Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not Enough Comets in the Cupboard
Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | Creation-Evolution Headlines

Posted on 09/13/2003 5:17:25 PM PDT by bondserv

Not Enough Comets in the Cupboard   09/03/2003
There’s a shortage of comets.  The Hubble Space Telescope peered into the Kuiper Belt cupboard, and found it nearly empty – only 4% of the predicted supply was found.
    Astronomers needed a bigger storehouse to explain the number of short-period comets now inhabiting the solar system.  The Kuiper Belt, a region of small icy bodies beyond Neptune, has been the favored source of comets with orbital periods 200 years or less, but the new measurements, soon to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, are “wildly inconsistent” with the observed number of comets.  Astronomers expected to find 85 trans-Neptunian objects in the cupboard, and found only three.
    Science News1 calls this a riddle.  For this region to be a viable source, there should be hundred or even thousands of times as many objects as were actually found.  Perhaps the objects expected had been dashed into dust by collisions.  The measurements indicate that another hoped-for source at the outer edge of the Kuiper Belt “might not be sufficiently massive to spawn the short-period comets.”
    As quoted in the report in Science Now, how does one researcher describe the finding?  “This is very exciting work.”


1Science News Week of Sept. 6, 2003 (164:10): Ron Cowen, “Hubble Highlights a Riddle: What's the source of quick-return comets?”
A true scientist should be excited that a hypothesis proves false, as much as when it proves true; what is undesirable in science is ambiguity.  Unfortunately, no amount of evidence seems to ever cause naturalistic planetary scientists to falsify the idea that the solar system formed out of undirected, purposeless natural forces billions of years ago.  “Exciting” becomes their euphemism for baffled, disappointed, and clueless.  What would really be exciting would be to see a planetary scientist follow the data where it leads, and question the assumption that the solar system is so old.
    This empirical measurement leaves planetary scientists in a quandary.  Why do we still have comets after the assumed 4.5 billion years the solar system has existed, when we know they are burning out within just thousands of years?  Several recent comet stories reported here are leaving them with diminishing options: There aren’t enough sources, and they are burning out too fast to last 4.5 billion years.  This is very exciting work.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: archaeology; creation; evolution; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last
And Again!
1 posted on 09/13/2003 5:17:26 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DittoJed2; Elsie; JesseShurun; gore3000; AndrewC; jennyp; f.Christian; lockeliberty; ...
Ping a Ling!
2 posted on 09/13/2003 5:27:09 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I didn't take them, honest!
3 posted on 09/13/2003 5:31:32 PM PDT by JesseShurun (The Hazzardous Duke I wear ban deoderant now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
Chips of Ice Ahoy!
4 posted on 09/13/2003 5:34:43 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Hey bondserve:

Thanks for the ping.

I don't want to miss any of these blurbs.

Whose commentary, yours?

Vey vey good.

5 posted on 09/13/2003 5:36:06 PM PDT by dasboot (Celebrate UNITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
Thanks for the ping.

I don't want to miss any of these blurbs.

No problem.

The commentary is from Creation-Evolution Headlines, not me. I believe most of the commentary is by David Coppedge, but I could be wrong. David is a scientist at JPL working on the Cassini project for NASA.

6 posted on 09/13/2003 5:41:26 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Astronomers needed a bigger storehouse to explain the number of short-period comets now inhabiting the solar system

I can't believe that a scientific guess, umm, I mean theory, could be wrong

7 posted on 09/13/2003 5:46:00 PM PDT by JesseShurun (The Hazzardous Duke I wear ban deoderant now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
"Not Enough Comets in the Cupboard"

Similar to "One French Fry Short of a Happy Meal."


8 posted on 09/13/2003 5:47:50 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"Not Enough Comets in the Cupboard"

Similar to "One French Fry Short of a Happy Meal."

Apropos, Bravo!

9 posted on 09/13/2003 5:51:27 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
I like that be-bopp comet named after that berry
10 posted on 09/13/2003 5:52:50 PM PDT by JesseShurun (The Hazzardous Duke I wear ban deoderant now, keeps me safe all day and into the night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
Comet/Asteroid Views Evolve   08/12/2003
We have been told for decades that comets are the most pristine objects in the solar system, kept in deep freeze since its origin.  That view has “evolved,” says Southwest Research Institute, because astronomers have become aware of processes that can modify them over time.  Also, methods of classifying comets and asteroids need modification, claims the Royal Astronomical Society.  Categorizing them as Centaurs, Kuiper-Belt Objects, long- and short-period comets, etc. is misleading, because there are hybrid objects and no clear divisions in some cases.
The point is that science is always changing.  How many planetarium shows or science TV programs have you heard that made the claim that comets are pristine objects, unmodified for 4.6 billion years?  That they give us glimpses into the earliest state of the solar nebula before the planets formed?  We’ve seen some radical rewriting of solar system formation theories recently.  What commonly-accepted truths are being spouted today that are in for radical revision tomorrow?  Darwinian evolution, maybe?

Link

Be sure to check out the above Darwinian evolution link as well.

11 posted on 09/13/2003 5:58:42 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Depletion of the Kuiper Belt: another sad consequence of Bush's rejection of the Kyoto treaty.
12 posted on 09/13/2003 6:09:39 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JesseShurun
Hypothesis, Jesse...it all starts with a question. Then you make observations. Based on those observations you come up with working models...some to be further investigated, and some to be discarded. Ultimately, it is hoped that scientists can formulate a theory based upon those observations and models. However, the theory is always still open to modification...based on further observation. It is the process of science.
13 posted on 09/13/2003 6:15:04 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
and then again, maybe a big hand took'em. How you gonna prove it didn't? Hypothesis?
14 posted on 09/13/2003 6:24:38 PM PDT by JesseShurun (The Hazzardous Duke I wear ban deoderant now, keeps me safe all day and into the night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Never try to 'rassle a pig or teach calculus to a cow.
15 posted on 09/13/2003 6:42:04 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Never try to 'rassle a pig or teach calculus to a cow 'specially when yore up t' yer baldhaid in menoower yore ownself


16 posted on 09/13/2003 6:50:53 PM PDT by JesseShurun (The Hazzardous Duke I wear ban deoderant now, keeps me safe all day and into the night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Well duh! The sky fell, and we missed it....
17 posted on 09/13/2003 6:54:09 PM PDT by null and void (<----Awake and filled with terrible resolve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Well duh! The sky fell, and we missed it....

No, the problem is after 4.6 billion years there should be no comets left. Comets release material continuously. However the "just-so" stories of the scientists try to explain that there has to be a reservoir of comets "that have preserved them in a pristine state" to account for the percentage that we do see still in flight.

You can follow the other links to get the complete logic involved with the scientific model for comets.

The evidence continues to reveal their ignorance, and for some reason has a mounting desire to refute their faulty assumptions.

18 posted on 09/13/2003 7:11:06 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
No! No! No!

The Kuiper belt is not the origin of comets. The Oort Cloud, beyond Pluto, is where all these little wandering icy astral bodies originate.

Dem guys don't know much.

19 posted on 09/13/2003 7:15:02 PM PDT by goody2shooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Thanks for the heads up!
20 posted on 09/13/2003 7:22:16 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman; RadioAstronomer
However, the theory is always still open to modification...based on further observation. It is the process of science.

Here is a snip from this Link.

    As we have stated before, it’s not that materialistic scientists are unable to concoct a story to fit the data (they are a very imaginative lot, after all).  It’s that the data require a story to fit a belief.  They might retort that a Bible believer does the same thing, because he or she must fit the data to a belief, also.  But there are two advantages with a Biblical viewpoint: (1) The observation to assumption ratio is much higher, since they are not obligated to extrapolate observed processes billions of years into the unseen past, and (2) There is credible Eyewitness testimony available, at least for the big picture.  A scientist of Christian or Jewish persuasion can also be more open to question the conventional wisdom and provide a sanity check against materialistic dogmatism.
    Keep in mind that today’s headline mentions only a few of many problems with materialistic cosmogonies – search back through the chain links on Solar System for many more problems, some much worse (try just the next three, for example).  Surely a materialist cannot claim the rational high ground in the face of this many unknowns, anomalies, and puzzles, propped up by ad hoc just-so stories rigged to maintain a belief in 4.6 billion years of undirected natural processes, a lot of matter in motion that just happened to result in our lucky planet.

There is some good information that is well referenced on the website that provides these commentaries. Take a look if you get some time. He is a good one for pointing out false assumptions that are taught to the world by the scientific community.

21 posted on 09/13/2003 7:23:53 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goody2shooz
No! No! No!

The Kuiper belt is not the origin of comets. The Oort Cloud, beyond Pluto, is where all these little wandering icy astral bodies originate.

Dem guys don't know much.

Do you mean the scientists that did the research or the person who commented on the research?

Referenced by the green color commentator.;-)

Oort cloud only 10% of theory (Jan 31, 2001).

22 posted on 09/13/2003 7:29:15 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks for the heads up!

My pleasure, and thanks for taking the time to have a look.

23 posted on 09/13/2003 7:32:16 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
There’s a shortage of comets.  The Hubble Space Telescope peered into the Kuiper Belt cupboard, and found it nearly empty – only 4% of the predicted supply was found.

Ha ha ha ha. Just like there's a "shortage" of visible matter in the universe. Hey, maybe this could mean that instead of there being a shortage, people had incorrect ideas of how much there should have been to begin with!
24 posted on 09/13/2003 7:39:15 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Pink Matter Alert!
25 posted on 09/13/2003 7:39:41 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
You're quite welcome, thanks for posting it! Here's another bump for your thread!
26 posted on 09/13/2003 7:55:06 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
No, the problem is after 4.6 billion years there should be no comets left. Comets release material continuously. However the "just-so" stories of the scientists try to explain that there has to be a reservoir of comets "that have preserved them in a pristine state" to account for the percentage that we do see still in flight.

I think it's funny that you think articles like this reveal the ignorance of scientists, when all it does is reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of the general creationist researcher. Instead of providing viable research of their own, instead they choose to lob insults at the scientific community. Again they show their true colors.

Here's a preprint of the paper that they are crowing about. Maybe you should get a leg up on your creationist buddies, and read about what they think the implications of their work is, instead of relying on a press release. The paper actually reads quite well, especially the introduction(1) and the conclusion(4), and the summary (5), which is all that should really interest you.

Remember that the TNO objects that this paper is looking for is objects of about > 40 km in size. Most comets are 5-10 km in size. They are very undetectable even with the finest current optics. There could be a whole population of them, ground down from larger objects rubbing against each other. Considering how hard it was to image Halley's Comet at the orbit of Neptune, it just gets worse the farther away you get.

Finally, let me end with this statement from the conclusion: "The observed data is consistent with the interpretation that significant mass is present in the CKB (Central Kuiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies smaller than ~40 km. It is concievable that, within the standard model of accretion of planetesimals in a (gaseous) circumstellar disk, accretion timescales beyond 50 AU were simply too long for bodies larger than 40 km to form before the present day, or some disruptive event. We note that a substantial mass in D > 3km bodies in an outer Kuiper Belt should be detectable by occultation (of a distant object) surveys in the near future.

At any rate, it should keep the theorists busy for a very long time. The Old Universe theory is far, far, from being dead.

27 posted on 09/13/2003 8:21:06 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Thought you'd appreciate a ping on this, someone ripping on Bernstein's work.
28 posted on 09/13/2003 8:22:44 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
At any rate, it should keep the theorists busy for a very long time. The Old Universe theory is far, far, from being dead.

If you care to be enlightened, the website referenced in this article has been compiling 3 years worth of revealing, well referenced articles that exhibit the false presuppositions of the current scientific community.

There is a wealth of information for you to peruse if you are truly seeking the truth. It is irritating to the science community that someone within the scientific community is pulling back the curtain on the false assumptions that are continuously printed in the journals.

Knowing that you strive for intellectual honesty, I hope you can set aside your faith in the current models if they are shown to fall on their face.

29 posted on 09/13/2003 8:34:01 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
A true scientist should be excited that a hypothesis proves false, as much as when it proves true; what is undesirable in science is ambiguity.

Your observation is sublime. Too often the impression is left that there is disappointment when science is wrong or when certain biases aren't supported. What's that phrase we hear from the other side? Science is self-correcting?


30 posted on 09/13/2003 8:38:37 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Ha ha ha ha. Just like there's a "shortage" of visible matter in the universe.

Whenever someone declares a shortage, you can be sure the price is about to go up.

31 posted on 09/13/2003 8:42:27 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Good to hear from you Dataman.

Just to clear things up, the commentary was supplied by the source website. I agree his observations hit the mark.

David Coppedge runs the site and I was privileged to witness a presentation he gave last Saturday night. He specializes in the hard knowledge we have gained from our own solar system.

There is so much evidence that is inconsistent with a 4.6 billion year universe that it strikes a devastating blow on the possibilities of evolution. His commentary really cuts to the truth.
32 posted on 09/13/2003 8:46:51 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
A true scientist should be excited that a hypothesis proves false

Atheist (thinking to herself)- @#$%&$# Popper!

33 posted on 09/13/2003 8:51:44 PM PDT by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
Atheist (thinking to herself)- @#$%&$# Popper!


34 posted on 09/13/2003 8:54:26 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Too often the impression is left that there is disappointment when science is wrong or when certain biases aren't supported. What's that phrase we hear from the other side? Science is self-correcting?

You'll get no argument from me. These are exciting times to be a scientist!

35 posted on 09/13/2003 9:18:43 PM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease; bondserv
The observed data is consistent with the interpretation that significant mass is present in the CKB (Central Kuiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies smaller than ~40 km.

That is close to faint praise. The data could not have been much worse. They were expecting 85 bodies and found 3. If they would have not found any, then I suppose the wording would have been changed to "The observed data is somewhat consistent with the interpretation that mass is present in the CKB (Central Kiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies presently undetectable by current techniques.". Science is quickly becoming "Ripley's Believe it or Not" class.

36 posted on 09/13/2003 9:22:03 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"Those who believe the solar system is 4.6 billion years old have a burning problem on their hands explaining why comets are still with us. Like sparklers, they only dazzle for awhile."

Link

37 posted on 09/13/2003 10:06:50 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
If you care to be enlightened, the website referenced in this article has been compiling 3 years worth of revealing, well referenced articles that exhibit the false presuppositions of the current scientific community.

I'm well aware of the sea change that is going on in KBO theory. The author of this paper gave a colloqium at my institution about 18 months ago, on the dearth of objects already at that time. I'm also aware that there is a lot to be learned in the outer solar system regarding KBO's. The models have changed dramatically in 200 years (like everything in science). First, there was the Oort cloud in the 60's, then the postulation of the Kuiper Belt, which was later verified, and then, more recently, as more KBO's have been discovered, the division of the Kuiper Belt into zones, which are being narrowed and or discarded. Now there appears to be two populations of KBO's, an excited population, whose orbital dynamics have been changed by some outside force since the formation of the solar system (within the last billion years, I believe), and have not had time to reach a stable resonance orbit since then, and then the classical KBOs, which are in stable resonance orbits.

It's a cutting edge field, and things are going to change, no one should be surprised by that. If they are, it just shows that they are not paying attention.

38 posted on 09/14/2003 4:57:04 AM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
That is close to faint praise. The data could not have been much worse. They were expecting 85 bodies and found 3. If they would have not found any, then I suppose the wording would have been changed to "The observed data is somewhat consistent with the interpretation that mass is present in the CKB (Central Kiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies presently undetectable by current techniques.". Science is quickly becoming "Ripley's Believe it or Not" class.

Unlike the unscientific creationists works that you are used to reading Andrew, scientific papers usually list every possible interpretation of the data, given the author's assumptions. That's why, if at all possible, I read the paper, not rely on some press release or (even worse) some creationist claptrap on the subject. Since the author did the work, it is likely that he knows the subject better than nearly anyone else, and best of all, you might learn something.

39 posted on 09/14/2003 5:05:06 AM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Cosmology is a very exciting field right now. I envy you the opportunity to be exposed to the movers and the shakers in this field.

There are some great projects in route, as well as on the pad, that will continue to fill in our knowledge of what is going on out there.

Thanks
40 posted on 09/14/2003 10:53:30 AM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease; bondserv
I thought this so-far ignored section of the paper was pretty telling:

The nebular hypothesis for the formation of planetary systems is nearly 250 years old (Kant 1755) and yet observational support for the model is relatively recent...

Today we have many observations of dust and gas disks around young stars (O’Dell & Beckwith 1997; Beckwith, Henning, & Nakagawa 2000), evidence that supports the nebular hypothesis. Additionally, observations of dust disks around somewhat older stars suggest the presence of a population of dust-producing planetesimals in those systems, e.g. Smith & Terrile (1984); Greaves et al. (1998); Koerner, Sargent, & Ostroff (2001). Some of these dust disks exhibit structures that can perhaps be ascribed to embedded planetary systems (Kuchner & Holman 2003). There is also now abundant evidence for the final stage of accretion—planet formation—as extrasolar giant planets have been detected by radial velocity and transit observations (Marcy, Cochran, & Mayor 2000). Though the basic idea of the nebular hypothesis remains intact, each new round of observations has led to fundamental changes in our view of planet formation. The presence of gas giants at < 1 AU, for example, was not well anticipated by theory, and migration is now recognized as an important process.

In the "science" of dancing around the fire every time somebody gets puzzled, there is no big picture. But the big picture in solar system formation is that ours is not the only example, and we can see various of stages of it happening out there, if not with the resolution we would wish.

The point of the dance around the fire is that mainstream astronomy (which, Believe It Or Not, is AKA "Evolution") has just collapsed and now we all know the universe was shazammed out in 6 days 6K years ago. But if the stars were all made at the same time, why do some appear to be just forming, or not-quite-formed even now? Why, after we put up the Hubble and other space instruments, did we find things forming the way we already thought we would?

A feature of the articles at bondserv's source is that they all focus on the point where a scientist sees a puzzle. Whenever that happens, he is "squirming" because his house of cards is collapsed. At least, according to that site's spin.

Indeed, there are always plenty of examples of this, since finding a puzzle is just the prelude to the next step. What that site ignores is the trail of solved puzzles extending back through the history of science.

41 posted on 09/14/2003 11:34:34 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The central point of C-E Headlines is:

Conservative Science = the observation to assumption ratio is small and reasonable.
Liberal Science = the observation to assumption ratio is large and unreasonable.

Shoot lower and overcome the desire to prop up evolution, it is more logical ya know, and your science will require less tweaking.
42 posted on 09/14/2003 11:51:54 AM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
The central point of C-E Headlines is:

... that every little stumble and bump proves mainstream [geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, paleontology, physics, whatever] to be all a house of cards. This is a faulty premise held for reasons apart from science.

The house of cards that is creationism collapsed in the 19th century. It's never going to be consistent with the data we have now, no matter what happens from here.

43 posted on 09/14/2003 11:59:43 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Shoot lower and overcome the desire to prop up evolution, it is more logical ya know, and your science will require less tweaking.

You don't get science. It will always require tweaking. It's never over.

44 posted on 09/14/2003 12:00:44 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
bondserv: "...less tweaking."

You don't get science. It will always require tweaking. It's never over.

When will you acknowledge that a model that supports evolution is the only one considered viable? Imagine a respectable scientist expressing their opinion that the evidence precludes the possibility of there being enough time for evolution to be possible.

Science community’s reaction:
BWHAHABWHAHAHABWHAHA!! Get off my grant.

45 posted on 09/14/2003 12:19:16 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
When will you acknowledge that a model that supports evolution is the only one considered viable?

Right now. Been saying it for years, actually. It's too late for anything else to be viable.

46 posted on 09/14/2003 12:21:07 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bondserv; All
Do I appear to be inconsistent? No one who understands a lick about science and how it works would think so.

There is always another puzzle, more to do.

However, it's too late for the earth to be perched on the back of a giant turtle. There are questions, but not about that.

It's too late for combustion to be the result of phlogiston rushing out of the burning thing. There are questions, but not about that.

It's too late for earth, wind, fire, and water as basic elements. Too late for phlegm, black bile, red bile, and blood as basic humors. Too late for a 6K years old earth. There are questions, but not about that.

47 posted on 09/14/2003 12:31:13 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Billions of Nautiloids Found Buried Suddenly in Grand Canyon   12/24/2002
Participants at the October 30 meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver heard a startling presentation by a creation geologist that should force them to rethink their assumptions of how Grand Canyon strata were laid down.  Dr. Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research has been studying a particular layer of the Redwall limestone for years, over a widespread area in Arizona and Nevada, covering the entire region from Marble Canyon (the upper part of Grand Canyon) to the mountains east of Las Vegas.  (One of his expeditions, in Kanab Canyon, was mentioned in our April 19 headline).  Wherever Dr. Austin has looked at this layer, he has found fossils of nautiloids (a squid-like animal with a cone shaped shell).  What’s more, the fossils all show preferential orientations that indicate a current, possibly 7 m/s, was flowing when they were buried.  The significance of this discovery for catastrophism is explained in the ICR newsletter Acts and Facts for January 2003:
Dr. Austin reported this theory that billions of large nautiloids were buried by a gigantic submarine sediment flow having regional extend.  The sediment flow hydroplaned westward through Nevada so fast it smothered and buried marine animals within the single layer of Redwall Limestone.
    Geologists had been accustomed to thinking of millions of years to deposit Redwall Limestone.  ICR scientists are reinterpreting the strata to have formed within minutes by catastrophic flood processes.
The newsletter says that Austin will be submitting a technical report to a peer-reviewed geology journal and the National Park Service for the “regionally extensive mass kill and burial event in the Grand Canyon region.”
Combined with the recent change of opinion about the formation of the canyon itself (see the July 22 headline), this represents a major shift in thinking about earth processes.  Dr. Austin has led expeditions into the Grand Canyon for decades, and has gathered all this data first-hand.  His credentials and evidence cannot be lightly dismissed with accusations about his motives as a creationist.  The fossils can be seen by anyone willing to look.  They cannot be ignored except by the same attitude that caused some of Galileo’s peers to refuse to look through his telescope.
    This find does not prove Noah’s flood, of course, but is certainly consistent with it, and inconsistent with slow and gradual uniformitarian processes.  A catastrophe this widespread and rapid is unprecedented.  It cannot be reconciled with Lyell’s adage that “the present is key to the past.”  Also, it is not just this layer that Austin and other creationists have demonstrated must have formed rapidly.  The ICR book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe is filled with information about how all the other layers show evidence of rapid deposition in water, even those thought to have been desert sand dunes like the Coconino Sandstone.  The old long-age interpretation is riddled with problems, such as huge gaps in the geological sequence with no evidence of erosion, and radioactive ages at the lowest layers that read “younger” than those at the top (also determined by Austin’s team).  The capstone of this story is to see even National Park geologists finally admitting, after a century of tales about millions of years, that large portions of the canyon formed quickly in recent times by catastrophic flooding.
    Creation research takes a big leap forward with this announcement.  The Geological Society of America, with its doctrinal statement opposing creationism, should be facing a crisis of conscience.

Link

48 posted on 09/14/2003 12:38:40 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Billions of Nautiloids Found Buried Suddenly in Grand Canyon

... And the evos are no doubt squirming. Amazing! Billions of nautiloids all buried at the same time in such a small space! Know what a nautiloid is? It's not a bacterium. It has non-trivial volume? Billions of them would have needed quite a lot of space and lots to eat, but there they were all right there to be buried by the flood.

If you read and think about this stuff instead of just rushing to slam the next one in some potential sucker's face, you could see where more time makes more sense.

49 posted on 09/14/2003 12:46:37 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Participants at the October 30 meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver heard a startling presentation by a creation geologist that should force them to rethink their assumptions of how Grand Canyon strata were laid down.

And do they listen? Naah!

50 posted on 09/14/2003 12:50:01 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-124 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson