Comet Speculation Doesn’t Hold Up To Observations

For many years, most astronomers believed that comets were the remains of the solar system’s formation some 4.6 billion years ago. One the other hand, creationists have argued that a comet is not that old because of it’s travel around the sun, where it experiences heat and other processes which causes it to disintegrate. As a result of loosing a lot of material, comets could not exist for more than 100,000 years.

Recent observations have falsified the long held belief by most astronomers that the comets were made up with the cold remains of the solar system’s formation…

“Though the mission was expected to provide a unique glimpse into the early solar system by returning a mix of solar system condensates, amorphous grains from the interstellar medium and true stardust (crystalline grains originating in distant stars), the initial results painted a different picture.”

“Instead, the comet materials consisted of high-temperature materials  including calcium-aluminum rich inclusions (CAIs), the oldest objects formed in the solar nebula.  These objects form in the inner regions of the solar nebula and are common in meteorites. The presence of CAIs in comet Wild 2 indicates that the formation of the solar system included mixing over radial distances much greater than has been recognized by scientists in the past.”

In 1999 NASA had sent a probe to comet Wild 2 in order to prove their theory and what they found of course was a conflict on what they had predicted for so many years. This shows the value of  observation in science. But the problem remains within secular astronomy when it comes to relying on speculation, a rescue attempt was made to counter the observation conflict with a inventive idea which is a “radial transport of material over large distances in the early solar nebula.”

Could that even be possible? A paper in science claimed the particle studied from the mission is 1.7 million years old, is that really reliable considering their track record with comets? If one cannot explain how it happened, it seems pretentious to claim to know when it happened.

Comets not only disintegrates over time, they also get destroyed…National Geographic reports

“SOHO was able to watch the comet plunging toward the sun thanks to its occulting disk, seen as an opaque circle at the center of the images. The disk creates an artificial solar eclipse, blocking out direct glare from the sun to reveal the fainter solar corona and surrounding stars, planets, and other objects. Zooming in from the left, as seen by SOHO, the comet starts to dissolve as it nears the sun, and it never reappears from behind the occulting disk.”

Not surprisingly, National Geographic reverted back to old speculation claiming there are other comets which contain the remains of the early solar system otherwise it would be an admission of observing young comets which is indeed what we are seeing. It’s certainly a blessing to have Stardust, Deep Impact and other missions that gather data to replace speculation which verifies the Bible!


5 thoughts on “Comet Speculation Doesn’t Hold Up To Observations

  1. The Daily Science article starts with:
    “Though comets are thought to be some of the oldest, most primitive bodies in the solar system, new research on comet Wild 2 indicates that inner solar system material was transported to the comet-forming region at least 1.7 million years after the formation of the oldest solar system solids.”

    This does not say the comet is 1.7 million years old, as you state. Read the rest of the article carefully.

    Finally: when are you going to answer our questions ? What are your science qualifications then ??

  2. I’ve already debunked this fairly common myth of young comets that young-Earth creationists cling to, both here and here. It’s an old claim (for a young universe) that really is one of the silliest.

  3. @astrostu206265:

    But the sad thing is that Michael does not even understand what the Science Daily article is saying …

  4. Oh yeah, Eelco, I realize that Michael mis-read the article as you stated. I just figured that for someone coming to this who may be on the fence, they could look at my posts on the subject.

  5. Eelco: “This does not say the comet is 1.7 million years old, as you state. Read the rest of the article carefully.”

    One might be tempted to write this off as a simple failure of eigth-grade reading comprehension. However, there is a pattern here as well.

    Creationists in general—and Michael in particular—convince themselves that anything which happened quickly must have happened recently. The earth must be young, because the Mediterranean Sea formed from an arid plain in less than two years. (That this happened 5 million years ago is conveniently ignored.). Conversely, they believe that everything that is now happening has gone on since the creation. The Enceladus plume proves a young solar system, because it would have exhausted the moon’s mass in only a few millions of years. (The plume could not have started somewhat after the moon formed—oh, no; not possible.)

    These inconsistencies bother them not at all. Whereas scientists must fit each piece of evidence to every other piece of evidence, creationists are free to look at each one separately, without any regard for how they relate to each other, or to consider any other possible interpretation than the one that comports with their beliefs.

    This is reason #84 why people laugh at creationists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s