Short-period comets crater long-age theory

[@creationministriesintl]

See the full interview with Dr Mark Harwood here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpy5dpd_f5qmq9k For more information and further reading, see: → Comet Conundrum - creation.com/charon-crater-comet-conundrum → Comets and the age of the solar system - creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system → Kuiper Belt Objects: solution to short-period comets? - creation.com/kuiper-belt-objects-solution-to-short-period-comets → Our young solar system - creation.com/young-solar-system

[@kennethswenson6214]

Except the New Horizons spacecraft DID find evidence of craters on Charon

[@derekdavis3004]

@@kennethswenson6214 Yes, there are craters but not ones that would be caused by these theoretical reproducing comets. At least that is what I take away from this. I looked up this topic am I found images showing only large craters. There was even a caption stating that there was a surprising lack of small craters. I don't know for sure, maybe I am missing something myself.

[@kennyalbano1922]

While I disagree with the young Earth the ideas in the video are factually true. However a lack of small short period comet collisions instead of being a sign of a young solar system could reasonably point to low numbers of short period comets having existed since the solar systems formation. Scientists estimate the total number of short period comets of all sizes within our solar system to be at least one trillion but have observed less than 4 thousand. These findings may be evidence the estimates are wrong.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​​@@kennyalbano1922 what about when you combine all of the evidence together? It's impossible to put all of the evidence in one video or one short. CMI has a lot of articles on the topic, if interested. I believe their website is the best resource they have. They have one article in particular that goes through 101 evidences of a young earth and young universe. Just a thought. 🙂🙏

[@kennyalbano1922]

@@newcreationinchrist1423 I have been watching their shorts religiously lately. (Pun intended) I am personally an atheist by the way. I have also been commentating on a large number of them. There have been a number of videos for example in which they get most of their research correct but make the same one or two repeated errors in multiple videos. This is the case with the videos I have seen from this source regarding radiacarbon dating for instance. I get into more details if you would like.

[@JuergenBertram-ps7sy]

Well done, thank you !😊

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Good job, CMI 👏👏👏✝️

[@BillArmes-c8d]

So far evolution is the only thing that supports evolution.

[@pedroferreira2871]

And they say that it's "scientific"

[@nils740]

Well put! God bless.

[@ohanailo6681]

Evolutionist say, "10,000 to a 100,000 years?!" How the, "Hell" would anyone know any of that?

[@tartufo4870]

I agree 👍, evolutionists statements has no foundation, their Mickie Mouse story is just a fabulous theory 🤣🤣🤣🤭🤭🤭.

[@Glop1177]

Look up the term "thought terminating cliché".

[@avafury4584]

God's word will always lead us to truth. My life has been changed ever since I put my faith in Jesus Christ. Best dscision I ever made and creation science has helped me build that faith. Thank you.

[@omnivore2220]

That's all well and good, but you know that the long-age evolutionists will easily explain away every one of these short-term phenomena by saying that short term events happen all the time in an old universe. That the rings of Saturn, or the comets, et al, are relatively new does not mean that the universe is as a whole is new, any more than the fact that a rain cloud being only hours old means that the earth is only hours old, etc. And so your arguments will not phase them in any way. They cannot.

[@avafury4584]

While that may be true, does that mean we don't try? What about that one who does believe? Is it worth it for only one soul? I believe it is.

[@Crich_Leslie]

These prsesntations often simply serve to demonstrate that the truth is on the side of God & His word, for those open to it. Stubborn deniers will continue to raise or repeat objectiens, and dismiss evidence that they cannot refute.

[@Glop1177]

Is it possible that these arguments are just bad? If these arguments actually carried any water don't you think the broader scientific community would accept them? There are literally billions of comets in the Kuiper Belt so this argument that there's no source of short period comets... Well it's just a lie that no competent person would buy.

[@nils740]

Maybe, maybe not. But you may sow a seed of improbability, or at least some hesitation in their heart. There's too much proud explaining away in the atheistic world view imo and we gotta at least try to get them humbled, make them realize the supernatural behind. God bless!

[@kennethswenson6214]

Erm, except the New Horizons spacecraft DID find evidence of craters on Charon.

[@Glop1177]

Except for the Kuiper belt which is 100x as large as the asteroid belt and by itself provides a limitless resource of fresh Comets... Is this guy's degree in baking?

[@rustyporte]

There’s a neat video about the the surprisingly few number of small comets in the Kuiper Belt above your comment.

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

*Is this guy's degree in baking?* Doubtful. Most of his ideas are half baked at best.

[@Glop1177]

@@rustyporte few catalogued doesn't mean actually few. There are some 10000+ catalogued comets from the Kuiper belt. That by itself is enough to prove this science illiterate speaker incorrect. In reality there are billions to trillions of comets in the Kuiper Belt.

[@Muliaina-x5o]

It's kinda sad to see a young, promising woman being cought up in this noncense. She is asking leading questions to set up the old geezer to ramble on with his 'brillant' explanation. Probably has no idea what she is asking or the reason why. What a waste of a good life...

[@phedders]

So no response to the topic, no data to refute the explanations - all you can respond with is just rude ad hominem attacks. You'd be wiser to say nothing at all.

[@avafury4584]

It's never a waste of time to learn about God and his word

[@joshuapena6757]

Long period comets almost certainly come from the Oort Cloud. We can't see the Oort Clout in a telescope because it's simply too far away. However, the fact that almost all of the comets we do see have a highly elliptical orbit with the sun on one extreme end of the orbit is good evidence that they were initially pulled into orbit from a very long distance away, past Pluto.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

(CMI) it must be emphasised that the Oort cloud has not been observed, nor is it likely to be observable for some time to come. Consider this quote from Sagan and Druyan: ‘Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.’24 This raises a very important question as to the scientific status of the Oort cloud. Can something that cannot be observed, even indirectly as in the case of subatomic phenomenon, be classed as scientific? While the Oort cloud is often referred to as a theory, given the usual definition of a theory and the impossibility of observation, can the Oort cloud be termed a theory? Indeed, given that it is doubtful that this idea can ever be tested, one has to question whether the Oort cloud is even an hypothesis. (AIG) Most evolutionary astronomers talk about the Oort cloud like it's a fact. Yet they admit no direct observational evidence exists….. (Ken Ham) Evolutionists (who believe the universe is 14 billion years old) always have to come up with rescue devices (eg: fictional port cloud) because their belief doesn't make sense of what we observe…… (ICR) although astronomers talk of this Oort cloud as though it were real, they have found zero objects in that region of space……

[@joshuapena6757]

Please address my argument about the orbit

[@donbouteiller524]

What about the Oort cloud? I thought they had it all figured out.

[@MightyPotato22]

I think that's something that can't be proved Or disproved, sooo yeaj

[@Glop1177]

We know there are objects in the Oort Cloud we just don't know how many. The Kuiper Belt on the other hand by itself has enough Comets to limitlessly supply short period Comets.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

(CMI) it must be emphasised that the Oort cloud has not been observed, nor is it likely to be observable for some time to come. Consider this quote from Sagan and Druyan: ‘Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not yet a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence.’24 This raises a very important question as to the scientific status of the Oort cloud. Can something that cannot be observed, even indirectly as in the case of subatomic phenomenon, be classed as scientific? While the Oort cloud is often referred to as a theory, given the usual definition of a theory and the impossibility of observation, can the Oort cloud be termed a theory? Indeed, given that it is doubtful that this idea can ever be tested, one has to question whether the Oort cloud is even an hypothesis. (AIG) Most evolutionary astronomers talk about the Oort cloud like it's a fact. Yet they admit no direct observational evidence exists….. (Ken Ham) Evolutionists (who believe the universe is 14 billion years old) always have to come up with rescue devices (eg: fictional port cloud) because their belief doesn't make sense of what we observe…… (ICR) although astronomers talk of this Oort cloud as though it were real, they have found zero objects in that region of space……

[@Glop1177]

​​@@newcreationinchrist1423 Anyone (CMI, Ham, you) who claims we've found 0 Oort Cloud objects is a liar. The problem with the Oort Cloud is that it is so far away that most of what hypothetically constitutes it is invisible to us. What that means is that we know objects exist in the Oort Cloud but we can say very little confidently about the properties of that region. If I were you I'd stop spreading false information because it just undermines your religion.

[@theslugboiii5969]

Why does the lack of small craters on Charon automatically mean that the idea of the Kuiper belt/scattered disc supplying short term comets is incorrect?

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

What about all the long period comets we know of with periods much longer than 6000 years? Comet Hyakutake for example has an orbital period of 70,000 years. Are you going to claim God made all these long period comets "in transit" just to fool astronomers into thinking they were old? 🤪

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

30:00 This claim is completely false. See the paper *Impact craters on Pluto and Charon indicate a deficit of small Kuiper belt objects* Singer et al Science, Vol. 363, No. 6430, p955- 959 Mar 2019 Abstract: Collisions between Solar System bodies produce impact craters on large objects at a rate that depends on the population of impacting small bodies. Singer et al. examined impact craters on Pluto and its moon Charon. Some regions have had their impact craters erased by recent geological processes, but others appear to record 4 billion years of impacts. Because Pluto and Charon are located in the Kuiper belt, the distribution of crater sizes reflects the size distribution of impacting Kuiper belt objects (KBOs). The authors found fewer small KBOs than predicted by models of collision equilibrium, implying that some of the KBO population has been preserved since the formation of the Solar System.

[@DaveGreen-ft2vy]

Why does CMI focus so much on science? It's not their area of expertise

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

The Materialist Cosmology is still missing 95% of the energy and matter required to explain it's existence and motions. The sun is missing 99% of the angular momentum required for the nebular theory of our solar systems formation to be true. Astronomers claim a mass huge enough,in a perfect trajectory passed by tearing 99% of it's angular momentum away. Leaving the rest of the solar systems planets orbits moons etc; unscrambled. 😂😂😂

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

@@Vernon-Chitlen (facepalm) so much science illiteracy, so little desire to learn *Solar Angular Momentum Loss over the Past Several Millennia* Finley et al The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 883, Number 1, Sept 2019 Abstract: *The Sun and Sun-like stars lose angular momentum to their magnetized stellar winds. This braking torque is coupled to the stellar magnetic field, such that changes in the strength and/or geometry of the field modifies the efficiency of this process.* Since the space age, we have been able to directly measure solar wind properties using in situ spacecraft. Furthermore, indirect proxies such as sunspot number, geomagnetic indices, and cosmogenic radionuclides, constrain the variation of solar wind properties on centennial and millennial timescales. Read the bolded part.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

And yours is? Do you have a PhD?

[@ChristopherSmith-j9x]

🤭

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

Amazing this guy thinks astronomy has anything to do with biological evolution.

[@DaveGreen-ft2vy]

Why is cmi commenting on astronomy at all?

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

@@DaveGreen-ft2vy They throw whatever slop they can find against the wall to see what sticks.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Your universe can't exist, it's missing 95% of the energy and matter required to explain it's existence and motions. And the Sun is missing 99% of the angular momentum required for nebular theory of our solar systems formation to be true. You guys are no where near able to demonstrate the prebiotic chemistry required for you ever actually causing carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen sulfur and phosphorus forming a single protein or gene. 3.7 years ago non living matter became living is nonsense.

[@BmoreGrrrrl]

@@Vernon-Chitlen It's amazingly dumb to claim the universe can't exist when we're all right here living in it.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@ No, it’s amazingly dumb claiming your universe’s formation in a way that defies the laws of physics.