Young earth evidence.

[Chi_Cygni]

Besides, from what I read Astronomers figure that the Oort cloud has at most the mass of about 1 Earth. It is not likely that this small amount of mass is enough mass to account for all of the comets that we see.

Actually that is wrong.

I agree the mass is maybe one Earth mass but that is more than enough for the comets.

Do you realise the Earth has probably about 1,000,000,000,000 times the mass of a typical comet.

 

[Micaiah]

First of all I don't need your permission to post.
Second, most threads die on the vine without some side thoughts or counter argument - that is why the forum is here.
Third, you didn't give evidence but well known claptrap. When you quote Gentry you are quoting a zealot who doesn't know what he is talking about. Try checking out his cosmology posts on www.arxiv.org

You do not have to make demeaning comments to prove your case. If you think someone or something is wrong, say so, and present your facts.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Then you admitt that it is strictly hypothetical and has not been not proven as fact?

Hypothesis in a scientific sense means something has evidence for it's existence. it doesn't mean it's made up fantasy.

It is a fact that the long period comets have a source that is spherical in distribution and that the aphelia of these comets are at some 10,000 to 100,000 AU from the sun. This source has been termed the Oort cloud. That is a fact if you will.

 

[Nova]

In the billions upon billions of years that the hypothetical Oort cloud is believed to have existed, even it would be gone now.

In fact if the cloud does indeed exist it would be great evidence for a young solar system

 

[Chi_Cygni]

In the billions upon billions of years that the hypothetical Oort cloud is believed to have existed, even it would be gone now.

In fact if the cloud does indeed exist it would be great evidence for a young solar system

Nova, do the math - it doesn't imply that.

That is more than enough mass to provide comets for several billion years.

 

[Nova]

Hypothesis in a scientific sense means something has evidence for it's existence. it doesn't mean it's made up fantasy.

It is a fact that the long period comets have a source that is spherical in distribution and that the aphelia of these comets are at some 10,000 to 100,000 AU from the sun. This source has been termed the Oort cloud. That is a fact if you will.

No that's just the turning around point of the long period comets. You simply assigned the oort cloud to that point.

It is also interesting the great size of this cloud that you lead us to believe it is.
That is 90,000 AU wide according to your post. That woud be 90,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun.

 

[Nova]

Nova, do the math - it doesn't imply that.

That is more than enough mass to provide comets for several billion years.

But according to the astronomers every 40,000 years a bunch of them are pulled out of this hypothetical Oort cloud and sent hurling towards the earth.
Besides the comets that are released on their own, there are a lot of 40,000's in those billions of years. As I said, even the Oort cloud should no longer be around.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

No that's just the turning around point of the long period comets. You simply assigned the oort cloud to that point.

It is also interesting the great size of this cloud that you lead us to believe it is.
That is 90,000 AU wide according to your post. That woud be 90,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun.

Yes that is correct about the dimensions.

And yes that is the aphelia distance for a reason. The long period comets ALL fall within that range. That must be for a reason.

Also the orbits can be from any direction - hence the spherical distribution argument.

Thus we have - common radius (via aphelia) and isotropic source - hence a spherical cloud based upon observation.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

But according to the astronomers every 40,000 years a bunch of them are pulled out of this hypothetical Oort cloud and sent hurling towards the earth.
Besides the comets that are released on their own, there are a lot oof 40,000's in then billions of years. As i said, even the Oort cloud shoould no longer be around.

OK say 4,000,000,000 years / 40,000 years = 100,000 events as you described.

Now if you have a cloud of approx. 1,000,000,000,000 comets that gives you a possible 10,000,000 comets per event.

Well we don't have anywhere 10,000,000 comets flying around at a given time (based on observation.).

There are at any given time probably 10,000 to 100,000 comets going around.

This is a heck of a lot less than 10,000,000 possible per Oort cloud peturbation.

Thus the Oort cloud can supply these things for a heck of a lot longer than the age of the Solar System.

 

[Micaiah]

I post this for those (like me) who do not know much about the ‘Oort comet cloud’.

Comets are continually being lost through decay, collisions with planets, and ejections from the solar system. If the solar system were billions of years old, then all comets would have long ago ceased to exist if they were not continually being replaced. Thus to sustain long-age thinking, a way is needed to ‘resupply’ the solar system with comets from time to time.

For years, evolutionary astronomers have believed that long-period comets (those with orbital periods of more than 200 years) come from the so-called ‘Oort cloud’. The Oort cloud supposedly contains billions of comet nuclei orbiting the sun thousands of times further from it than the Earth. Astronomers think that the gravity of an occasional passing star or other object, or possibly a galactic tide, causes comets from the Oort cloud to fall into the inner solar system. This mechanism supposedly supplies the influx of comets needed to overcome the conclusion that the solar system is young.

There are problems with the Oort cloud, the greatest being that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists!1 However, a recent study has revealed a new problem.2 Evolutionary theories of the origin of the solar system state that comet nuclei came from material left over from the formation of the planets. According to the theory, this icy material was sent out to the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the solar system by the gravity of the newly formed planets. All of the earlier studies ignored collisions between the comet nuclei during this process.

This new study has considered these collisions and has found that most of the comets would have been destroyed by the collisions. Thus, instead of having a combined mass of perhaps 40 Earths, the Oort cloud should have at most the mass of about a single Earth. It is doubtful that this is enough mass to account for the comets that we see. The researchers postulate ‘escape valves’3 that could supply up to 3.5 Earth masses, but this is still ‘low compared to recent estimates of the mass of the Oort cloud’. They go on to ‘speculate that a distant source region for Oort cloud comets’3 could resolve some other problems [emphasis added].

Of course, if the solar system is much younger than most astronomers think, then there is no need for the Oort comet cloud. Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence that the solar system is only a few thousand years old, just as the recent-creation model suggests.4

References
Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., Comets, Random House, New York, p. 201, 1985. Return to text.

Stern, S.A. and Weissman, P.R., Rapid collisional evolution of comets during the formation of the Oort cloud, Nature 409(6820):589–591, 2001. Return to text.

Stern, Ref. 2, p. 591. Return to text.

Faulkner, D.R., Comets and the age of the solar system, CEN Tech. J. 11(3):264–273, 1997. Return to text.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0221oort_cloud.asp

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Hey, I didn't insult you - I just pointed out I didn't need your permission to post.

You obviously didn't read my response about spiral galaxies carefully - there are several reasons why spiral structure can begin. By the way almost all galaxies have nearby companion galaxies that have noticeably affected their structure.

If you construed anything as an insult (which wasn't meant) then you are either very thin skinned, looking for reasons to accuse others or misrepresenting yourself.

PS

This isn't meant as an insult - but please be careful on spelling and/or typos. Your posts are very hard to read.

your intent was to be demeaning, i'm glat it wasn't aimed at me though.

Do you have simple proof of any galaxies doing this? I'd think that if it must occure within a few hundred million years of each galaxy spiraling you'd have some pictures.

do all the spiral galaxies have sister galaxies that will come every few hundred million years and respiral the galaxie, or are we just luckey in that we've got an abundance at this time?

wouldn't the effect have done harm to what would have had to have been a very life prosperous earth a few hundred million years ago?

does every spiral galaxy have a syster in range to have caused the spirals without them re-disking?

sorry if it's hard to undestand, i'm illeterate

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Micaiah,

There is much more recent journal papers on the Oort cloud and the current mass estimates I remember are 0.6 to 3 Earth masses.

I am an astrophysicist and this is not my research area but from what I have read in the last few years the lower mass estimates are not a problem for the Oort cloud being the source.

 

[Micaiah]

Here is another part of an article that outlines the arguments for a young earth from evidence relating to comets.

ABSTRACT
The existence of comets as an argument for a recent creation is examined. Most creationist presentations of this topic are out of date. To rectify this situation, the tremendous amount of work on the origin and evolution of comets by evolutionary astronomers over the past two decades is reviewed. While it was once thought that the Oort cloud could account for all comets, computer simulations have clearly shown that short-period comets cannot originate from the cloud, so the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain the origin of the short period comets. The alleged discovery of the Kuiper belt is discussed, while the status of the Oort cloud as a theory is questioned. It is concluded that the existence of comets is still a valid argument for a recent creation of the Solar System.

INTRODUCTION
The existence of comets has long been used as an argument for a recent creation (probably the best treatment so far is that of Slusher1). The case is usually made as follows. The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years). When combined with an estimate of how many trips around the Sun that a comet can survive, we can estimate the maximum age of comets. This figure is far less than the adopted 4.6 Ga age of the Solar System. Because no source of creation for comets has been identified, comets are assumed to be primordial. If this is true, then the age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

This has been recognised as a problem in astronomical circles for a long time. There have been several suggested resolutions to this problem, the most popular and successful being that of the late Dutch astronomer Jan Oort.2 Oort proposed a large spherical cloud of comet nuclei that formed early in the history of the Solar System. The Oort cloud is supposed to be at a large distance from the Sun, placing the nuclei too far away to be observed. The estimated radius of the cloud has varied over the years, and even from author to author. The inner cloud, where most of the nuclei reside, is believed to have a radius of 10,000 to 20,000 AU. An AU (Astronomical Unit) is the mean distance between the Earth and Sun, and is roughly 1.50 x 108 km. Estimates of the size of the outer Oort cloud vary, with a range of 40,000 to 150,000 AU from the Sun. At such great distances the temperature is so low that the nuclei can be preserved in a 'deep freeze' sort of environment so that they survive to today. Occasional gravitational effects of other stars, called perturbations, are believed to cause some of these nuclei to plunge toward the Sun and continue to orbit until they are exhausted in a time-scale much less than 4.6 Ga as mentioned above. Therefore this model suggests that all of the comets observed today have been in their current orbits for only a fraction of the age of the Solar System.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

 

[Chi_Cygni]

your intent was to be demeaning, i'm glat it wasn't aimed at me though.

Do you have simple proof of any galaxies doing this? I'd think that if it must occure within a few hundred million years of each galaxy spiraling you'd have some pictures.

do all the spiral galaxies have sister galaxies that will come every few hundred million years and respiral the galaxie, or are we just luckey in that we've got an abundance at this time?

wouldn't the effect have done harm to what would have had to have been a very life prosperous earth a few hundred million years ago?

does every spiral galaxy have a syster in range to have caused the spirals without them re-disking?

sorry if it's hard to undestand, i'm illeterate

Computer simulations of galaxy disks create spiral structure through interactions with other galaxies. Once created these structures can be very long lived as density waves.

Most galaxies have close companions that they interact with every few hundred million to a couple of billion years. our own Milky Way galaxy has companions that have certainly affected our galaxy in the past.

But an initial non-axisymmetric peturbation in the initially formed disk of the galaxy can also be a source of a spiral density wave that is maintained by the self gravity of the disk itself. There is a lot of computer modeling of this stuff.

 

[Micaiah]

Micaiah,

There is much more recent journal papers on the Oort cloud and the current mass estimates I remember are 0.6 to 3 Earth masses.

I am an astrophysicist and this is not my research area but from what I have read in the last few years the lower mass estimates are not a problem for the Oort cloud being the source.

Glad you can join us.

I will be interested to see this discussion unfold, and expect I'll learn from both sides. From a laymans perspective, I couldn't conclude beyond doubt either way from a quick scan through the information. I'd like to give it some more thought in the future. Trying to marry the age of the earth proposed by the 'evolutionist' and that suggested by the comets has evidently been a problem for scientists.

 

[lucaspa]

scientificly we don't know how old the earth is, but we can look at how old it's not:

The folowing is factual proof of the posible maximum age of existance and must be disproven before any older age indications can be found to have a scientific basis:

You did notice that all of these falsify a 6,000 year old earth, didn't you? Your youngest is 100,000 years and the rest are in the millions of years.

However, all of them have been addressed and answered. They ignore processes that refute the argument.

For just one, let's look at salts in the ocean. You picked sodium. Now, if the accumulation of salts were a reliable form of dating, all the salts would give the same age. But they don't.

Sodium is 260 million years, not 62 million as you stated. As someone noted, aluminum is about 100 years, lead is 2,000 years, silicon is 8,000 years, potassium is 11 million years.

What all this indicates is that salt concentration is not a reliable way to date the age of the oceans. It indicates that salts are removed from the oceans at variable rates. So accumulation tells us nothing about age. Each salt is in homeostasis with incoming being balanced by outgoing. That homeostasis can last forever.

 

[lucaspa]

Do you have simple proof of any galaxies doing this? I'd think that if it must occure within a few hundred million years of each galaxy spiraling you'd have some pictures.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908256 for the theory.

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring02/kormendy/ast386c.pdf for a syllyabus of a class.

http://aanda.u-strasbg.fr:2002/articles/aa/abs/2002/42/aaeg082/aaeg082.html this paper is based on observing 163 galaxies.

do all the spiral galaxies have sister galaxies that will come every few hundred million years and respiral the galaxie, or are we just luckey in that we've got an abundance at this time?

The papers here show that the spirals do not degrade as claimed, therefore this isn't necessary. Once formed, the spirals are stable.

 

[lucaspa]

The AiG article is dated 1997. It says there is no Kuiper belt, but the reference section includes this paper:
4. Cochran, A.L., Levison, H.F., Stern, S.A. and Duncan, M.J., 1995. The discovery of Halley sized Kuiper belt objects using the Hubble Space Telescope. Astrophysical Journal, 455:342–346.

That indicates the existence of comets in the Kuiper belt.

There is also this book: 8. Van Flandern, T., 1993. Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (Paradoxes Resolved and Origins Explained), North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, pp.179–192. The title suggests that there are answers in there, but somehow Faulkner says there are not. Huh??

http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/nemesis.htm

This site and the linked pages should give an introduction to comets.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/shadow/questions/question40.html

The idea that the Oort cloud is not stable for billions of years can be found only in creationist literature. I see no data in the scientific literature for this. So where did Faulkner get his "scientific" evidence?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

this paper is based on observing 163 galaxies.


The papers here show that the spirals do not degrade as claimed, therefore this isn't necessary. Once formed, the spirals are stable.

The fact is that we've observed galaxies that show the theory used to say spirals don't degrade is scientificly questionable at best. you are aserting unprovable, and highly questinoable theory as a verafied fact... i can *theorize* that UFOs created the peramids, and come up with all sorts of apologetics about how it MIGHT be true; but that does not mean that it is.

To me a yong earth is anyone less than a billion years old, otherwise you get a time crunch with your evolution that requiers devine intervention to work. When faith in evolution fails you can start to look at these things objectivly, insted of creating apologetics for the parts of the universe that prove this faith filled theory unlikely.

 

[Bushido216]

And on what basis do you make these claims? Lucaspa provided hard evidence for his point, you've done nothing of the sort.

And of course you could theorize one way or another, but as soon as someone asked you for evidence you'd come up empty-handed.