SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

quote:

---

I don't believe that dinosaurs had a spoken language, although someone else may believe that they did. Let's suppose, for a moment, that in prehistoric times dinosaurs did communicate in a spoken language...would the fact that there is no available proof in terms of recorded documents, eye witness, audio recordings (as of present) to substantiate the claim indicate the dinosaurs who did speak were any less audible to one another.

---

from weary pilgrimNow this makes me think of evolutionist's explanation for comet's short life spans. If evolution is true we wouldn't see comets right now. But due to the Oort cloud we can. Now noone has ever seen the Oort cloud, and you can not see it. This is called shifting the burden of proof. Now it may exist, but we may never know for sure.
But the fact is that there is no proof for it so right now it can't exist as proof am I right? How do you evolutionists explain this. I mean how do you believe something that you have no proof that it exists? (please don't reference to my belief in God for I'm sure someone would have, this isn't the faith and belief forum)I want evidence if it is considered proof.
Thanks------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 08-26-2003]

Anyone care to explain this?
Thanks------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

bump

Maybe you're not getting answers because evolution has nothing to do with comets and other heavenly objects. Evolution might explain why we have fingernails and appendices, but why should it describe comets? Ask an astronomer, not an evolutionist. Comets are their turf.

quote:

---

Maybe you're not getting answers because evolution has nothing to do with comets and other heavenly objects. Evolution might explain why we have fingernails and appendices, but why should it describe comets? Ask an astronomer, not an evolutionist. Comets are their turf.

---

The fact of the short life span of comets would disprove the evolutionary timeline wrong. And proving the evolutionary timeline wrong would basically disprove evolution. Time is evolution's defense for many things. Saying it's not in an evolutionists field is a very bad explanation. It's not a question on astronomy in the first place anyway.
ThanksP.S. will any evolutionist care to explain what they feel on what I posted in the beginning post?------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

How can noone step up on this question!?

Sorry?Messenjah, the age of the earth (and the universe for that matter) was not calculated by evolutionists. Geologists and cosmologists do that. And it points to a ripe old age of billions of years. Many lines of evidence confirm this: radiometric dating, star parallax, etc.You seriously consider that the whole universe just popped intopexistence some 6000 years ago?

quote:

---

Sorry?
Messenjah, the age of the earth (and the universe for that matter) was not calculated by evolutionists. Geologists and cosmologists do that. And it points to a ripe old age of billions of years. Many lines of evidence confirm this: radiometric dating, star parallax, etc.

​

You seriously consider that the whole universe just popped intopexistence some 6000 years ago?

---

I presented the comets for evidence against an old earth, you haven't revealed your opinion on my original post, isn't unfair for me then to answer you? Furthermore.....
You make these assumptions with no revelations of evidence, nor do I want to hear what you have to say on that topic HERE, I am also sure you will refer to dating methods(carbon, radiometric) which are obviously flawed, please start a new topic to discuss this please, this isn't what this topic is supposed to be about!!!!!!!CAN I PLEASE RECIEVE SOME ANSWERS!!!!!!!!!
Thanks...........------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Boy, you're impatient. Your bump post #3 was two minutes after post #2. We know from a lot of other reasons that the earth is very old. Way back in the late 1700's and early 1800's Christian geologists were figuring out that the earth was old from the layers in the earth.Over the last couple centuries, we've learned how stars form and how long they last. We've learned how creatures evolve and how long it takes. We've also managed to learn the half-lives of many radioactive elements and thus determine exact times for the layers that those early Christian geologists could only guess at.Knowing the time frames we're working with, we know that if all the comets we see were formed when the earth was formed, 4.5 billion years ago, they'd all be gone by now. So we know that the comets must have formed later or entered orbit in the solar system later. Thus, the theory of the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud. We need an explanation for where the comets came from.That's not embarrassing. Many short term comets should be gone even if the earth was 6,000 years old. Even creationists would have to explain where comets with terms shorter than 6 to 10 thousand years came from. So becoming a YEC wouldn't solve our comet-source problem.What is more likely, that thousands of pieces of evidence from numerous fields of science that all mesh together are all false, or that there is a source for the newer short term comets in the solar system? The answer's obvious--extremely obvious--to anyone who wants Truth.Of course, if you hate the Truth because it opposes your religious beliefs, the answer may not be so obvious.

Thank you. But making something up to help your theory along is not right.

quote:

---

Short-period comets lose gas, dust and rock each time they swing around the sun. Some of these comets have split into several pieces and even disintegrated during observation. Even Halley’s comet showed an unexpected flare on its journey back into deep space recently, surprising astronomers and everyone else. R.A. Lyttleton calculated the lifetime of comets to be ten thousand years, [Lyttleton] and Fred Whipple calculated that the average short-period comet would make two hundred trips around the sun for its lifetime. [Struve] If Whipple’s estimate is true of Halley’s comet, which returns every 76 years, then Halley’s comet will exist only 15,200 years. This would mean that since the average circuit of short-period comets is only seven years, most comets would survive only 1400 years. If we suppose that the actual life span of comets lies somewhere between Lyttleton’s and Whipple’s figures, and assuming that comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, this could put an upper- limit of only several thousand years on the solar system. We might conclude that the earth must be quite young. Another possibility, and one that Van Flandern suggests, is that comets are the result of a planet breakup in the recent past. Van Flandern might be correct. There are other explanations for the origin of comets, and some of them are found in Harold Slusher’s Age of the Cosmos, which is available at Master Books (800-999-3777).

---

-Jon CoveyHow do you explain 10,000 year old comets?Thanks------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

quote:

---

most comets would survive only 1400 years.

---

How do you explain the 1400 year old ones?

Other examples of evolutionists shifting the burden of proof:the Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, phlogiston.My information was learned from: Page not found – Creation In The CrossfirePlease don't criticize the site to help your argument along. This is a topic on how evolutionist's shift the burden of proof.
ThanksFeel free to discuss this and your opinions are needed on this topic.------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

Did you just ignore the quote I posted by Jon Covey?

What does phlogiston have to do with evolution?There is of course a difference between shifting proof and proposing mechanisms that have yet to be observed but explain some data. After all Einstien proposed relativity before having seen any of the data that confirms it, and guess what? He was right.