Comets

[evolution_false 0]

Over 300 comets crosses Earth's orbit. Now, earth has been around for a few billion years, according to the evolutionists. Now, I know they say there was on huge comet impact that wiped out dinosaurs. But Earth is a small planet, so dont you think that, in billions of years, with over 300 comets crossing earth's orbit, possibly more back then, there would be at least one comet strike destroying the earth completely or destroying all life, or knocking earth out of its orbit?

 

6000 years sound more reasonable of getting hit by only one major comet that just wiped out the huge dinosaurs.

 

billions of years and 6000 years are a HUGE difference. 300 comets crossing earth's path, which one sounds more reasonable that we are still alive?

[chance 1]

One only has to look at the moon, to see that in the early formation of the solar system impacts were rather more common than they are today. There is geological evidence, of multiple impacts on the earths surface, however one must remember that the earth is very active ad much evidence is erased by erosion, etc.

 

There are also reliable eyewitnesses accounts of modern impacts, on the earth and the Moon, and most famously, Jupiter (Shoemaker Levi 9).

 

Luck has much to do with it as anything else but basically you have a big (in volume) solar system and by comparison a very small target. It’s one of probability and some would say we are overdue.

[GTC 0]

Over 300 comets crosses Earth's orbit. Now, earth has been around for a few billion years, according to the evolutionists.

Around 4.5 billion years is the estimated age of the Earth.

 

Now, I know they say there was on huge comet impact that wiped out dinosaurs.

It was an asteroid estimated to be ten kilometers wide that impacted north of the Yucatan peninsula. Comets most likely would just burn up entering the atmosphere.

 

But Earth is a small planet, so dont you think that, in billions of years, with over 300 comets crossing earth's orbit, possibly more back then, there would be at least one comet strike destroying the earth completely or destroying all life

You seem to have confused comets with asteroids. It is asteroids that pose a threat to the Earth not comets, and it is not known exactly how many large asteroids have or will come close to Earth.

 

, or knocking earth out of its orbit?

It would take a massive object like another planet to do that.

 

6000 years sound more reasonable of getting hit by only one major comet that just wiped out the huge dinosaurs.

So you are suggesting the dinosaurs were wiped out by a comet less than 6000 years ago instead of 65 million years ago by an asteroid. But how do you explain the lack of evidence of such a devastating impact happening so recently? Especially if that impact inflicted such devastating environmental damage to the Earth.

 

billions of years and 6000 years are a HUGE difference. 300 comets crossing earth's path, which one sounds more reasonable that we are still alive?

Actually an Earth billions of years old which formed during the early stages of the solar system, makes more sense to me.

 

To put it simply.

 

Remember that the Earth has followed the same orbit for billions of years. If something was going to hit it, then it likely already happened before.

[RockerforChrist14 0]

"It would take a massive object like another planet to do that."

 

Please explain how if all planets originated from a big bang, why several of them and their moons seem to be flipped upside down on their axis, or at odd angles in their spin. Shouldn't they all be spinning the same direction?

 

"there would be at least one comet strike destroying the earth completely or destroying all life, or knocking earth out of its orbit?"

 

I think a better question would be, after billions of years, why are their still comets left?

 

"So you are suggesting the dinosaurs were wiped out by a comet less than 6000 years ago instead of 65 million years ago by an asteroid. But how do you explain the lack of evidence of such a devastating impact happening so recently? Especially if that impact inflicted such devastating environmental damage to the Earth."

 

In "the h*vind theory", supposedly a comet struck the earth and triggered the flood by stretching the crust which resulted in it cracking and the sub-terranian water chambers exploding outwards. Many pieces of the comet probably got sucked into the gravitational pull of other planets, and that's why we have rings of ice. Some probably struck the moon as well. The comet which is polar would have been sucked to the poles mainly, and froze a bunch of mammoths and other animals before they could fall over.

[Guest Admin3]

"It would take a massive object like another planet to do that."

 

Please explain how if all planets originated from a big bang, why several of them and their moons seem to be flipped upside down on their axis, or at odd angles in their spin. Shouldn't they all be spinning the same direction?

 

"there would be at least one comet strike destroying the earth completely or destroying all life, or knocking earth out of its orbit?"

 

I think a better question would be, after billions of years, why are their still comets left?

 

"So you are suggesting the dinosaurs were wiped out by a comet less than 6000 years ago instead of 65 million years ago by an asteroid. But how do you explain the lack of evidence of such a devastating impact happening so recently? Especially if that impact inflicted such devastating environmental damage to the Earth."

 

In "the h*vind theory", supposedly a comet struck the earth and triggered the flood by stretching the crust which resulted in it cracking and the sub-terranian water chambers exploding outwards. Many pieces of the comet probably got sucked into the gravitational pull of other planets, and that's why we have rings of ice. Some probably struck the moon as well. The comet which is polar would have been sucked to the poles mainly, and froze a bunch of mammoths and other animals before they could fall over.

3206[/snapback]

The makeup of a comet would actually make it a hydrogen bomb as soon as it entered our atmosphere. I saw a film once where they believe one hit in another country, around Russia I believe it was. But it was out in the middle of nothing except woods. These explorers had heard about what had happened from some natives that lived in the woods, and went to see it. They had only black and white film camera 16 mm, but from what they where able to film look like a massive bomb had gone off just above ground. For there was no impact spot. The trees were layed out like tooth picks in all directions from the center of the explosion. It looked like what Mt. Saint Hellens did to the trees around it. This damage to the trees went on for over a mile from the center. And they said the only reason it did not do more damage was because it exploded before impact.

 

And being they really had no bombs like that back then, a comet seemed to be the only thing that could have done that.

[GTC 0]

Please explain how if all planets originated from a big bang, why several of them and their moons seem to be flipped upside down on their axis, or at odd angles in their spin. Shouldn't they all be spinning the same direction?

Our solar system did not originate from the big bang but from a cloud of dust and gas that had condensed to form our solar system.

 

Most planets do spin on their axis counter clockwise with the exception of Venus, which spins clockwise, but its rotation rate is 243 days. Also the axis of Uranus is on such an extreme tilt that it almost spins on its side. The prevailing theory is that both planets were struck by massive objects and as a result had altered their rotation.

 

Almost all moons on the other hand spin at the same rate as they orbit. The exceptions being captured objects such as asteroids.

 

I think a better question would be, after billions of years, why are their still comets left?

Those comets follow stable orbits that do not intersect with any planets.

 

In "the h*vind theory", supposedly a comet struck the earth and triggered the flood by stretching the crust which resulted in it cracking and the sub-terranian water chambers exploding outwards. Many pieces of the comet probably got sucked into the gravitational pull of other planets, and that's why we have rings of ice. Some probably struck the moon as well. The comet which is polar would have been sucked to the poles mainly, and froze a bunch of mammoths and other animals before they could fall over.

An unusual theory to say the least.

 

So if I understand correctly this theory suggests that during the time of Noah God sent a comet to the Earth in order to create the flood. The comet created a global shift in the Earth’s crust unleashing all the underground water in order to raise the water level. The comet survived the impact and was ejected to the outer planets forming their rings. Pieces of the comet also impacted the moon in order to explain its craters. The comet impacted on one of Earths poles? Creating an instant ice age.

[GTC 0]

The makeup of a comet would actually make it a hydrogen bomb as soon as it entered our atmosphere. I saw a film once where they believe one hit in another country, around Russia I believe it was. But it was out in the middle of nothing except woods. These explorers had heard about what had happened from some natives that lived in the woods, and went to see it. They had only black and white film camera 16 mm, but from what they where able to film look like a massive bomb had gone off just above ground. For there was no impact spot. The trees were layed out like tooth picks in all directions from the center of the explosion. It looked like what Mt. Saint Hellens did to the trees around it. This damage to the trees went on for over a mile from the center. And they said the only reason it did not do more damage was because it exploded before impact.

 

And being they really had no bombs like that back then, a comet seemed to be the only thing that could have done that.

 

The Tunguska event has many unusual theories attached to it. Some of the more bizarre explanations are that an alien spacecraft exploded, a micro black hole passed through the atmosphere, a theory about anti time intersecting with time, and even just explained as an act of God, but I do agree a comet or asteroid is the most likely explanation for the event.

[evolution_false 0]

Those comets follow stable orbits that do not intersect with any planets.

 

Actually, I learned there are 300 comets crossing Earth's orbit currently. this is exactly my question. If there are 300 comets still left after 4.5 billion years, I'm sure there would have been quite a lot of comets like the one that hit Jupiter. Jupiter, as a gas giant, has a much greater atmosphere than the Earth. So, actually, there had to be quite a lot of comets big enough that they would not burn up in the earth's atmosphere and destroythe planet.

 

Anyway, if there are still this many comets left after 4.5 billion years, How many would there be 4 billion years ago? they would have overcrowded the solar system. and remember. there are other comets that dont cross earth's orbit.

 

Remember that the Earth has followed the same orbit for billions of years. If something was going to hit it, then it likely already happened before.

 

Ummmm thats my point there. 4.5 billion years. Wouldnt something massive enough to destroy the planet alerady have hit earth?

[GTC 0]

Actually, I learned there are 300 comets crossing Earth's orbit currently. this is exactly my question.

I think you may have misunderstood that statistic. There may be that many comets whose orbits carry them within the distance between the Earth and the sun but their orbits are usually on a different tilt than the planets are.

 

This webpage provides a few examples of the orbits comets take.

 

http://www.theastronomer.org/orbit_diagrams.html

 

If there are 300 comets still left after 4.5 billion years, I'm sure there would have been quite a lot of comets like the one that hit Jupiter. Jupiter, as a gas giant, has a much greater atmosphere than the Earth. So, actually, there had to be quite a lot of comets big enough that they would not burn up in the earth's atmosphere and destroythe planet.

Are you in present tense or past tense in this part?

 

You have to remember Jupiter has a far greater gravity pull than any of the inner planets and is far more likely to pull in objects from space. The comet would have had to of been much, much closer to Earth in order to be pulled in.

 

Anyway, if there are still this many comets left after 4.5 billion years, How many would there be 4 billion years ago? they would have overcrowded the solar system.

Indeed the solar system would have still been a violent place then.

 

Ummmm thats my point there. 4.5 billion years. Wouldnt something massive enough to destroy the planet alerady have hit earth?

Hey you edited your post!

 

I don’t think you realize how difficult it is to completely destroy a planet. Even if an object shattered a planet it would simply reform due to gravity.

[chance 1]

The makeup of a comet would actually make it a hydrogen bomb as soon as it entered our atmosphere. I saw a film once where they believe one hit in another country, around Russia I believe it was. But it was out in the middle of nothing except woods. These explorers had heard about what had happened from some natives that lived in the woods, and went to see it. They had only black and white film camera 16 mm, but from what they where able to film look like a massive bomb had gone off just above ground. For there was no impact spot. The trees were layed out like tooth picks in all directions from the center of the explosion. It looked like what Mt. Saint Hellens did to the trees around it. This damage to the trees went on for over a mile from the center. And they said the only reason it did not do more damage was because it exploded before impact.

 

And being they really had no bombs like that back then, a comet seemed to be the only thing that could have done that.

3209[/snapback]

The Tunguska event is almost certainly a comet that exploded in the atmosphere, the tell tale ‘butterfly’ shape of the downed trees from point zero is very convincing. The estimated size is something in the order of a bus from memory. There are a couple of other less well known events in South America.

[RockerforChrist14 0]

Wow, a lot of stuff has been said since last night, lol.

 

"Those comets follow stable orbits that do not intersect with any planets."

 

Yes, but comets have a life of what, 30 years or so? When you look up and see a comet and it has that big tail behind it, what do you suppose it is?

 

"Our solar system did not originate from the big bang but from a cloud of dust and gas that had condensed to form our solar system."

 

Uh, what?

 

"The comet survived the impact and was ejected to the outer planets forming their rings. "

 

Not really, that's highly unlikely I think. Pieces of it probably broke off from the pull of gravity from the other planets as it passed by.

[John Paul 0]

To crystaleaglesprings,

 

Comets vary in size and trajectory. The life of a comet depends on both. The larger comets should be around longer than the smaller comets on the same trajectory. If the trajectory takes the comet too close to a heat source the ice that binds the comet together melts more and the debris in the tail would increase. And as you know we can't keep taking from something and have it be around forever.

 

Or if a comet gets too close to a gravitational field, like LS-9, it gets torn apart then collides with what caused that feild.

 

We know comets last longer than 30 years. Both Hale-Bopp & Halley's are well over 30 years old. I am currently tracking a comet named Hyakutake on my automated star chart. It is in the constellation Cetus just below its main star Mira.

 

As far as how the solar system formed: (basic)

 

The Nebula Hypothesis

 

Link is broken, or does not work. You can pm me with the fix, plus the link to this post, and I'll insert the fix.

[GTC 0]

Yes, but comets have a life of what, 30 years or so? When you look up and see a comet and it has that big tail behind it, what do you suppose it is?

It is estimated that comets have a lifespan of 1000 orbits since comets eject 0.1 percent of their mass with each passing orbit. The material of a comets tail is highly reflective that is why we can see the tail on Earth.

 

Uh, what?

I had hoped you at least knew the scientific theories behind the formation of the planets and the solar system. Hopefully Google can provide you with some useful pages since I cannot give you enough info to cover the subject in this thread without writing an essay on it.

 

Not really, that's highly unlikely I think. Pieces of it probably broke off from the pull of gravity from the other planets as it passed by.

The problem isn’t how the material got there, its how that much material was there in the first place.

 

Comets are usually only 1-20 KMs in diameter so unless this comet was some sort of planet sized super comet the part about it creating the rings around the outer planets just doesn’t work.

[RockerforChrist14 0]

""Our solar system did not originate from the big bang but from a cloud of dust and gas that had condensed to form our solar system.""

 

So it originated from dust and gas that originated from a big bang? how would dust and gas get together if they're flying away from a central point? And by the way, I thought it started out with radiation only. So here you have radiation flying out from a central point, where will that get you? How did Uranium and all of the other elements come to be? Did they "evolve" from hydrogen?

 

And I know I'm not supposed to just post an article, but this is one that I'm reading right now, I think it keeps going for several pages and you have to click the "next" button at the bottom. I thought you guys might enjoy it, or maybe enjoy critiquing it.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Comets2.html

[GTC 0]

If you want a big essay about the big bang theory, the formation of the universe, galaxies, and the solar system you will need to create another thread and give me a few days to research and collect the information I’d need to present to you with a decent explanation.

 

As for the article you posted, to be honest I have never read such a poorly written piece.

 

Edit by Admin3: We do not go along with name calling of a member, or a quoted person and link. To suggest someone lies means you have absolute truth. And since science shys away from absolutes, they do not have this. So if your going to call someone's quote a lie, you'd better have an absolute truth to back it up. Other wise, just say you don't agree.

 

His whole argument collapses in his first paragraph.

 

It appears that the “fountains of the great deep†and the power of high-pressure water exploding into the vacuum of space launched comets throughout the solar system as the flood began.

The pressure of the deep ocean caused an explosion sending large volumes of water into space forming all the comets at the beginning of Noah’s flood.

 

I don’t think the author realizes the scale of what he’s proposing here. To put it simply no explosion of any size could send large enough volumes of water into space at a rate of speed fast enough to escape Earth’s gravity without vaporizing the water. The author also fails to mention the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud, both of which contain icy objects and are the source of comets.

 

It’s also interesting to note that the author doesn’t feel the need to explain this part of his theory any further.

[Roland Deschain 0]

While the link is an interesting set of reading material, it gives some really vague information.

 

So it originated from dust and gas that originated from a big bang? how would dust and gas get together if they're flying away from a central point? And by the way, I thought it started out with radiation only. So here you have radiation flying out from a central point, where will that get you? How did Uranium and all of the other elements come to be? Did they "evolve" from hydrogen?

It's called Amalgamation. Dust and gas cling to each other, once a critical mass is reached, it collapses in and thus planets were created.

[Guest Admin3]

It's called Amalgamation.  Dust and gas cling to each other, once a critical mass is reached, it collapses in and thus planets were created.

3292[/snapback]

Has this been observed, or theorized?

[RockerforChrist14 0]

"Oort Cloud"

 

Yet another philosophical idea to attempt to explain away the problem of the fact that there shouldn't be any comets left. Nobody has seen the Oort cloud. Oort never saw the Oort cloud.

 

"It's called Amalgamation. Dust and gas cling to each other, once a critical mass is reached, it collapses in and thus planets were created."

 

You're missing my point. If everything is heading away from a central point, then everything is getting farther away from each other. You can't gain mass by creating a larger distance. I think you may have forgotten to explain how radiation coming from a central point manages to create matter. Thanks.

[Guest Admin3]

GTC said:

 

I don’t think you realize how difficult it is to completely destroy a planet. Even if an object shattered a planet it would simply reform due to gravity.

Not always true. If a planet was destroyed, there is also the chance that it's gravity was destroyed also.

 

And there is something else. Smaller fragments are weaker in their gravity and pull. According to how many fragment a said planet was broken up into, would determine the gravity strangth of each said fragment. And because they are weaker, if they travel outside the range of each other's gravity, they cannot pull thenselves back together as you suggest.

 

Lets take our earth for instance. Lets say something destroyed it and broke it into four major pieces. None are equal in size or mass. But we will say that the strength of gravity was divided by 4 which makes each fragment 1/4 of what the planet was as a whole, just for easy math, and easy understanding.

 

According to their momentum would determine whether they would escape each other's gravity. But there are other factors as well. The sun's gravity would pull upon any object that was heading in it's direction from the break up of the planet. Making it move away from the other objects faster. Even if it all came back together, the other objects would all have to follow the one and settle for a closer orbit.

 

So to suggest that it would or could go back together without the these factors, is to make it look easy, when it would not be.

[chance 1]

Since comets are of topical interest at the moment (sort of, with the recent success of “Deep Impactâ€ÂÂ). I should point out that some asteroids could be classed as dead comets, as some fellow members of my Astronomy club have observed and reported very faint tails on some asteroids (under the right conditions). This seems to imply that some comets can form a crust or deplete their volatile components.

 

 

crystaleaglesprings

There are 2 proposed sources for the long term Comets, the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. The Kuiper belt has a few hundred objects confirmed, the Oort cloud is too far away for current technology and is more of a mathematical solution to the source of long periodic Comets.

 

A recent topical discovery re Kuiper belt LINK

[RockerforChrist14 0]

"the Oort cloud is too far away for current technology and is more of a mathematical solution to the source of long periodic Comets."

 

Where did the evidence come from for the idea of the oort cloud? "We know the universe is billions of years old, so there has to be a reason why there are still comets left. Oooh, here's a good idea. Let's invent this idea of a cloud that is so far away that nobody can see it, so it can't be proven wrong. Ahaa! The Oort cloud!!"

[chance 1]

"the Oort cloud is too far away for current technology and is more of a mathematical solution to the source of long periodic Comets."

 

Where did the evidence come from for the idea of the oort cloud? "We know the universe is billions of years old, so there has to be a reason why there are still comets left. Oooh, here's a good idea. Let's invent this idea of a cloud that is so far away that nobody can see it, so it can't be proven wrong. Ahaa! The Oort cloud!!"

3370[/snapback]

IMO,

a. It’s a mathematical solution insofar as “if a non/long periodic comet is observed, it mathematically, can come from the Oort cloudâ€ÂÂ.

 

b. in addition, the Oort cloud is consistent with some models of the early solar system.

 

c. there is some observational evidence in other solar systems, have a look at the link I posted previously.

 

But in some respects you are right no one has seen it, so the Oort cloud remains a hypothesis not a theory.

[RockerforChrist14 0]

"a. It’s a mathematical solution insofar as “if a non/long periodic comet is observed, it mathematically, can come from the Oort cloudâ€ÂÂ. "

 

What? You're saying just because a "long term" comet is observed, it mathematically could have come from the oort cloud? How can there be any math based on something that can't be seen and is completely imaginary? What you are saying, I believe, is that the "mathematical" here is the age of the universe. "Mathematically, the universe is too old for this comet to be here, so it must have come from this cloud somewhere." PLEASE correct me if I got the wrong impression. With this reasoning I could say, why couldn't God simply have created it?

[chance 1]

What? You're saying just because a "long term" comet is observed, it mathematically could have come from the oort cloud?

Yes. The speed and orbital parameters do not exclude an oort cloud, that’s about as far as you can take that part of it. It’s is not presented as a slam dunk for the existence of an oort cloud, it’s just a little bit of falsification, e.g. if long period comets came into our solar system in a straight line, at very high speed, that would be evidence against that comet coming from an oort cloud.

 

 

 

How can there be any math based on something that can't be seen and is completely imaginary?

What about negative numbers! I suspect that not what you mean however.

 

What you are saying, I believe, is that the "mathematical" here is the age of the universe.

No, just orbital mechanics, see first para.

 

"Mathematically, the universe is too old for this comet to be here, so it must have come from this cloud somewhere."

Not sure what you mean by this. The oort cloud is proposed to have formed as radiation clears the inner solar system when the sun switched on .

 

PLEASE correct me if I got the wrong impression. With this reasoning I could say, why couldn't God simply have created it?

You need to understand the principle of falsification with respect to a theory or hypothesis. If you come up with a new idea, that ok, but the second there is evidence against it, your idea collapses. So with the oort cloud it must be mathematically sound for it to get past first base, on it’s way to becoming a theory, currently it is only a hypothesis.

[Roland Deschain 0]

What? You're saying just because a "long term" comet is observed, it mathematically could have come from the oort cloud? How can there be any math based on something that can't be seen and is completely imaginary?

No offence ment, but that question is a double edged sword. How can their be a religion on something where the main deity has never been seen and may be completely imaginary?

 

Just because it cant been seen, doesn't mean it's not real.