Deep Impact

Small Comets - hit the earths apmosphere about every 3 seconds or so. From Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe "The Big Splash" 1990

The "new" comets you speak of are making their first return since being launched from earth about 4500 years ago.

Comets are incredibly weak - gravitationally speaking. How did these fragile projectiles survive millions or billions of years? They should have all been torn apart by now.

The only planet that "exploded" was earth folks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />apparently you have no problem believing that ... earth, with about 70% of it's surface area currently covered with water, did not experience a global flood. Do you see the ridiculousness of your reasoning?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, just the ridiculousness of your assertion. Earth has undoubtedly had many massive floods as indicated by the geological record. Everytime a big asteroid drops into an ocean, the resulting tsunami makes the one last December look like a ripple in a pond. I have long felt that is the simplest explanation for the major salt flats just <i>east</i> of the Rockies and Andes -- tsunamis big enough to splash over mountains.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Small Comets - hit the earths apmosphere about every 3 seconds or so. From Louis A. Frank with Patrick Huyghe "The Big Splash" 1990<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Frank's prediction was falsified by deep-sky searches that failed to turn up any such small comets. The exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) implies that comets and asteroids are a central nucleus surrounded by an orbiting debris field. This is called the "Satellite Model" for comets, and its specific predictions for Tempel 1 are still looking good. But that model also resolves the conflict between Frank's results and the astronomical data. The comets Frank sees in UV hitting Earth's atmosphere are actually very tiny, but make a splat as big as their orbiting debris fields, giving an exaggerated impression of how big they really are.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "new" comets you speak of are making their first return since being launched from earth about 4500 years ago.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What, the universal law of gravitation has changed? If not, then the orbits of new comets all traceable to deep space 4500 years ago. They haven't been near the planets prior to discovery for over 3 million years.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Comets are incredibly weak - gravitationally speaking. How did these fragile projectiles survive millions or billions of years? They should have all been torn apart by now.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Torn apart by what? However, "weak" vs. "strong" is the central issue that the Tempel 1 experiment has hoping to test. And the results so far offer very little encouragement to "weak comet" advocates.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only planet that "exploded" was earth folks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Most people on this Message Board are familiar with the exploded planet hypothesis and the massive evidence supporting it. They will think you incredibly naive for stating such a simplistic, unsupportable belief. You should really read a bit of the evidence before going any farther over that cliff. See a nice summary on this web site in the article "The exploded planet hypothesis -- 2000". Hit the "Home" option at the top of this page and select the "solar system" tab. -|Tom|-

I'm trying to catch up, but this takes some time...

Tom wrote – in quotes: “On its face, the idea sounds like a child's fantasy. Meteorites associated with comets are carbonaceous rock. There is no such rock native to Earth.”

No, non-living particles becoming living organisms, and nothing exploding and becoming our universe, and massive information content generated by chance sound like a child’s fantasy. Carbonaceous rock is found in many places on the earth (Antartica, South Africa, Utah, etc.). Sometimes in very extensive layers. You apparently think that they were deposited here from an outside source. The burden of proof lies with you, because you did not see these layers deposited. What mechanism would deposit this rock in layers, somewhat similar to the sedimentary layers (which were laid my water, and lots of it.) It is here, it was here. Prove that it came from elsewhere. I say some of the meteorites are returning to the source (earth) from which they originated.

“The energy required to blast objects from Earth's surface out of Earth's gravity field would instantly vaporize any known substance. Then there is no way such comets could get from Earth to the Oort cloud.”

I guess we had better give up on space travel since anything we send up there will be instantly vaporized. Musta got lucky a few hundred times. There was a force capable of launching giant rocks, grains, debris and water into space. It involved massive water pressure and something called water hammers. Dr. Brown details how this happened, but you will have to read it for yourself. As for the Oort cloud, there is not one so the point is moot.


“Did Noah's flood occur millions of years ago?”

No. Noah’s flood occurred about 4500 years ago.


“The typical Oort cloud comet has an orbital period of 3 million years.”

This is not scientific fact, yet you state it as such. Show me the data that proves (or lends very strong support to) comets being 3 million years old. You are stating an assumption based on a theory full of holes – and an incorrect one.

“What would have made comets so black? “

What does it matter? What is the significance of that in relation to what we are discussing. I’m sure there are some very dark rocks here on earth. At some time it probably experienced significant heat. What is your point?

“Some meteorites are suspected of carrying bacteria, but it definitely is not genetically related to terrestrial life because it has different chirality.”

I find it interesting that you can determine something “definite” about something that is “suspected”. But that is what evolutionists have to do. Bacteria is massively abundant on earth and as far as we know, extremely scarce in the rest of the solar system. So, an intelligent person would assume the obvious. Chances are the bacteria and other organic material if the solar system came from the place where 99.999 (or something like that) percent of it is known to be. Again, evolutionist thinking does not concern itself about going against ridiculous odds. Don’t know enough about the “chirality” thing yet, so I will not respond, but I assure you there is an explanation, or your “facts” (assumptions?) are a bit off.

---

Dr. Brown has a long standing offer for a debate that no one to this point has taken him
up on yet.

---

“Such an idea could never get to the debate stage because it could never get past peer
review in the first place. The purpose of peer review is to screen out the tens of
thousands of wild-eyed, unscientific, non-viable ideas that are brought to the internet,
often via web sites.” Yes, the “peer” review. That would be much like you submitting a paper to the Vatican council attempting to disprove God exists. The big exception is that they may actually read it and respond, even though they already know you are incorrect. An evolutionist establishment will not consider something that threatens their “religion”.

In this case, I am sure the peer review experience will not be a pleasant one because
the author seems too uninformed about too many facts and too inexperienced in the whole
scientific process to know how to critique his own ideas and to remove bias from his
thought processes.

Pretty strong words about something and someone you know almost nothing about. Perhaps you should not be quick to make a judgment until you actually know what the theory is and the facts and data that support it. Dr. Brown has some pretty impressive credentials including a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from MIT.

Without such measures (called "controls" in scientific method), we all tend to convince ourselves that the ideas we find attractive are true.

You have no more “controlled” data than he does. Probably less, since we are talking about unrepeatable events in the history of the world and universe. Evolutionary theories on the subject require many, many assumptions. The more assumptions a theory requires, the more suspect it is. His theory only requires two assumptions. From there he makes his case nicely.

That is one reason the world has so many mutually contradictory religions. -|Tom|-

1+1=2, 1+1=3, 1+1=4, 1+1=0, numbers do not exist, so 1+1 is irrevalent.
All these statements contradict each other, therefore, there are a couple of possibilities here. All could be wrong, or one could be right and the others wrong, but not all can be right. In this case, Christianity, the Bible and Jesus are 1+1=2. God revealed himself to and through the Jewish people and their prophets. They have preserved His Word with a supernatural diligence. He established the New Covenant with His people (Testament) through the church, (which at its birth was entirely Jewish also).
Listen to what God has to say. “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools… They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:22, 25.

Please don’t make that mistake. If God is the Truth, you can’t afford to be wrong.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: The typical Oort cloud comet has an orbital period of 3 million years.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is not scientific fact, yet you state it as such.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I beg to differ. It is about as solid a fact as we have in physics, coming pretty directly from the universal law of gravitation applied to comets, which works extremely well in predicting their past and future behavior.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Show me the data that proves (or lends very strong support to) comets being 3 million years old.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Oort cloud ("new") comets are found on orbits with average period (time to go once around their orbit) of 3 million years. The data is comet observations and the analysis uses Newton's universal law of gravity.

I picked this point to respond to because, if you can't deal with this derived fact in some clear way, then you are talking about a new religion, not about science. Ask Dr. Brown if you need to.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You are stating an assumption based on a theory full of holes – and an incorrect one.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The universal law of gravitation? Your claim here appears completely indefensible on its face. Justify it or retract it.

I will state as a hard fact that there is no way the new comets we observe could have come from the Earth within the last million years unless aliens picked up each one and deposited it into its present orbit, presumably to keep us from tracing the orbits back and seeing plainly that they all came from the Earth a relatively short time ago.

And if you are in denial about this hard fact, then we have nothing more to discuss until one of us learns the error of his ways.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If God is the Truth, you can’t afford to be wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">People are too easily baited into challenging such a notion. So I will simply request that you refrain from religious remarks here, or take it to a board that deals with that subject matter. This one deals only with the science of astronomy, and "faith" is a bad thing in science because it means believing without sufficient cause. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Don't waste your time. Young earth creationist do not see anything that contradicts their ill conceived dogmas on biblical interpretation no matter the amount and certainty of the evidense. Like the Catholic church of old they oppose anything that contradicts their tiny and restrictive world view. Sad, really....they do more harm than good for the creator they wish to honor....As a man of faith it offends me, their arrogance and ignorance. But, what can one do?

When one looks at the moon, what is the main difference that stands out between the side facing the earth, and the far side of the moon? The facts are - it appears the majority of the large impactors hit the side facing earth. How does this fit with your exploded planet theory?

If God is the Truth, and the Bible is the Truth, which they are, then this belongs here unless you are not interested in truth.

rousejohnny - Everyone has "faith". The real question is in whom or where one places his/her faith. Jesus clearly believed that Genesis was a historical account if you read the Gospels. You don't really have faith in Him if you don't even believe what He said. If your faith is in "god" apart from Jesus Christ, forget it. It doesn't work that way.

Tom,

Christianity is not a faith in a God that is unseen an unknowable. Jesus Christ (God) walked the earth for 33 1/2 years about 2000 years ago and was seen by hundreds of thousands of people if not millions. The Gospels are eye-witness accounts and there are no known writings of the time that oppose the claims that the apostles made. You can ignore history if you like, but not a good move...