When this monkey reads such articles the expression “compared to what God knows, you humans know absolutely nothing at all” springs to my mind. The wonders of Saturn’s rings are beyond description, and so far beyond human understanding, it is amazing you all don’t fall to your knees and worship the Almighty God. You are really without excuse – Romans 1:20. The Heavens declare His Glory!

Don’t forget to subscribe to Creation magazine:

https://creation.com/en-au/creation-magazine

To read the author’s biography just click on his name below.

Gibber! Gibber!

Chugley

by Wayne Spencer

Much research has been done on the rings of Saturn since the completion of the NASA Cassini mission in 2017. Today there is a consensus among secular scientists that the rings could not have formed at the time Saturn formed. This is borne out of considerations from the data available from the mission.¹ It is clear that Saturn’s rings are eroding from micrometeorites and collisions. There is also a significant mass of material falling onto Saturn from the rings, referred to as ‘micrometeoroid infall’ or ‘ring rain’. It was estimated by secular scientists that the time required for the current mass of Saturn’s rings to fall into the planet is in the range of 150–400 Ma.² This is leading planetary scientists to consider new catastrophic models for the formation of Saturn’s rings and some of its moons.Various age estimates are possible because of how various parameters must be chosen to make the calculations.

The time for Saturn’s rings to fall into the planet (150 to 400 Ma) deserves clarification. Durisen and Estrada² estimate the ratio of ejected mass to meteoroid mass when dust particles impact on the ring objects. When this ratio, referred to as the ‘ejecta Yield’, is larger, it leads to a younger age, such as 15 Ma. But if it is assumed to be smaller, it leads to a larger age for the rings. Considering the Yield value as 10⁵ led Durisen and Estrada to the range of 15 to 400 Ma.² However, they commented, “The lower bound estimate of 15 Myr seems exceedingly short”.² Then they considered other analysis from Kempf et al.³ which dealt with quantifying the mass influx to the rings based on the Cassini Cosmic Dust Analyzer data. Kempf et al. estimated a minimum ‘pollution exposure age’ from the dust influx to the rings of 100 Ma.³ Durisen and Estrada thus chose a smaller value for the ejecta yield of 10⁴, which increases the lower bound estimate for the ring age to roughly agree with Kempf. Thus, Durisen and Estrada altered their estimated lower bound number from 15 Ma to 150 Ma.² This ring age also makes a significant assumption, which is that the rings were significantly more massive in the past than they are observed to be today (up to a few times the mass of Mimas). Various age estimates are possible because of how various parameters must be chosen to make the calculations.

The origin of Saturn’s many moons has become another issue of considerable interest since, in recent years, dozens of additional moons have been discovered. Note that some of the newly discovered moons may still have what is referred to as ‘provisional’ status while additional observations take place to confirm their existence and their orbits. The current total number of moons of Saturn listed by NASA is 146, with the most recent one discovered 8 June 2023.⁴ Saturn’s moon Pan lies in the outer edge of the Enke division within the A-ring. Moons Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Epimetheus, and Janus lie near the F-ring (outside the A-ring) (figure 1). Mimas lies just outside the G-ring, and Enceladus is within the E-ring, which is the outermost ring (table 1). The moons of Saturn consist of a large proportion of ice but also contain some rock. Today’s theories on ring formation sometimes incorporate moon formation as part of the models. Various computer simulations are explored to theoretically investigate scenarios for their naturalistic formation from an old age perspective.

TNO breakup

Following are three catastrophic models that have been put forward to explain Saturn’s rings since the end of the Cassini mission. The first of these involves the tidal disruption of a Transneptunian object (or TNO).⁵ This model was proposed in connection with the ‘Nice’ model that argues that the four outer planets formed closer to the Sun and then migrated outward to their current orbits.⁶ The mechanism has the TNO passing very near Saturn, which would cause it to pass within the Roche limit, so it would break up into fragments. One problem with this model is that to connect it with the outer planet migration of the Nice model puts it at more than 3.5 Ga ago, which is far too long ago to be consistent with the new data on Saturn’s rings. If it were later, such as 200 or 400 Ma ago, that timing is unlikely because TNO objects would not be likely to be in an elliptical Saturn-crossing orbit at that time. Also, tidal break-up events such as this tend to form only a limited number of large fragments, not many small objects like in Saturn’s rings. Simulations of these types of events also depend greatly on parameters affecting the collision, such as the velocity and angle of incidence.

Comet–moon collision

A second model proposed to explain Saturn’s rings is where a comet or centaur object collides with an early moon of Saturn and disrupts the moon.⁷ One advantage of making the impacting object a comet or centaur is that its orbit is more elliptical, and so it can be moving at a higher velocity. This moon would have to be a differentiated object (layered with an icy mantle). It would also need to have the majority of its mass as ice. The collision could generate many icy particles and fragments. Also, if a small moon with a rocky core but outer layers of ice should move nearer to Saturn, its own Roche limit would actually depend on its density. Thus, it is thought that the icy mantle of such an object would break up due to tidal forces at a greater distance from Saturn than the rocky core. So, it is thought the rocky core could stay relatively intact while the icy mantle breaks apart.

However, there is more to this model. Saturn spins relatively rapidly, and this creates a torque on moons that tends to cause their orbits to expand. This model proposes that the early moon which was disrupted was in a resonance with Enceladus very close to the Roche limit. This would be approximately at the outer edge of the A-ring today. It is believed that rings always form inside the Roche limit. This moon resonance led to generating heat in Enceladus (to help explain its liquid eruptions)⁷ and to the disruption of the other moon. One of the main difficulties with this model is that Saturn’s moons are usually believed to have formed with the planet, so a moon that no longer exists must have been present for a long time prior to the rings. This implies the moon that broke up must have remained near the Roche limit for a long time and did not migrate outward. It would generally be considered unlikely for a small moon to remain near the Roche limit because its orbit would become unstable. This model also attempts to explain the formation of Mimas, which has generated considerable debate as well. In this scenario, today’s moon Mimas is the re-accreted core of the earlier moon that was disrupted.

Saturn, Neptune, and Chrysalis

A third model was proposed in 2022 which makes use of a spin-orbit resonance between Saturn and Neptune and also involves Saturn’s moon Titan and another moon that was disrupted.⁹ This model proposes that between Saturn and Neptune there had been a resonant relationship which no longer exists. It also proposes that a moon existed in the past that no longer exists today, unofficially named ‘Chrysalis’. This model also suggests that Saturn’s moon Titan was once closer to Saturn, and it migrated outward. Theories that attempt to explain Saturn’s moons often make use of migration to explain how the moons could form nearer to Saturn and then move outward to their present orbital positions. The spin of Saturn and orbital changes for Saturn’s moons are important in this model.

Saturn’s spin axis precesses with a period that is close to the precession frequency of Neptune’s orbit. Also, the shape and rotation of Saturn are influenced by its moons. Titan, since it is the largest moon, has the greatest influence on Saturn’s rotation. In this model, Titan is believed to have once been nearer to Saturn, where it would have altered Saturn’s spin axis. Add to this the existence of another moon of Saturn in the past (Chrysalis), which was similar in size, composition, and mass to Iapetus. The proposal is that Chrysalis came into an unstable orbit, likely due to perturbations from other moons, which caused it to come too near to Saturn, and it was disrupted by the tidal forces. The breaking up of Chrysalis would then provide icy material for making up the rings. But this complex scenario also attempts to explain the relatively large tilt of Saturn’s spin axis (which is 26.7°) as well as why Saturn and Neptune are not in the spin-orbit resonance today. The loss of the moon Chrysalis would have altered Saturn’s tilt and caused Saturn to exit the spin-orbit resonance. This model is supported by calculations and computer simulations.But long periods of time do not necessarily lead to the right patterns to explain what we see today.

This model combines multiple ad hoc hypotheses to explain Saturn, its rings, Titan, and a possible resonance with Neptune. But this scenario at Saturn requires multiple fortuitous effects to work out properly in order for it to affect the planet’s spin axis. It is plausible that moons could influence the spin of Saturn if their mass is sufficient and they are close enough to Saturn. However, a tidal breakup of a moon would not necessarily widely scatter debris in a way that would lead to Saturn’s current rings. Scientists tend to assume that long periods of time will lead to the debris settling into a plane and that the objects would naturally distribute themselves into rings, as we see. But long periods of time do not necessarily lead to the right patterns to explain what we see today. The end results of the simulations do not carry all the way through the process because much is not yet sufficiently well understood to model quantitatively. It is generally assumed that once a ring of objects has formed, given time, it will ‘evolve’ into something similar to Saturn’s combination of multiple rings A through E.

Conclusions

Planetary scientists have simulated a variety of collisions which break up moons of Saturn to form its rings. Collisions that are more head-on or at higher speeds tend to disburse the material over a wider range of angles and generate smaller-sized debris. The general process following moon disruption is that the debris tends to spread out along the moon’s orbit. Then there would be a long period of the objects spreading out and settling into a flattened disk. It is important to note that the distance from the outer edge of the A-ring to the inner edge of the C-ring is over 62,000 km.¹⁰ This is a broad region that the material coming from a collision or tidal breakup would have to spread across. From simulations, the time for the debris to spread out and settle is generally thought to require tens of to a few hundred million years.

In Saturn’s actual rings today there are some notable differences in the composition and thickness of the main rings.¹⁰ Some models employ Centaur or TNO objects because they would be assumed to have a larger proportion of their mass as silicates or other non-icy material. The B-ring is the most massive ring, for example, but the C-ring has more non-icy material in it than the A or B rings. Computer simulations do not usually address these types of differences across the rings. The Cassini radiometer and Cosmic Dust Analyzer provide estimates of the non-ice content of the ring objects.² For the C-ring, the non-ice fraction was estimated at approximately 1–2%; the A and B-rings were in the range of 0.1–0.5%. However, a notable contrast to this was found when the actual cosmic dust particles (nanometre-sized) were analyzed by the spacecraft. The cosmic dust particles striking the rings were 8–30% silicate. This also suggests a young age since the ring objects are estimated to be 95% water ice.… the massive scale of Saturn’s rings has proved to be very challenging for scientists to explain using naturalistic models.

What should creationists conclude from the new models on the formation of Saturn’s rings and moons? It may be that rings made up mainly of small dust particles, such as Saturn’s E-ring, could have come about since creation. The same could apply to Jupiter’s faint dust ring. There are multiple known ongoing processes causing material to come from certain moons and spread out into rings. On the other hand, the massive scale of Saturn’s rings has proved to be very challenging for scientists to explain using naturalistic models. Complex impact and moon-breakup events can be modelled only very roughly and there remain many questions around whether these simulations are realistic. To say God created Saturn’s rings with the planet only several thousand years ago is still a legitimate approach for us today. This view would imply the Saturn system has been relatively stable since creation, though changes have taken place in the rings, and some rings may not have existed at creation. Saturn’s small moons may have had their orbits altered since creation, and some may have even collided or broken up since creation. Resonance effects between the rings and moons certainly shape the rings and gaps. But it’s not clear whether the resonances were created or whether they came about since creation. Saturn’s main rings may have come about by intelligent design and God’s supernatural action. There is room for creationists to further research the possibilities. More research is needed so that we may understand how the creation shows the glory of God.

Posted on homepage: 20 May 2025

References and notes

1. Spencer, W., Saturn’s changing rings, J. Creation 37(3):16, 2023 Return to text.
2. Durisen, R.H. and Estrada, P.R., Large mass inflow rates in Saturn’s rings due to ballistic transport and mass loading, Icarus 400:115221, 2023. Return to text.
3. Kempf, S. et. al., Micrometeoroid infall onto Saturn’s rings constrains their age to no more than a few hundred million years, Science Advances 9(19), 12 May 2023. Return to text.
4. SMD content editors, Saturn moons, nasa.gov, updated October 2023. Return to text.
5. Hyodo, R. and Charnoz, S., Dynamical evolution of the debris disk after a satellite catastrophic disruption around Saturn, The Astronomical J. 154:34–42, 2017. Return to text.
6. Spencer, W., The proposed origin of our solar system with planet migration; in: Whitmore J.H., (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 71–81, 2018. Return to text.
7. Dubinski, J., A recent origin for Saturn’s rings from the collisional disruption of an icy moon, Icarus 321:291–306, 2019. Return to text.
8. Spencer, W., Warm icy moons, J. Creation 29(3):97–103, 2015. Return to text.
9. Wisdom, J. et. al., Loss of a satellite could explain Saturn’s obliquity and young rings, Science 377(6612):1285–1289, 2022. Return to text.
10. Williams, D.R., Saturnian rings fact sheet, nasa.gov, 17 Jul 1995. Return to text.
11. Moons of Saturn, wikipedia, 8 June 2023. Return to text.