SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

No, just pointing out that since we observe some comets that must be younger than the solar system, your creationist model has to explain where new comets come from, too. What's your explanation, besides the Oort cloud?

New comets?

Yeah, the short period comets your source was talking about. What did you think he meant by 1400-year-old comets?

Oh, oh, well I believe the source of short period comets come from the Kuiper belt.------------------
"I AM THE MESSENJAH"holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com

quote:

---

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

---

Well Messenjah given that we have observed numerous Kuiper belt objects (QB₁ (1992), FW (1993) were the first two though there are many others) it would seem obvious that the Kuiper belts exsistence is not in any real doubt any more....You might want to read something a little more up to date, preferably penned by someone who actually does astrophysics for a living instead of Hovind or his ilk.....

quote:

---

Now this makes me think of evolutionist's explanation for comet's short life spans.

---

'Evolutionists'-- as if it were some organized conspiracy-- do not explain comets. It is frankly quite irritating to have all of science lumped into 'evolution.'

quote:

---

If evolution is true we wouldn't see comets right now.

---

Why?It looks to me like you go wrong right about here at the get-go. For one, this isn't even a valid induction. There is no connection between comets and evolution, so lets flesh it out. You've got two premises.1)If evolution is correct, then1a) the Earth must be very old1b) hence the solar system must also be old.2)If the solar system is old, then2a) its compliment of comets would have burned out long ago2b) and we would see no comets today.Okay, now it works.1) If evolution then old.2) Not old3) Therefore not evolution.The problem is in the internal logic of the second premise. There is no reason to think it to be true. For it to work, you have to assume that ...1) ... all comets began their destructive orbits at the time the solar system was born. There is no reason to believe this. The solar system is full of rock and ice. Planets orbit in mostly stable orbits. Asteroids orbit in mostly stable orbits. Why should comets be any different?2) ... no new material is ever thrown into comet-like trajectory, thereby becoming a comet. The gravitational fields of several of the outer planets could easily do this. There are also plenty of icy objects out beyond Neptune-- 70,000 known between Neptune and about 50 AU-- which could be pulled into unstable orbits making them comets. In fact, one class of comet has aphelia indicating an origin near Jupiter and nearly all seem to have once passed near the gas giant, making Jupiter a likely candidate for snowball thrower.3) ... we know everything about comets. Ironically, it is the creationist position that requires we assume an absolute knowledge of comets. Otherwise the argument just doesn't work. A scientist could just say, "We don't know. We'll find out eventually." But for this to work the way you want, you HAVE to assume that we know all there is about comets-- and we don't.

quote:

---

But due to the Oort cloud we can.

---

Only for long period comets. The Kuiper belt is considered the source for short period comets-- the important ones in this case. Like I said, there are 70,000 known objects in this belt.

quote:

---

Now noone has ever seen the Oort cloud, and you can not see it.

---

That no one has seen it does not mean that it cannot be seen, or deduced. The Oort cloud was not pulled out of thin air. Its existence was induced from the analysis of long-term comet orbits. In other words, a lot of them seem to come from that region of space.

quote:

---

This is called shifting the burden of proof.

---

It isn't, actually. Who is shifting the burden? The Oort cloud is a hypothesis intended to explain data. Is it accurate? We'll find out.

quote:

---

But the fact is that there is no proof for it so right now it can't exist as proof am I right?

---

If there were no evidence it could not be used in a chain of reasoning, correct. There is evidence.

quote:

---

I mean how do you believe something that you have no proof that it exists?

---

Ever hear the word 'conditional'? In the strictest sense, we have proof of next to nothing. We do have evidence, though. You just always make the mental note that your conclusions are conditional upon the evidence. If the evidence is wrong, so are the conclusions.You seem very concerned with the Oort cloud. I am not, in part for reasons already mentioned-- the argument really just doesn't work. But there are numerous other lines of evidence that indicate a much older than 6000 year old earth. The Oort cloud can exist or not exist, it won't change much. Those comets come from somewhere.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Messy, you appear to be misinformed and grasping at straws to try and "disprove" the theory of biological evolution.Firstly, it is the Kuiper Belt which is considered to be the source of short-period comets, not the Oort Cloud. These are probably the "short life span" comets which you mentioned in message #1 as, with their frequent visitations to the vicinity of the sun, they tend to lose mass and break up in a relatively short period of time. The Kuiper Belt was predicted to exist past the orbit of Neptune.At one time young earth creationists used to bleat that the Kuiper Belt was pure scientific speculation to cover up the reality of a solar system less than 10,000 years old. Unfortunately for them (and you?) science has advanced and objects have been sighted in the predicted Kuiper Belt. This article even details some of the Kuiper Belt bodies which have been discovered and provides further links, including a listing of the 300 odd Juiper Belt objects discovered since 1992.Are you going to desist with the argument that the earth and the solar system are less than 10,000 years old because of the presence of short lived comets?Secondly, the validity of the theory of biological evolution is only loosely linked to the age of the earth. The main timing constraint is that evolution is a slow process that cannot be readily observed in a short time but whose cumulative effects can be very significant over an extended period of time. An earth only 10 million years old would just as well satisfy this requirement; evolution would simply have proceed faster but still at a rate imperceptible to uninformed humans. The fact that dating methods demonstrate that life has been present on earth for more than 3 billion years and has diversified to its current state (after numerous catastrophic setbacks) merely informs us of the pace at which evolution can proceed. The evidence that it did in fact occur is to be found in the fossils and extant species.

As Truthlover explained the Oort cloud was not hypothesised to "save" an old Earth. That was already knwon to be a fact. It was hypothesised to explain why we still see comets. Now, if you have a better explanation - one that took into account the evidence of age (instead of insisting that the Flood would produce the same results as billions of years of more normal geological activity) then there would be a real problem for the idea of an old Earth.It isn't an example of shifting the burden of proof - because the proof of an old Earth (in the sense that "proof" exists in science") was already known. It's an example of finding the best explanation that fits the facts - even if we arenot in a posiiton to directly confirm or disconfirm it.As an aside the Oort cloud is observable in principle, and objects in the closer Kuiper Belt *have* been observed.

As I pondered this thread in my head at work, I think I figured out how to cut to the gist of the discussion.Basically, MJ, you're saying "evolutionists (by which you mean cosmologists) don't have to provide evidence for the Oort Cloud, so why do I have to provide evidence for God?"It's a fair question, until you start to think about how science works. See, it's more than fair, in science, to propose entities for which there is no evidence - yet. (It's that last three-letter word that's going to be the key, here.) See, you can come up with anything you like to explain the data in science and not have to worry about the evidence - so long as there's the potential for evidence to be uncovered later.After all, the difference between the Oort Cloud and God is that, given a spaceship of sufficient advancement we could actually go to the Oort Cloud (or at least, where it's supposed to be) and see if it's real or not.What's not fair in science is to propose entities that are untestable. For instance, a all-powerful being who chooses never to reveal his presence and is beyond the capability of man to approach or test.That's why the Oort Cloud is still science, and god is still make-believe. Because while we may have little evidence for each, the possibility for confirmational evidence for the Oort Cloud exists. After all we could go there and look at it, someday. But that can't ever be the case with god. No technology can let us run a test on god. That's sort of the point of god, right? He's beyond testing?I've tried to make this as clear as possible. Hopefully this helps you understand what others are trying to tell you.

The evidence from comets is evidence for an old, not a young, solar system.The (known) Kuiper cloud and capture by Jupiter explains fully the renewal of short-term comets, so there is no reason to suppose that they should be missing either in a young or old Earth theory. So this question is moot. Evidence neither way.However, the problem for Young Earthers is long term comets - in particular those with periods over 6,000 years. If Young Earth theories are right, comets with periods over 2,000 years (which will have made less than three passages - and those with periods over 6,000 years should be on their first passage - should show little or no signs of degradation by passages through the inner solar system.They do show such signs.Therefore they have made many passes through the inner system.Therefore the YEC theory is wrong.Quod erat demonstrandum.

Hi Mark,For the benefit of those among us not too familiar with comets, could you describe the evidence that some comets have made many passes through the inner solar system? What qualities does a comet that has made many passes (say, one with a relatively short period ilke Halley's) have that differ from one that has made very few (say, a very long term comet from the outer Kuiper belt that visits the inner system only every so many million years)?--Percy

quote:

---

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

---

Making sopmething up? Like claiming 'horned people' and 'giants' existed and somehow disprove evolution?

quote:

---

Other examples of evolutionists shifting the burden of proof:the Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, phlogiston.

---

Do you have any idea what "evolutionists" study? Hint: it's not any of the three things mentioned above.

Bulldog,Stop changing the subject. This is just the sort of thing that MessenjaH and I object to about you evolutionists. Whenever we present evidence, hard evidence, that evolution is a lie spewed from the maw of the Evil One, you people answer something like "what does speculative cosmology have to do with evolution?" or "why would that disprove common descent?" or "what are you doing in my basement?"It just goes to show how terrified you evolutionists are of the power of truth. I mean Truth.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

I wonder if it has something to do with the crystal structure of the comet - amorphous vs. crystalline, amount/type of dust found in the comets, etc. (???)