Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 42)
Message-ID: <560@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 11:55:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.560
Posted: Fri Jul 12 11:55:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 01:13:29 EDT
References: <400@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 44
Summary: 

In article <400@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
>
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>II. (Astronomical Sciences): THE UNIVERSE, THE SOLAR SYSTEM, AND  LIFE
>    WERE RECENTLY CREATED.
>
>    A.  NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS  FOR  THE  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  SOLAR
>        SYSTEM   AND   UNIVERSE   ARE   UNSCIENTIFIC   AND  HOPELESSLY
>        INADEQUATE. (See 37-56.)
>
>    C.  MOST DATING TECHNIQUES  INDICATE  THAT  THE  EARTH  AND  SOLAR
>        SYSTEM ARE YOUNG.
>
>       81.  As short period comets pass the sun, a small  fraction  of
>            their mass vaporizes and forms a long tail. Nothing should
>            remain of these comets after about 1000 orbits. There  are
>            no  known  sources  for  replenishing comets [a]. In fact,
>            gravitational perturbations by the larger planets tend  to
>            expel  comets  from  the  solar system [a]. If comets came
>            into existence at the same time as the solar  system,  the
>            solar system must be less than 10,000 years old [b-e].
>
>            a)  R. A.  Lyttleton,  ''The  Non-existence  of  the  Oort
>                Cometary  Shell,''  ASTROPHYSICS  AND  SPACE  SCIENCE,
>                Vol.31, 1974, pp. 385-401.

	A classic of out of context quoting! The paper above is
probably the one proposing an alternative mechanism for the origin
of comets yet it is claimed "There are no known sources..."! In fact
not all astronomers accept Dr Lyttleton's refutation and still hold
to the Oort cloud concept. However Dr Lyttleton's main point(if this
is indeed the paper I am thinking about) is that the comets did *not*
come into existance at the same time as the rest of the Solar System,
thus the short lifetime of comets is *not* evidence for a young Solar
System, only evidence for young comets!
	By the way Dr. Lyttleton's figure is 10 Million years not
10,000 years!
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen