Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
536 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 533 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 16 of 60 (565939)
06-22-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Flyer75
06-22-2010 1:58 AM


If comets have been proven by all scientists alike to only be able to "survive" for roughly 100,000 years ...

They haven't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Flyer75, posted 06-22-2010 1:58 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 17 of 60 (565941)
06-22-2010 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Flyer75
06-22-2010 3:28 AM


Re: sorry
Well, where do comets come from then??? Why do we still have comets around if they only last 100,000 years or less? When did they form? Just 100,000 years ago and if so, how? Will there be anymore comets when these ones burn up? Or do Oort Clouds really exist?

Comets are leftovers from the formation of the solar system.

And yes, the Oort Cloud exists. It's been directly observed. Same with the Kuiper Belt. We've detected quite a few objects out there.

Not all comets get burned up by the Sun - most of them are still sitting out in the Oort Cloud, too far from direct sunlight for anything to happen. But there are a lot of objects out there - as they move around in their individual orbits, occasionally they interact with each other gravitationally. This sometimes results in a comet's orbit getting changed, which sometimes brings it closer to the Sun, and we get a nice view.

There's no magic limit of 100,000 years on a comet's life. Their existence depends on their initial size and how much direct sunlight they get, and what they run into (remember Shoemaker-Levy, when it got caught by Jupiter's gravitational pull?).

Where in the world are you getting your info, Flyer? Did you read some report about an individual comet that's only expected to last another 100,000 years and think that meant all comets had some sort of shelf life?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Flyer75, posted 06-22-2010 3:28 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4780
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 18 of 60 (565974)
06-22-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Flyer75
06-22-2010 1:58 AM


If comets have been proven by all scientists alike to only be able to "survive" for roughly 100,000 years, how are any still around if the universe is 4.5 billion years old?

Where did this come from? This is bogus.

There are literally hundreds of comets around the Sun with orbital periods in multiple 100,000 years (for a single orbit!).

I don't want to hear about Star Trek type Oort Clouds either btw.

Is there something about objective reality that bothers you?

You may have some strange ideas in your head, Flyer, but you are a decent enough chap here. And you have been here long enough to know better than to spout something without having done at least a minimal knowledge search.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : Gotta take my own advice. Corrected facts and spelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Flyer75, posted 06-22-2010 1:58 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 06-22-2010 10:37 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 19 of 60 (565988)
06-22-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by AZPaul3
06-22-2010 9:47 AM


There are literally hundreds of billions of comets around the Sun with orbital periods in multiple 100,000 years (for a single orbit!).

Fixed it... :-)

Flyer, within the last ten years I read an article at Answers in Genesis that claimed that there was no evidence for the Kuiper Belt (a closer-in cousin of the Oort Cloud). Soon after that, when a couple of dozen Kuiper Belt objects had been discovered, AiG replaced that article with another article that said, paraphrasing, "yeah, there are a couple of thing out there, but not enough to explain comets!!1!!"

Quoting one page: "It should also be noted that the observed KBOs are much larger than comet nuclei. The diameter of the nucleus of a typical comet is around 10 kilometers. However, the recently discovered KBOs are estimated to have diameters ranging from about 100 to 500 kilometers." That's a classic example of YEC bullshit and obfuscation. KBO's are less reflective than coal, and are five billion kilometers away from us. They are rather dim. It is a technological marvel that we can detect the ones that are 500 km in diameter! Of freakin' course we haven't seen the 10-km diameter ones out there! We see them when they fall into the inner solar system as comets, though!

AiG doesn't seem to say a lot about Kuipers now that over 2000 of them have been catalogued.....

The Oort Cloud is much further from the sun than the Kuiper Belt - like 100 to 1000 times further. If it takes cutting-edge instruments to see Kuipers, it's not a big surprise that we don't see Oorts.

AiG link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/comets.asp

Swamp Donkey, where have you gone? Are you the Black Knight here under an alias?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2010 9:47 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2010 11:23 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4780
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 20 of 60 (565998)
06-22-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Coragyps
06-22-2010 10:37 AM


There are literally hundreds of billions of comets around the Sun with orbital periods in multiple 100,000 years (for a single orbit!).
Fixed it... :-)

Much obliged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Coragyps, posted 06-22-2010 10:37 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 21 of 60 (566015)
06-22-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SwampDonkey
06-20-2010 2:51 AM


Re: Question
Hi SwampDonkey,

Providing you ever come back I have a question.

Information is required for evolution to take place so my question is:

DNA has a tremendous amount of informatin stored in it, where did all that information come from?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SwampDonkey, posted 06-20-2010 2:51 AM SwampDonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 06-22-2010 1:59 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 12:28 PM ICANT has responded

subbie
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 22 of 60 (566027)
06-22-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
06-22-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Question
Information is required for evolution to take place

No, it isn't.

DNA has a tremendous amount of informatin stored in it,

Meaningless without a workable definition of "information," which no creo has ever provided.

where did all that information come from?

The new genetic material, assuming this is what you mean by "information," came from mutations.

Any other toughies?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2010 1:33 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 06-22-2010 3:19 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2010 3:29 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 23 of 60 (566042)
06-22-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
06-22-2010 1:59 PM


Re: Question
Let's let SwampDonkey handle these tough questions, should he ever return.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 06-22-2010 1:59 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 24 of 60 (566046)
06-22-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
06-22-2010 1:59 PM


Re: Question
Hi subbie,

subbie writes:

Meaningless without a workable definition of "information," which no creo has ever provided.

Especially one you agree with.

I take information to be a message with a sender that is responsible for the information and a receiver.

The information is any message the sender chooses to compose.

I know this won't meet your approval but so what?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 06-22-2010 1:59 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 5:00 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 42 by Dr Jack, posted 06-23-2010 1:03 PM ICANT has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 25 of 60 (566054)
06-22-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
06-22-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Question
I take information to be a message with a sender that is responsible for the information and a receiver.

The information is any message the sender chooses to compose.

OK, so I suppose in the biological case the sender is evolution, the message is the genomes ... and the receivers, I guess, are the ribosomes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2010 3:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 9:45 AM Dr Adequate has responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4780
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 26 of 60 (566083)
06-22-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SwampDonkey
06-20-2010 2:51 AM


OK, Let's try these.

1. Less filling or taste great?

2. Boxers or briefs?

3. Paper or plastic?

4. Cash or charge?

5. Hit or miss?

Yes, these are all on topic.

More later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SwampDonkey, posted 06-20-2010 2:51 AM SwampDonkey has not yet responded

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 27 of 60 (566096)
06-23-2010 2:08 AM


To those who were blasting me about the factual evidence of Oort Clouds, wikipedia has another viewpoint, if that website is allowed here. I have seen others quote it numerous times. From the website:

"The Oort cloud (pronounced /ˈɔrt/ ort, alternatively the Öpik-Oort cloud IPA: [ˈøpik]) is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun." This fits with what Coragyps was stating for the extreme distances of the Oort Cloud.

Note the word "hypothesized".

Also, "Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, astronomers believe that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System and many of the Centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well."

Reading the page in it's entirety I don't see any factual evidence that this cloud exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 06-23-2010 8:39 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

articulett
Member (Idle past 1708 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 28 of 60 (566100)
06-23-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Flyer75
06-22-2010 3:28 AM


Re: sorry
quote:
Huntard,

Thanks for the correction on the dates.

Well, where do comets come from then??? Why do we still have comets around if they only last 100,000 years or less? When did they form? Just 100,000 years ago and if so, how? Will there be anymore comets when these ones burn up? Or do Oort Clouds really exist?


http://hubblesite.org/...aq/answer.php.id=20&cat=solarsystem

That's the simple answer for someone without much of a scientific education. Why, where do creationists imagine comets come from? I don't recall them being mentioned in any holy book... And what does this have to do with evolution?

Edited by articulett, : No reason given.

Edited by articulett, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Flyer75, posted 06-22-2010 3:28 AM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Flyer75, posted 06-23-2010 2:41 AM articulett has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Kitsune, posted 06-23-2010 2:45 AM articulett has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2010 6:40 AM articulett has not yet responded

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 29 of 60 (566102)
06-23-2010 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by articulett
06-23-2010 2:21 AM


Re: sorry
Whether I'm ultimately right or wrong on the comet issue has no bearing on if it's relevant to evolution. Everything that we see around us that isn't man made is relevant to this question. If not comets, why not planets, the sun, moon, ect? They had to come from somewhere didn't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by articulett, posted 06-23-2010 2:21 AM articulett has not yet responded

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 2636 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 30 of 60 (566104)
06-23-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by articulett
06-23-2010 2:21 AM


Comets
And in astronomy news today . . .

Many famous comets may be visitors from other solar systems

One poster here said that Kuiper Belt objects have a very low albedo, which is the case for some but not others:

Astronomers Study Kuiper Belt Object During Stellar Occultation

And no, the Oort Cloud has not been directly observed (yet), which is why creationists love to harp on about how it doesn't really exist. Telescopes will shortly prove them wrong and they'll have to look for another red herring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by articulett, posted 06-23-2010 2:21 AM articulett has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Flyer75, posted 06-23-2010 2:48 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019