NephilimFree; Typical Creationist Liar 5 - Marc Surtees 2

[mehja1]

Science cannot explain something simple enough for me to understand it right away?

Well, then clearly: God did it!

[Martymer81]

"If that's a hypothesis, then Kent Hovind's a scientist."

I love it!

[gamesbok]

Laplace wrote a book on the formation of the universe, and Napoleon ask why he hadn't mentioned God. 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, 'Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.' ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")

[Therealmiracleworker]

not an insult i only wanted to correct you one point "The University of Reading".

Reading is a town in the uk and is pronounced Redding. good video though. :o)

[BuStFaCe]

I know little about astronomy, some chemistry, and some biology, but not enough to weigh in on this subject, except for I'd be more apt to believe the scientist over any crazy religious person.

[okainuz]

it would properly have been us humans who have been draining all the suns fuel so a cupful of billion years of thees remaining 5 :)

[MajSmJz]

I've a question. How can one be sure to know that some comets revolve around the Sun once every 100k years? It's been a few centuries now that we've been observing them.

[JRChadwick]

When they are at the part of their orbits that take them within view of Earth, Astronomers are able to extrapolate its entire orbit.

[MajSmJz]

Did they extrapolate orbits with the comets that come every 80 years and succeeded with that approximation?

[lolgepwnt]

All that is required is the radii and orbital velocity of the comet, which can be measured with great accuracy. Combine those with the gravitational constant and some geometry then the mass and orbital period can be determined.

[MajSmJz]

Since space is so vast, some of the comets we see today may have started billions of light years away and have just arrived here only to burn near our Sun in a few thousand years. Why do we need Oort cloud?

[lolgepwnt]

Because saying that a comet god hurls them through space would just be silly.

[MajSmJz]

Could you be more technical and less layman-cinical? I'll repeat: Why does someone need an Oort cloud, since constant appearance of comets can be explained by them starting off billions of kilometers away (or some lightyears) and just arriving here, where we observe them and then imagine Oort cloud?

[lolgepwnt]

Because that isn't an explanation. Comets don't just appear and begin an elliptical orbit. Their precise physical origin is still not understood, so the hypothesis of the Oort cloud is used.

There may not be an Oort cloud, but it is a far better explanation that "starting off billions of kilometers away and just arriving here".

It's called science and it is a self-correcting discipline.

[MajSmJz]

They must've just appeared, since everything comes from big bang. That's their physical origin I guess. They could've been something else before gaining attributes of what we call comets now.

Anyway, evensgrey explained to me now that comets started out in the outer part of our solar system, because that's what the models of proto-planetary disks indicate. Thanks, evensgrey. And I thought we didn't have to invoke the Oort cloud :)

[lolgepwnt]

"They must've just appeared"

So the conservation of mass, energy, momentum and angular momentum don't apply to comets?

Comets are composed of ice, dust and rocky materials. All elements with atomic numbers greater than hydrogen are synthesised in stars from the fusion of hydrogen.

Which is another way of saying you are wrong.

[MajSmJz]

I think those conservations don't apply, but maybe I'm wrong in my conclusion:

Comets are composed of ice, dust and rocky materials. All elements with atomic numbers greater than hydrogen are synthesised in stars from the fusion of hydrogen. Hydrogen came out of the Big Bang explosion/rapid expansion, where nothing started to rapidly expand and hydrogen started to appear out of nothingness.

If my conclusion is flawless, the conservations don't appy.

[lolgepwnt]

Since you obviously have such a deep understanding of physics, go forth and publish these results and receive thy Nobel prize.

Unless of course you are euphemistically talking out of your ass.

The only thing more comical than that you trolling would be if you actually believed the tripe you are posting.

[MajSmJz]

So you are one of those that don't believe in the Big Bang? How do you then explain the origin of hydrogen?

[lolgepwnt]

The Hydrogen God. D'uh.

[MajSmJz]

Such a statement does not belong into a scientific debate, so I wish you would stop using your religious beliefs to support a scientific claim. If God is really what you believe produced hydrogen, the debate between us is over.

[lolgepwnt]

I wasn't debating with you. That would imply you knew wtf you were talking about.

But since you make comments like "Hydrogen came out of the Big Bang explosion/rapid expansion, where nothing started to rapidly expand and hydrogen started to appear out of nothingness", I resorted to gentle sarcasm and condescension.

I appreciate your lack of response.

[MajSmJz]

Just thought you'd explain your claim that hydrogen doesn't just appear, but comes from somewhere else than Big bang. Is that a hard problem for you?

[lolgepwnt]

It is. You've caught me. I basically bluffed my way through university by pretending to accept the 'scientific' explanations. All the while I was secretly writing in my notebook how great the hydrogen god really is for allowing all heavy elements to synthesise.

Now don't post any replies and just let me live with my shame.

[SqueakerAlpha]

@MajSmJz water and a big electrolysis machine ?

[MajSmJz]

@SqueakerAlpha Ofc, but the water needs to come from somewhere. Likewise the first atom had to have come from somewhere. Some believe in came out of nothing.

[calikeebler]

@MajSmJz this is a long time since but you think that hydrogen fusing and releasing energy (ie stars) to create other atoms is fine, but the creation of the hydrogen atom from a single proton and a single electron is out of the question? so more complex elements are fine but the simplest of them is a no go for similar processes? seriously? you can google it and find researched peer reviewed journals by real scientists explaining with proofs these processes in a few minutes....

[MajSmJz]

@calikeebler Hello. Ofc H comes from a proton and an electron, but the obvious question arises: where do these two come from? Inevitably, the very first thing had to come from something ... and then ... from nothing?

[evensgrey]

I'm going to just point out that we've been doing the described predictions for over 300 years. Edmond Halley made the first such prediction in 1703. That's why the comet was named after him. (He can be considered to have discovered it in the sense that the determined that several previous comet sightings were the same comet and worked out the orbit, which was a good piece of work considering the observations were crap by moderns standards and he had to do it by hand.)

[MajSmJz]

I understand, but still: why do we need an Oort could for that, if we can just simply state they started of far away in the first place. Why would Oort could be a prevalent theory?

[evensgrey]

The models of proto-planetary disks indicate that comets DIDN'T start out particularly far away, but in the outer part of the main solar system. Encounters with the gas giants would then hurl them out into much deeper space. This leads to a conclusion that there should be large numbers of comets far beyond the orbits of the known planets. The Kuiper Belt, on the other hand, is a region where it does not appear to have been gravitational cleared by a planet.

[whitesquirrel7]

@MajSmJz

???

only a few centuries now that we have been observing them ??

plus all the millenia that we have been observing them before that

plus all the predictive mathematics of comets

plus all the predictive physics of comets

plus all the craters on the various bodies in the solar system

plus all the craters on the earth

true some of these are meteor - but they like comets are built of the left over debris

so basically of the same origin as comets

[Zetimenvec]

you know, with our technology capable of observing near-earth sized planets in other solar systems and gas giant planets in solar systems on other galaxies, it seems like we should be able to see some comet sized rocks in an ort cloud a light year away.

[brandonbdx]

3:30.

If only I could vote 6 stars.

[JRChadwick]

Comet are God's bladder stones!

[Albukhshi]

I was under the impression that Comets are kuiper belt objects and/or oort clouders...

(yes, I know you're being sarcastic)

[MarowakDidIt]

My friends and I like to joke that when it's hot out, God's pissed, and when it's raining God's taking a piss. XD

[BelieveNoGod]

I have a question.

Why did 'god' make comets ?

For the humans to look at, because they are pretty ?

Most of them can't be seen with the naked eye. Or if u see them with your own eyes, it's too late to run.

[AntiSkill42]

lol,,,

you got it "wrong".

^^

only very few comets are real. Those who come close to earth are created on the edge of our solar system, and god desintegrates them when they're supposed to move out again. Every other light we see has been put there by god to test our faith and to make sure mankind has somethin beautiful to look at... he also altered light speed and frequencies...

sry gotta stop this crap

cant stop laughing at the idea...

[D3ltaStar]

I think it is always important to point out that these creationists are never giving their 'lectures' at anything resembling a science institution - they are always speaking their nonsense at a bible-bashing establishment.

They really don't see any irony is attempting to (very badly) pick holes in current understanding, then replacing it with "goddidit" just like it says in my 2000 year old book.

Arrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh­hhhhhh! IDIOTS!

[firthio2]

'I think it is always important to point out that these creationists are never giving their 'lectures' at anything resembling a science institution'. That's because all the science institutions are so elitist obvs :) jk

[Xariabyron]

surtees: what a twat

[ThePerrynator]

I believe that you fail to explain this very well. many of your rebuttals were mere generalities without specific facts to back them up or explain how they were relevant.

[JRChadwick]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I had to keep my arguments short and to the point to keep the video from being too long, but I did cover why we can use a statistical analysis to prove the existence of the Oort Cloud and how it fits into the Accretion Theory. I did have a lot more I wanted to say. As I said in the side bar, I would go into these subjects in more depth if I got a Creationist response.

[TheGreatSimonski]

This fellow does my fellow Britishers a disservice; bringing into disrepute the ancient art of interrupting-your-speech-for-t­ea.

[JRChadwick]

Well, if it makes you feel better, most of the outspoken Creationists are my countrymen, not yours. :(

[seduxion]

Part 2: If it is your intent to make a serious attempt at engaging Dr. Marc Surtees in a debate on his material perhaps you should cultivate a community of educated people debating intelligently rather than ignorant rants. By the way, your segment is filled with rediculous statements that invalidate you from serious consideration in effectively countering creationism or critiquing Marc Surtees.

[JRChadwick]

It gets to the point that Creationists become so ridiculous that the only way to debunk them with justice is with some amount of ridicule. Now, I do have to watch what I say and I have to be careful not to spend too much time with the ridicule, but Surtees earned it. He is a prime example of the flaws with Creationists.

I allow all video responses for and against. If you feel I have made any errors, please make a video demonstrating what you disagree with and I will be happy to respond.

[seduxion]

Part 1: The impulsive and emotionally driven comments posted by your easily won subscribers should embarrass you JR. It appears clear to me that you are trying to debate on an intellecutal level with a man who is completely out of your league whether you agree with him or not. Instead of receving comments from people who have the intellectual wherewithal to speak logically and with valid responses to your content you've received immature rants with 0 value but to bolster your ego.

[JRChadwick]

If you read the comments you would see that there were honest attempts at debating Surtees.

As far as him being out of my league, how do you figure that? I clearly demonstrated a superior ability to do research. I also have a much greater understanding of Astronomy than Dr. False Dichotomy.

[marcsurtees]

Hi guys,

Just to repeat what I said in the comments on the other video, I will not be responding anymore on this thread. I have said all I want to.

[RyuDarragh]

Whereas a scientist will say "we can be reasonably sure" and "I do not yet know", the anti-science types will turn this into "Scientists are ignorant and don't have absolute proof!".

This disingenuousness has been used over and over to the point mainstream comics are using it in their acts.

If I were to suspend a 10 tonne weight over a "believers" head and gave him the drop trigger rope and said "Gravity is only theory. Pull the rope.", what do you think he'd say?

[marcsurtees]

I do not recall ever saying "Scientists are ignorant.."

[JRChadwick]

If you had used those exact words, it would still have not been the worst thing you said in your videos.

[RyuDarragh]

Oort cloud fragments are a constant digital noise in sensors of all sorts looking into the universe. Our current model of it looks remarkably like the earliest ones, but not perfectly spherical. It's rather lumpy from gravity and solar winds and galactic electrical and magnetic fields.

The problem is, "believers" use a kind of verbal judo to turn one of sciences greatest strengths against itself, and that is sciences willingness to admit disproofs and to not make absolute statements.

[RyuDarragh]

Where does he get "never observed" for the Oort Cloud?!? Wow... hey, ever see the Faith Based/Science Based flow charts ?

[Digimaul]

"ever see the oort cloud"

ever see pluto? protip, that's the start of it

[dskrilla1]

Wow. The voice of the creationist asshole is WAY louder than your own. I keep having to change the volume up to hear you only to be screamed at when the dumbass talks. FUCKING ANNOYING!!! Had to quit watching.

[JRChadwick]

Hmmm, sounds pretty much the same on my laptop speakers. On my next video I will adjust the audio level more in favor of the voice recording for my next video.

[explodingdinosaurs]

How can this guy claim to be a scientist of ANY kind? Keep up the excellent work JRChadwick

[YTrann]

This idiot makes me ashamed to br British. :(

[niiidar]

Wow.

I hate this guy. (not J.R. chadwick, but the idiot.)

[marcsurtees]

That is a strange response.  Hate the message Ok but why hate the person?

[JRChadwick]

I'll use this comment in my next video.

[the2ndsaint]

'Cause someone who knowingly spreads bad information in support of a failed hypothesis is worthy of condemnation.

[Freki619]

These videos are very under viewed considering the quality of there content. 5 stars on all of these, they're truly fantastic. Please keep up the good work. I found you videos thanks to Andromedaswake so hopefully others will come and see these also!

[gracetruthguy]

Suggesting one scientist in one field cannot understand or appreciate the science in another field is a non-starter.

[JRChadwick]

I believe I suggested just the opposite.

You have to do research before you present, however.

[marcsurtees]

Hi Guys,

Point taken.... but the arguments I used do not go away even if you chose to complain about some details of stellar physics. See some of the other commnets I have just posted.

[JRChadwick]

OK, some of your "problems" do not exist. The rest are simply current gaps in our knowledge. Unknowns in one theory do not prove an other. Many things we know were once unknown, a fact we take for granted. Pythagorean theorem was once a topic of hot debate. Calculating the circumference of a circle was quite difficult before Pi was proven.

[marcsurtees]

So how did the Earth's moon form?

[JRChadwick]

Let me think about why you would ask me this. Do you think I have a sublime insight into Astronomy that those with degrees in that field do not? Or do you think that my answer would be shaky and something you could call me on as being a flaw in the current theory?

I would like to know how YOU think it formed. I doubt that you could give a better theory that fit the available evidence. You are simply falling back into your false dichotomy. Proving something wrong does not prove you right.

[marcsurtees]

Hi JR,

Why not answer the question? Well you have, you do not know and neither does anyone else. As you say proving the nebula theory wrong would not prove I am right. But it does show that billions of years cannot produce a solar system like ours. This frees us from paradigm lock and allows us to look at alternatives. If the best alternative is a creator God, then so be it.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"As you say proving the nebula theory wrong would not prove I am right. But it does show that billions of years cannot produce a solar system like ours."

And in one breath, you come back with a second false dichotomy. If you had proved the nebula hypothesis to be utterly flawed (which you have failed to do), there might be a different mechanism leading to the formation of our solar system over a period of billions of years. It is highly ironic that your next statement concerns paradigm lock.

[marcsurtees]

I will be very happy to look at any alternatives.

[JRChadwick]

BiggusRobbicus pretty much covered everything. But you still have never (either here or in your presentation) given us your own theory. How did the moon form 6,000 years ago?

[marcsurtees]

I have no idea how God did it. But I know that the impactoid theory is a non starter. Maybe further research will revel a mechanism.

[FSAthe1st]

"I have no idea how God did it."

That statement is not scientific. Science CANNOT comment on the supernatural.

"But I know that the impactoid theory is a non starter. "

Then by all means, demonstrate why, but this time without the use of logical fallacies.

[BiggusRobbicus]

""But I know that the impactoid theory is a non starter. "

Then by all means, demonstrate why, but this time without the use of logical fallacies."

Indeed. Or, go one better. If you have actual evidence of this, then submit it for peer-review and publish it. I'm sure it will expand your CV in an impressive manner and improve your collaborative and granting opportunities enormously. I know I'd do it if I had the data.

[marcsurtees]

The best simulations (remember they are computer simulations) produce a disk of material around the proto-earth. The conditions are extremely improbable, and they are only simulations. If for the sake of argument we accept that the simulation is realistic, then you need the debris to accrete into the moon.. again highly improbable. So I should have said highly improbable rather than "non-starter".

Unfortunately no-one is going to fund research intended to disproving the current paradigm.

[JRChadwick]

Computer simulations are nothing to scoff at. The reason they are used is because the laws of physics do not change. What these simulations have shown us was that the most likely occurrence was a glancing blow impact. All other angles explored either resulted in two moons or none.

Just because an occurrence is more rare than others does not mean a deity had to have done it because there is simply no evidence for it. The Massive Impact theory fits the evidence. None of the others have held.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"Just because an occurrence is more rare than others does not mean a deity had to have done it because there is simply no evidence for it."

Exactly. The chances for any specific person to be born from specific parents is very low (a very rough estimate of 1x10^-15 going solely by random gamete union), and yet specific people are born with frightening regularity. The impactor based formation of the moon may be "highly improbable", but as far as we can tell, it IS possible.

[BiggusRobbicus]

I have seen simulations that result in a moon from the debris, quite recent ones. We may see something similar in action soon enough, as it seems this may happen frequently with asteroids. Also, define "highly improbable".

"Unfortunately no-one is going to fund research intended to disproving the current paradigm."

For the very good reason that such research would be biased from the outset. Research intended to address flaws in the paradigm one way or the other would be funded, however.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"If the best alternative is a creator God, then so be it."

Fair enough. The thing is, however, that none of the current scientific theories or models point away from a creator deity, or deities.

They only point away from specific interpretations of the holy writings/stories of a specific (well, several specific) hypothetical creators.

Plenty of people in the world's organised religions are quite able to reconcile science as we know it now and thier faith, Christians included.

[marcsurtees]

Yes I agree with you. I have no problem reconciling science with my faith. But I do disagree with those who claim that the Bible is wrong because science in general and evolution in particular shows it to be wrong.

[JRChadwick]

Well, they do. So it is. The Bible is not a science book. They got it wrong. Deal.

It does not mean you have to give up your faith (my Christian God fearing friends think Creationism is nuts) but you can not take the bible literally. Hell, the ages of the profit in the old testament are absurd. They were meant to be ceremonial. Even the authors did not mean for the Bible to be taken literally.

[marcsurtees]

JR you wrote "Even the authors did not mean for the Bible to be taken literally. "

You mean like the 10 commandments......

[JRChadwick]

Don't play that game. You just quote mined. Obviously, I was referring to lineage that is the basis for the 6,000 year calculation.

[marcsurtees]

Sorry I just could not resist it :-))

Yes I know what you were refering to. But I think that discussion on the Biblical authority is a for another time.

In any case its about time to move on to other things so bye for now.

Until the next time

[JRChadwick]

I hope you watch those videos I sent you.

To quote Thunderf00t, "May all your days be happy and delusion free."

You should thank NephilimFree for the publicity.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"You mean like the 10 commandments...... "

Quite a lot of violations of those get hand-waved through in the bible, even by Jehova himself at times.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"But I do disagree with those who claim that the Bible is wrong because science in general and evolution in particular shows it to be wrong."

Again, fair enough. You do, however, seem very keen on dismissing certain well supported theories (including evolution), because you prefer the "biblical" interpretation. This is the same problem in reverse.

Saint Augustine gave some good advice there: When reality and scripture conflict, you're not reading scripture right.

[BiggusRobbicus]

Honestly, if you think so basic a thing as Newton's Laws of Motion voided the idea of a collision making the moon, do you think the theory would remain the front runner? I believe the theory is not that an object hit the earth, bounced up and became the moon, it's that debris from the collision was hurled up and secondarily accreted into the moon. Debris not in a condition to fall into as stable an orbit as the moon has either continued on their way into space or fell back to the Earth.

[marcsurtees]

Do a bit of research and check it out. I did not discover this problem its always been there. Its the front runner because the alternatives are unacceptable.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"Do a bit of research and check it out. I did not discover this problem its always been there. Its the front runner because the alternatives are unacceptable"

I did some research. There is at least one other theory of lunar formation that is not fatally flawed, so if the impact theory violates Newtons's Laws, by rights that one should be the front runner. Yet nowhere have I seen any evidence the impact theory violates Newton's laws. It has problems, to be sure, but that isn't one of them.

[dyerasyd]

After reading your comments and watching the excerpts of your video, I am convinced you are anything but a scientist. You simply do not understand the scientific process. Now forget the specifics of this particular discussion; lets look at how things seem to work from your perspective..

1. Observe 10000 facts

2. Formulate a hypothesis

3. Does it explain *every single* fact?

4. If all 10000 facts not accounted for then god did it!

Would you care to explain why that is wrong Mr Surtess?

[marcsurtees]

1. Observe 10000 facts

2. Formulate several hypothesis

3. Test each one

4. Accept the best

5. Continue steps 1 to 4

[marcsurtees]

Hi JR,

its me again! (The 500 character limit means I have to break uo my reply)

You refer to the nebular hypothesis to explain the origin of the solar system but there are a number of problems.

EG:

The angular momentum is in the wrong place.

How did the Earth's moon form?

Why is our solar system completely unlike all the others that we have observed.

Marc

[BiggusRobbicus]

"The angular momentum is in the wrong place."

Is there a law I'm unaware of that states angular momentum must remain in the most massive body in a system?

"How did the Earth's moon form?"

The current theroy is through an impact of the proto-Earth with another forming body, with the moon spinning off from the combined material. How is that a problem for current accretion disc model?

[marcsurtees]

Newton's laws of motion. Look up "angular momentum and nebula theory"

Any body striking the proto-Earth will either stop, go right through, or bounce off, or fall back to the point where it started from. It will never get into a stable orbit. Newton again!

[JRChadwick]

What are you talking about? Where is the angular momentum in the wrong place?

We have a very good understanding of the Angular Momentum in our solar system.

[marcsurtees]

Check it out with a bit of research. There is a problem with the sun not having enough angular momentum and it's not just creationists that say so.

[FSAthe1st]

"There is a problem with the sun not having enough angular momentum and it's not just creationists that say so. "

We only have your and other Creationist's assertion that this is the case. Creationists are known for dishonesty so forgive me for not taking you at your word.

[BiggusRobbicus]

And to follow on, nebula theory was once discarded becauase the sun does lack angular momentum and since it must be conserved, nebula theory was impossible. It wasn't taken up again because the cosmologists needed a model, any model. It was taken up again because they found mechanisms for the sun (and other stars) to lose that momentum, as well as transfer it to the planets. The fatal problem is overcome and the theory is again the best available, even if there are still questions.

[Minttzz]

"Any body striking the proto-Earth will either stop, go right through, or bounce off, or fall back to the point where it started from. It will never get into a stable orbit. Newton again!"

What utter nonsense. Robin Canup has produced computer simulations that demonstrate the formation of the moon and the Theia impact hypothesis. It fits perfectly with observable data such as the slowdown of the Earth's rotation.

[BiggusRobbicus]

"Why is our solar system completely unlike all the others that we have observed."

Our current method of detecting extrasolar planets relies mostly on star wobbling to let us know there's a planet in orbit around us. This biases us to detecting high mass, close orbiting planets unlike our own system. Techniques are improving and we are starting to see systems a bit more like our own.

[BiggusRobbicus]

Bah, typo. That should read: "Our current method of detecting extrasolar planets relies mostly on star wobbling to let us know there's a planet in orbit around it."

[marcsurtees]

Yes I undestand why we are only detecting massive planets.

My question is that if the nebula theory nicely explains our (very comlicated and diverse) solar system what theory explains solar systems with massive planets close to the central star.

[JRChadwick]

Planets farther out from their star orbit slower so the change in radial velocity is harder to detect.

[marcsurtees]

Yes, as I said I understand why we cannot detect smaller farther out planets.

But my question is "how do these other solar systems form?"

[BiggusRobbicus]

It is entirely possible (or likely certain) that our understanding of stellar formation is not yet complete. Modification of, or even scrapping of the current models and theories may be called for. As far as I am aware, large planets close to the parent star challenges certain parts of nebula theory, but does not provide evidence that the main body of the theory is wrong.

[BiggusRobbicus]

Moreover, these are different systems, arising in different gravitational conditions, different interaction of stellar winds, with possibly radically different elemental compositions. subtle differences, but they could have massive effects if considered together.

[brianblackberry]

"Why is our solar system completely unlike all the others that we have observed."

It isn't, type "solar system like ours" into Google, the first several links go into other star systems that have been discovered that thus far look similar to our own.

[marcsurtees]

Hi JRC

I see that you agree with my criticisms.

The faint sun paradox remains, despite a number of theories advanced to solve the problem.

You admit that the Oort cloud has never been directly observed (but believe that it will be). However the point I was making is that the lifetimes of long period comets is measured in 1000s not millions of yrs. Rather than address the point you resort to ad hominem attacks. Why is that?

M Surtees

[BiggusRobbicus]

"You admit that the Oort cloud has never been directly observed (but believe that it will be). However the point I was making is that the lifetimes of long period comets is measured in 1000s not millions of yrs."

And what about those observed long period comets with orbital periods of hundreds of thousands or millions of years?

The Oort cloud may not exist, but this does not completely falsify all theories of comet formation, nor does it prove a creation model.

[JRChadwick]

HUNDREDS of thousands. A bit more than 6,000, isn't it? Why would this disprove the current ideas of the Oort cloud?

You seem to think that scientists picked an age and now are searching for evidence to support it. Anything that disagrees with said age is than patched with baseless assumptions.

You are incorrect. The age is the conclusion arrived from examining the massive amount of evidence. If something pointed to a thousand year age, that would be the anomaly.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

Very very good.

[bads06]

Nice Job =3

[freedom0f5peech]

Poor Nephy... what's he gonna do... ;)

[JRChadwick]

It's been all quiet on the Nephilim front. He has not posted any videos in a while.