quote:
I admit, that it is poor science to conclude something based on lack of evidence. But the evidence we see today does fit with a young age for our solar system. So the point is still relevant, but we cannot deduce that there are no comets, and you are totally right on that.
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you are not making it easy.
The argument is based on misrepresenting the situation. The lack of observations is due to technical limitations and has nothign to do with the presence or absence of comets. Therefore it is consistent with ANY age for the solar system. It is not relevant evidence.
It is not a good point, it is either a dreadful error or an intentional misrepresentation.
quote:
Here is a point that I can use in my favour. Your logic is that the larger objects mean that there are more smaller objects of the same type. So the Kuiper belt with its many known large objects, which do not consists of known comets, must therefore have a multitude of smaller objects. However, based on your logic, these smaller objects will be of the same non-comet type material.
You misrepresent my point. I nowehre made the invalid assumption that the material composition of the objects present must be identical. Since a comet is composed of quite normal materials there is no good reason to suppose that they are absent. (Indeed, for all I know the larger objects do contain these substances - I have not investigated that matter).
quote:
Again, this is not enough to say there will never be comets observed. But to say that comets do exist there is likewise a un-scientific assumption
Which of course is not what I have been saying. My point is that Hummphrey's argument is worthless because it takes our inability to observe something as a good reason to assume that it is not there.
In fact, given the other evidence of age, it would be scientifically valid to assume that the Kuiper belt is a source of comets. It is the expanation which best fits the evidence. Humphreys on the other hand takes a piece of non-evidence, puffs it up with false significance and asserts that we should ignore all the genuine evidence of age. THAT is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific.