Not really. We have guesses with big giant holes in those guesses. Why doesn't it seem to be an issue to you?
Because we don't know the majority of things. Its a complex issue. We don't "have" to know everything. Though all of our guessse are based on hard evidence. So no I don't see a problem.
I take it you're basically backing away from the prospect of having an examination of these theories in light of calculations and evaluations that actually address the details and want to revert to the rabbit hole of the issue of authority trumping any attempt to poke holes in the mainstream.
I would like to stop you right here so I can make a point. I'm not appealing to Authority. No where have I ever said "well we're right because we're right". That is appeal to authority. What I am doing is called weighing evidence.
I'm still reading in on this comet "problem" you have posted on several different sources. I am doing so while in the middle of responding to this very post actually. But what the "problem" does is raise an intresting point. However a single iota of interesting evidence based on a calculation that sees a discrepancy between the timeframe that we have theorized for comets and the calculation of how long they have before they crash into the sun isn't a end all issue for the evidence.
Its based on many things.
1) Are the calculations correct? I haven't done the math but I will continue the debate under the assumption that they are correct.
2) Is the premis of the calculations correct? I'm still looking into it but lets still continue as if they are.
3) Are all factors calculated? This is a big one. Nothing in the calculations talk about variables or how things could have started or explinations. Its simply a talk about a base calculation based on what I assume is a correct premis without the additions of other factros.
4) If all of the factors are included that we know of and there is still a discrepancy we need to look at why?
So now we have a few possiblities if all of these are correct. First we have to verify that results by compairing them to other calculations to make sure that they can be trusted. If this is the one calculation that is off compaired to everything that fits in a neat little cordinance then we have to question why.
Your first assumption seems to be that we throw out the entierty of the theory an go with "young earth" theory. This is flawed because of the dmeonstrable evidence against young earth.
Instead we should look at the possiblity that we are missing factors. If we conclude that there are no factors missing then we need go to the final option.
Re-think our theory on how comets were formed. Its highly possible that the comets were formed later if there are no other possible factors or misunderstood evidences that would lead them to be older celestial bodies.
Dose that make sense?
Now if these calculations and inferences were in fact based on "incorrect assumptions" that you were able to prove were completely "incorrect" and based on provenly flawed interpretations, and if you were able to prove that the theories in question are impregnable and based on un-disprovable consistent evidence, you'd have a point. They would have more weight. But I don't think you're completely familiar with just how "Weighty" the "evidence" and "theories" that hold the mainstream constructs together actually are.
On the contrary. Specifically on comets I'm still researching. Its an interesting read if nothing else.
Here is something I would like for you to read in contrast to the evidence you provided.
How Were the Comets Made? » American Scientist
If you're not willing to have an objective examination of the data and concepts I do present which have actual backing, we have nothing more to discuss really. I don't really see much of the point of the post except a deceptive non-challenge. If your entire point is to write off things as incorrect and non-evidenced and to paint the status quo as proven and beyond doubt, there's really no point in carrying this further.
If I start doing that then I should stop. But at the same time I will point out if evidence that has been presented is faulty or misused in any way. That ist he point of this thread is to examine the evidence.
Just because I don't accept the evidence of find fault in doesn't meant that I'm simply writing it off because its creationism. Its because it has genuinily failed to uphold as strong evidence. Now I have done some reading and it seems that there are a few problems with the evidence presented for comets.
The first is that comets are not "primoridal". In fact its theorized that they are created in already existing sections of our cosmos from high powered collisions. So I don't see any reason to accept the idea that they must have been created at the same time as everything else.
Secondly the information that I have found specifically states that there are two distinct types of comets. Long term and short term orbiting comets. The difference is a short term comet's orbit is less than 200 years and a long term comet is more than 200 years for an orbrit. Some comets in fact have orbits that take several thousand earth years. So this immediatly debunks the idea that no comet could have survived more than 10,000 years unless they assume that it takes 10 or less orbits to crash into the sun.
Lastly there is already working into the theory that Jupiter and other large planets "capture" comets and can change their orbits drastically. This can work in favor to shorten their orbits or lengthen them. This factor was not introduced at all in the link that you provided for the calculations.
So I will continue to examine the evidence you put forth with scrutiny but I will be fair. The obsticals you must overcome now for this specific piece of evidence is to provide;
1-why is it assumed they are primordial?
2-how do they explain the calculations based on long term orbiting comets (orbits lasting longer than 200 years)
3-How does the math look when you add in the gravitational pull and sling of large planets such as Jupiter and saturn?
Or we can move onto another issue. I"m fine with either.
Otherwise, if I saw that the data in question was completely unshakeable, and the alternative ideas and calculations were completely dodgy, of course I'd accept that the "Mainstream" view is as impregnable as you might say. I'd take the Evolutionary Theism approach. But I don't for a reason. And it's not just because I "don't like science". It's because there are holes in the story on every level from biology to astronomy to oceanography to geology and beyond, that the mainstream does not like to address. If it works to write this off as "Conspiracy theory", oh well, we can leave it at that.
Well you need evidence to support your claims that science is full of gaping holes. We can jump back into evolution if you would like. Or you can bring others in. I would like to see evidences to the contrary of current theories that do provide evidence for creationism.
There are holes in science but that has always been so and always will be. The reason is because we don't know everything. But holes doesn't mean "incorrect" it means "not known yet". But contradicting evidence is another matter. Contradicting evidence is powerful.
Thats why I want evidence FOR creationism.
