Jump to content


Photo

Old Solar System Unlikely - "oort Comet Cloud"


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
4 replies to this topic

#1 goldendragon

goldendragon

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Buffalo

Posted 05 October 2006 - 09:57 PM

I recently read some information which I believe makes a old solar system unlikely and has to do with the "Oort comet cloud". I would like to read more about it and would welcome some reader feedback. If you could limit your discussion to the "Oort comet cloud" it would be much appreciated.

Here is what I read:

More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’ by Danny Faulkner
http://www.answersin...v15/i2/oort.asp


Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?
http://www.answersin...5/i3/comets.asp

#2 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 06 October 2006 - 01:24 AM

Well, the Oort cloud is a thesis. It is a speculative solution that fits the observation, the observation being that new or extremely long period comets seem to be arriving at a fairly regular rate.

Speculations on just how the mechanisms behind the hypothesis function have to be even more speculative than the thesis itself, so while perhaps interesting, they cannot be used as evidence for anything. And I don't see any falsification of the Oort cloud thesis in the material; it just stipulates some (speculative) limits to it.

As for evidence of the age of the solar system, allow me to point out that long period comets themselves bear evidence against a solar system of an age within the Biblical timescale: Several of them have periods of tens of thousands of years.

Hans

#3 Guest_CrisW_*

Guest_CrisW_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2006 - 01:44 AM

I recently read some information which I believe makes a old solar system unlikely and has to do with the "Oort comet cloud". I would like to read more about it and would welcome some reader feedback. If you could limit your discussion to the "Oort comet cloud" it would be much appreciated.

Here is what I read:

More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’ by Danny Faulkner
http://www.answersin...v15/i2/oort.asp
Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?
http://www.answersin...5/i3/comets.asp

View Post


Since the Hubble telescope is now being used to photograph these "imaginary" Kupier belt and Oort cloud objects you are going to have to come up with something a little more convincing than that to make the arguement for a young earth.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 October 2006 - 08:51 AM

Well, the Oort cloud is a thesis. It is a speculative solution that fits the observation, the observation being that new or extremely long period comets seem to be arriving at a fairly regular rate.


Given that the universe is as old as some claim. I like the way you worded your response. So many make speculative solutions and theories sound like fact.

When compared to what humanist want in order to believe God.

Humanist: Produce God.

Creationist: Produce Oort cloud.

It sounds about on the same level as far as evidence is concerned. But yet one is believable, and the other is not?

#5 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 08 October 2006 - 11:15 PM

Both are believable. I never said God is not believable. Bibilical creationsm fits all observations, because God has the power to do anything. It is when you try to figure out how the universe works without God's constant interference that things get complicated. Not impossible, but certainly complicated.

Hans




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users