to put this on your profile page along with an explanation so people know. And also to give otto credit for evaporating your soul.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jul 02, 2012
Scientists are nicer

Let's observe...


You know that word? 'Learn'? It's a bit different from 'making stuff up' (which is what those living in the Lala-land of religion do).

If you have the hubris to think you can play with the big boys (when you can't) then be prepared to be ridiculed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 02, 2012
Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe it would be better if scientists took to a more humble method of communication. How much respect does one garner for crying wolf...
Arf Arf

The future of religion in america:
http://www.wnd.co...-in-u-s/

Fast-forward 10 years... Detroit in flames.

'Fear the next generation.'
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
1 / 5 (1) Jul 04, 2012
@ ModernMystic:

"Let's observe...".

You pick people at random. I was discussing scientists.

"However there are many atheists that do the same thing. Generally with human beings worldview comes first, then we rationalize from there.."

Show me your data. Statistics says higher education makes many atheists out or religious, ergo they don't start as atheists. (It's in the Pew statistics somewhere, I'll have to get back to you if you ask me.)

And even if some do, how do we know they "rationalize"?
slayerwulfe
not rated yet Jul 10, 2012
are any of you actually involved in any thing! other than persons who comment? what area's are you studying? are all of you lonely baby boomers?