Ali to je suludo...  ...to je kao kad bismo vreme trajanja jednog dana podelili na nanosekunde i po njima se navodili. Zamisli da te neko zaustavi na ulici i upita te za vreme. Nikad ne bi mogao tačno da mu odgovoriš.
To je ta analogija... i vrlo je ispravna, uveravam te.
Nema ništa gore od loše analogije... loša analogija ti je poput vibratora napravljenog od kikirikija...  zbunjujuće je, uvredljivo... i veoma opasno za ljude sa alergijama.
Razumeš šta želim da ti kažem?
Ni ja.

Anyway.
Isto tako ne razumem polovinu tvojih post-ova odnosno arogantnost u njima i tvoje ignorisanje pojedinih ljudi pa te opet nisam pitao šta tražiš uopšte na ovom delu foruma.
Dobra ti je ova rečenica. 
Neka viđenja, argumenti, dokazi ovo ono, ludilo.... 
Međutim, mnogo emotivno (kao i većina vernika) pristupaš ovome... posebno kad ostaneš bez argumenata.

To su njihovi glavni argumenti, argumentum ad hominem. Znam ja dobro kako je diskutovati sa njima.

Anketa je  netacna. Evolucija ne govori da je covek nastao od majmuna vec da danasnji ljudi i danasnji majmuni imaju zajednickog pretka.

P.S. Mozda je to neko vec spomenuo. Mrzelo me da citam 280. strana.

A koji su tvoji?
Ne znas ti nista, da znas pisao bi nesto konkretno a ne samo glupe upadice i podrugljive komentare.

Ali ja nastavljam sa konkretnim dokazima, pa evo vam jos koji:

1) Ugalj

Istrazivanja su pokazala da za nastanak uglja nisu potrebni milioni i milioni godina delovanja toplote i pritiska, kao sto se najcesce tvrdi. Poslednjih godina, nekoliko laboratorija je otkrilo nacin kako da ugalj ili ugljevite supstance napravi brzo, za sat ili najvise nekoliko dana.

18. maja 1980. eksplozija planine Sveta Helena opustosila je 400 km2 sume, severno od ove planine. Za kratko vreme, preko milion stabala je plivalo u jezeru Spirit, opkoljeno velikom kolicinom organskog materijala i vulkanskog pepela. Za samo nekoliko godina, organski talog, sacinjen uglavnom od kore drveca i raspadnutog materijala drveca, zajedno sa vulkanskim pepelom, akumulirao se na dnu jezera. Ovaj "treset" je imao u mnogome isti sastav i geometriju kao ugalj.

2) Komete

Mi posmatramo komete u nasem Sunecevom sistemu kako po elipticnim putanjama kruze oko Sunca. Mozemo uociti da pri svakom prolasku oko Sunca komete gube deo svoje mase (posto su vecim delom sastavljene od leda). Merenjem mase kometa i iznosa koji se gubi tokom vremena, mozemo zakljuciti da mnoge komete (narocito one koje cesce prolaze oko Sunca) nisu previse stare, jer je potrebno veoma kratko vreme (par hiljada godina) da ih uticaj Sunca potpuno dezintegrise. To je, na primer, slucaj sa Halejevom kometom, koja bi se dezintegrisala sa oko 10 hiljada godina.

Zastupnici koncepta mlade Zemlje tvrde da ovo ukazuje na mlad Suncev sistem. Ako je Suncev sistem star vise miliona godina, komete sa kratkim periodom obilaska oko Sunca (kao sto je Halejeva) ne bi trebale da postoje. Ali, posto te komete jos postoje, Suncev sistem mora biti mlad. Izgleda vrlo jednostavno.

Ali, oni koji insistriraju da je Suncev sistem veoma star, drze se svog stava uprkos ove cinjenice u vezi kometa. Oni priznaju da sadasnje komete moraju biti mlade, ali su ubedjeni da je Suncev sistem star. Oni pretpostavljaju da postoji hipoteticko skladiste kometa izvan Suncevog sistema, koje je toliko udaljeno da se ne moze videti teleskopom, niti meriti nekim preciznim uredjajem. Oni su nazvali ovaj hipoteticki (citaj izmisljeni) oblak kometa kao "Oortov oblak", prema autoru koji ga je prvi predlozio. Oort je tvrdio da medjuzvezdani procesi ponekad pokrecu delove materijala iz tog inace stabilnog oblaka, izbacujuci ih blizu Sunceve orbite, i snabdevajuci tako nas Suncev sistem kometama neiscrpno.

Meteorska prasina

Svake godine na Zemlju padne u proseku oko 14 miliona tona meteorske prasine. To je prasina koja ima sadrzaj nikla od 2,08 do 2,80%. (Hans Peterson, Cosmic Spherules and Meteoritic Dust, Scientific American, sv.202, str.132)
Do sada nije bilo hrabrosti da se veruje rezultatima satelitskih merenja - podacima jedne istrazivacke rakete sa uredjajem za registrovanje meteorita. Prema tim podacima, u ekstremnom slucaju, morali bismo da racunamo sa 36,5 miliona tona kise meteorske prasine godisnje. (F.L.Boschke, Erde von anderen Sternen, ECON - Verlag, Dusseldorf 1969, str.239)

Ostanimo kod Petersonovog podatka o 14 miliona tona godisnje. Ukoliko bi nasa Zemlja zaista bila stara 4,5 milijardi godina, znacilo bi da bi u tom vremenskom razdoblju na nasu planetu palo 63 triliona tona (63 x 1015) meteorske prasine sa sadrzjem nikla od 2,5%.

To bi dalje znacilo da bi svaki kvadratni metar zemljine povrsine (5,1 x 108 km2) morao biti prekriven slojem od oko 120 tona prasine. Pri datoj gustini od 2,2 g/cm3, to bi dalo sloj debeo oko 55 metara.

Nema medjutim, nikakvih nagovestaja o jednoj ovakvoj naslagi prasine.

No, ne samo na nasoj plneti, vec i na Mesecu, na kojem nema ni vode ni atmosfere, meteorske prasine ima u samo veoma skromnim kolicinama.

Prilikom prvog sletanja na Mesec, strahovalo se svojevremeno da bi mesecevo vozilo moglo da potone u mesecevoj prasini.

Tako je Nil Amstrong, prvi koji je stupio na mesecevo tlo, s vidnim olaksanjem na stepenicama svemirskog broda, jos pre nego sto su mu noge dotakle mesecevo tlo, izjavio:

"Otisci stajnih trapova utisnute su samo tri do pet centimetara u Mesecevo tlo. Tlo je, po svoj prilici, sastava veoma fine granulacije, a gledano izbliza, ono izgleda gotovo kao puder..." Nesto kasnije je rekao: "Tlo se, u tankim slojevima, kao prasina od drvenog cumura, lepi za unutrasnje strane mojih cizmama. Koraci mi ulaze u tlo samo oko cetvrtinu centimetra. No, vidim svoje tragove u finim cesticama peska." (Adalbert Barnjolf, Brennschluss - Rendezvous mit dem Mond, Verlag Ullstein, Frankfurt 1969, str.233)

Mozda bismo mogli da tvrdimo kako se 63 triliona tona (63 x 1015) meteoritske prasine izmesalO sa zemljinom korom. U tom slucaju bi nikl iz meteoritske prasine morao negde da bude. 2,5% od ove kolicine prasine dalo bi masu nikla od 1600 biliona tona. To znaci da je celokupni sadrzaj nikla na Zemlji meteoritskog porekla. Na temelju postojece kolicine nikla u prirodi, znamo da to ne moze odgovarati istini.

Cvrsta Zemljina kora sadrzi oko 0,015% nikla. Taj metal je time, na 22. mestu ucestalosti hemijskih elemenata. Medjutim, pretpostavlja se da se u Zemljinom jezgru nalaze velike kolicine nikla. (NICKEL - Meyers Enzyklopadisches Lexikon, tom 17)

Henri Moris navodi sledeci argument: "Reke iz godine u godinu odnose 375 milion tona nikla. Kada bismo, dakle, pretpostavili da su celokupni nikl u okeane donele reke, onda bi se to ostvarilo u vremenu od 10 hiljada godina. Ovo ne upucuje na Zemlju kao staru planetu." (Scientific Cretionism, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, Californija)

Video sam znanje i argumente. 

@Autobran
Ne vredi da ti odgovorim ... uzivaj u svojoj uverenosti. 



P.S: Jos sam sanjiv, pa sada uocih:
Lepo rekoh, uzivaj u svojoj uverenosti. Cisto za tvoje obavestenje, napao si Pedju bez razloga. Covek je vernik. Ali za razliku od nekih, sa kojim se moze lepo razgovarati. Sa kojim bih rado bio prijatelj. I ne samo sa njim, ima njih podosta sa obeju strana.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth
by Tim Thompson
Copyright © 1996
[Last Update: September 5, 1996]
___________________________________________

Introduction

Motivated by watching while the same old arguments are repeated ad nauseum on talk.origins, I decided to acquaint myself, as best I could, with the current state of understanding as to extraterrestrial dust infall to the Earth. It is argued that both the Earth and Moon should be covered with a great layer of space dust if the Earth were as old as the standard models imply. This mini-faq will present the discussion given by Chris Stassen in his "Age of the Earth" talk.origins FAQ file, and then provide an update from the current literature. I make no claim at having done an exhaustive search, but I do think I have done a reasonably thorough search, so my results here are certainly representative of the current state of knowledge in the field. Hopefully, this will help to put an end once-and-for-all to the stale space-dust argument.

"The Age of the Earth" by Chris Stassen

What follows is an excerpt from the talk.origins FAQ file "The Age of the Earth", by Chris Stassen. His target is the meteoritic dust argument as applied to the Moon. However, since the measurements used by the young Earth creation scientists are Earth based, then the argument is equally applicable to the Earth (and has been applied to the Earth by young Earth creationists). I include here the full text of section 3 of the first part of the FAQ, "How Old is the Earth and How Do We Know?". I include this in order to put the argument in proper context for the reader, before going on to describe the current observations and data. I will also reproduce all of the references quoted by Stassen in this section.

    [Start of quoted material]

    3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the moon

    This argument: A single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the moon. The moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the moon is several billion years old.

    Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

        "The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year (1)." (Morris 1974, p. 152) [emphasis added]

    Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate).

    Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more likely figure.

    Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the time Morris published Scientific Creationism. These more accurate measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent cross-check.)

    Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.

    For further information, see (Dalrymple 1984, pp. 108-111) or (Strahler 1987, pp. 143-144).

    There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:

        "It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

    Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for at least a decade longer than that), the "moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:
    (Baker 1976, p. 25)
    (Brown 1989, pp. 17 and 53)
    (Jackson 1989, pp. 40-41)
    (Jansma 1985, pp. 62-63)
    (Whitcomb and Morris 1961, pp. 379-380)
    (Wysong 1976, pp. 166-168)

    [End of quoted material]

These references will be found in my reference section below.

Update: Current Observations

Dohnanyi's 1972 review paper seems to mark the beginning of what I will call the "modern era" in determining the flux of extraterrestrial dust on the Earth and Moon. Dohnanyi's flux is quoted by Dalrymple, 1991, and his formalism is repeated in Yamakoshi, 1994. This table represents a wide variety of disparate techniques, which leads one to be confident that the real number is very close to the reported values.

Dohnanyi calculated the influx of extraterrestrial material based on his model for the density of interplanetary dust in the vicinity of the Earth. Kane & Gardner used ground based lidar observatons of mesospheric metals, Love & Brownlee used observed impact flux on the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), and Ceplecha uses a combination of model and observation.

Dohnanyi also quotes a value from Barker & Anders, 1968, based on isotopic abundance ratios in sea floor sediments that estimated 6.12 × 1010 g/year, with an upper limit of 1.48 × 1011 g/year, which turns out to nicely match Ceplecha's 1996 correction of his own 1992 results. The confluence of answers from model, lidar, sea-floor sediments, and other methods is most invigorating.





Consequential Effect on the Earth

Here I want to examine the effect on the Earth of the dust infall rates given above. I will use Ceplecha, 1996, 1.5 × 1011 grams/year as the assumed infall rate. His 1992 value is slightly larger, but he corrected himself in 1996 based on data not available in 1992.

[Calculation]


Calculate total dust fall in 4.5 billion years ...



Total dust fall as a fraction of the current Earth mass ...



[In other words, the Earth's total mass increases by one tenth of one millionth, or one one-hundred-thousandth of a percent, over the entire 4.5 billion years]

Calculate the volume occupied by the total 4.5 billion year dustfall calculated above ... Assume dust density 2.0 g/cm3 (Love, Joswiak & Brownlee, 1994)



Calculate the thickness of a layer of equivalent volume on the surface of the Earth ...



If a plane surface of this area were covered with a thickness of one meter (100 cm) the volume would be 5.10 × 1020 cm3, which is greater than the volume of all extraterrestrial dust. The ratio 3.375/5.10 = 0.6618 gives the true height of the layer in meters, 66.18 cm.

We calculate a layer only 66.18 cm thick after 4.5 billion years, but this is clearly an upper limit for the real thickness. For one thing, the Earth is not flat, and the curvature at the surface of the Earth would cause the real layer thickness to be smaller. Furthermore, we have ignored the fact that the dust is highly porous and very much lacking in mechanical strength. If you actually tried to pile it up 66 cm deep, it would compress significantly due to its own weight.
Comments

[revised January 28 1997]

Although Stassen points out in his FAQ that even many creation science writers have abandoned this argument, it is still popular. Not only does it remain popular on talk.origins, but also with the Creation Research Society (CRS). The CRS has announced its intention to start a ham-radio based project to study meteor encounters with the upper atmosphere, in an expressed effort to revive the extraterrestrial dust argument.

Radio or radar remote sensing techniques are appropriate for the study of meteors, because the radio reflects off of the ionized meteor tracks. However, the scientific research I have cited here is based on in-situ measurements, either of dust in the stratosphere, or of impact features on the Long Duration Exposure Facility, in addition to lidar observations that are guaranteed to be far more sensitive than any radio equipment the CRS is likely to set up. It would seem to be a project doomed to failure, but don't count the CRS out just yet. Expect this argument to continue its regular run on talk.origins, and to increase in frequency of appearance if and when the CRS project actually starts.

[Editor's Note (January 12, 2006): Some young-earth creationists have given up the meteorite dust argument. For example see: Moon-dust argument no longer useful.]
References

The references list contains entries for all of the cited works, plus any other references I think are appropriate to the topic, even if I have not cited them directly. Think of it as a reading list as well as a reference list. All references from Stassen's quoted section are also included.

[Talk.origins FAQ archive top page]
http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Talk.origins FAQ "The Age of the Earth: How do we Know it?" by Chris Stassen]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

["Age of the Earth: Debate between Chris Stassen and Bob Bales" by Chris Stassen]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html

[David Brownlee's home page]
http://www.astro.washington.edu/brownlee

d'Almeida, Guillaume A.; Peter Koepke & Eric P. Shettle "Atmospheric Aerosols - Global Climatology and Radiative Characteristics" Deepak publishing, 1991 QC882.42-D148

Baker, Sylvia, 1976. Evolution: Bone of Contention, New Jersey, Evangelical Press. 35 pp. ISBN 0-85234-226-8

Brown, Walter T., Jr., 1989. In The Beginning..., Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation. 122 pp.

Ceplecha, Zdenek "Influx of interplanetary bodies onto Earth" Astronomy and Astrophysics 263: 361-366 (1992)

Ceplecha, Zdenek "Luminous efficiency based on photographic observations of the Lost-City fireball and implications for the influx of interplanetary bodies onto Earth" Astronomy and Astrophysics 311(1): 329-332 (July 1996)

Dalrymple, G. Brent "The Age of the Earth" Stanford University Press, 1991 ISBN 0-8047-2331-1 [See chapter 6 - "Meteorites: Visitors from Space"]

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to 'Scientific Creationism'", in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS Volume 1, Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html

Dohnanyi, J.S. "Interplanetary Objects in Review: Statistics of Their Masses and Dynamics" Icarus 17: 1-48 (1972) [Icarus Invited Review paper, 215 references]

Farley, K.A. & R.B. Patterson "A 100-Kyr Periodicity in the Flux of Extraterrestrial He-3 to the Sea-Floor" Nature 378(6557): 600-603 (7 December 1995) [The authors study He-3 abundances in deep sea-floor sediments. The assumption that He-3 is extraterrestrial is based on their own and other earlier cited studies]

Hughes, 1978 see "Cosmic Dust", J.A.M. McDonnell ed., Wiley 1978, pp 148-157

Jackson, Wayne, 1989. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, California, Courier Publications. 57 pp.

Jansma, Sidney J., Jr., 1985. Six Days, Michigan, Jansma.

Kane, Timothy J. & Chester S. Gardner "Lidar Observations of the Meteoric Deposition of Mesospheric Metals" Science 259: 1297-1300 (26 February 1993)

Levasseur-Regourd, A.C. and H. Hasegawa (editors) "Origin and Evolution of Interplanetary Dust" [Universite paris VI, Aeronomie CNRS, Verries-le-Buisson, France] [Osaka Sangyo University, Osaka, Japan] Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991; (Astrophysics and Space Science Library) Proceedings of the126th colloquium of the International Astronomical Union, held in Kyoto, Japan, August 27-30, 1990 ISBN 0-7923-1365-8 QB791.I563 [.I62 in JPL library]

Love, S.G. & D.E. Brownlee "A Direct Measurement of the Terrestrial Mass Accretion Rate of Cosmic Dust" Science 262: 550-553 (22 october 1993)

Love, S.G.; D.J. Joswiak & D.E. Brownlee "Densities of Stratospheric Meteorites" Icarus 111(1): 227-236 (September 1994)

Morris, Henry, 1974. Scientific Creationism, California, Creation- Life Publishers. 217 pp. ISBN 0-89051-001-6

Reach, W.T. "On the Origin of Interplanetary Dust Within Recorded History" Meteoritics 27(4): 353-360 (September 1992) [The author searches ancient Chinese records for any sign of unusual comets, asteroids, or bright objects, which could be a major source of interplanetary dust]

Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The Creation/ Evolution Controversy, New York, Prometheus. 552 pp. ISBN 0-87975-414-1

Taylor, A.D.; W.J. Baggaley & D.I. Steel "The Discovery of Interstellar Dust Entering the Earth's Atmosphere" Nature 380(6572): 323-325 (28 March 1996) [The authors report the radar detection of dust presumed to be of interstellar origin because of peculiar velocity, much the same as was done by the Ulysses spacecraft, when it identified interstellar dust near Jupiter]

Wasson & Kyte, 1987 Geophysical Research Letters, 14:779, 1987

Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 518 pp. ISBN 0-87552-338-2

Wysong, R. L., 1976. The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Michigan, Inquiry Press. 455 pp. ISBN 0-918112-01-X

Yamakoshi, Kazuo "Extraterrestrial Dust" (subtitle: "Laboratory Studies of Interplanetary Dust") [Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan] Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994; (Astrophysics and Space Science Library) [published in cooperation with Kluwer by Terra Scientific Publications, Tokyo] ISBN 0-7923-2294-0 QB791.Y36 [Yamakoshi uses the same model developed by Dohnanyi (1972) to describe the spatial distribution of interplanetary dust. The model is based in part on observations of the zodiacal light.]

Zašto je pitanje:  "Sveto pismo ili Darvin" ?

Zar je Hrišćanstvo jedina religija ? Šta je sa antropologijom, antropozofijom, gnostikom, koja stoji nasuprot Darvinove teorije. Koliko već godina ova teorija čeka u redu da postane aksiom !!!

Agnostici i ateisti , se oblizuju od sreće kad neko napiše infantilan post u kome tvrdi da je zemlja nastala pre 5000 godina. Pa nije to tačno naravno, ali to je još jednom ponavljam stadijum na kojem se neki ljudi zaustave i zacementiraju svoje mišljenje, jer su napr. na tv-u videli neku emisiju koja eto govori o tome.

Evo vaše bake , kada koje su pročitale sveto pismo , u kojem se metaforično kaže da je  Isus dobio ključeve Jerusalima, stvarno u to veruju. Ne to to nije simbol za njih, to je istorijski događaj.........

Gde su moderatori sa Budizma da kažu koliko traje jedan dan Brame ? Dobro ovo je već druga tema priznajem, ali naslov ove mi se nikako ne sviđa.

Onaj ko je otvorio ovu temu , kao da je priželjkivao prepucavanje Hrišćana , i ateista (racionalista)........, i eto to je i dobio.

P.S.

A ovaj post iznad sigurno neću čitati , ne zato što ne znam engleski , nego što je totalno bezveze nalepiti neki kilometarski kopirani tekst sa stranog sajta ili knjige. Bez uvoda , bez objašljenja, bez zaključka to mene ne zanima.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof3

Komete

In his debate with Dr. Hilpman, Dr. Hovind stated that comets lasted 10,000-15,000 years before being blown apart by the solar wind! Really! Any high school kid with a keen interest in astronomy will tell you that it is the heat of the sun which is a comet's undoing. Each time a comet, which is akin to a dirty snowball, passes near the sun it loses tons of material to vaporization. Thus, the number of orbits such a comet can make before being reduced to a swarm of gravel is limited. The solar wind along with the heat and light of the inner solar system are responsible for a comet's magnificent tail. Thus, comets brighten up as they near the sun, their tails pointing away from the sun. A few comets occasionally crash into one of the planets, especially Jupiter, or into the sun itself. Others are thrown out of the solar system forever.

In passing, let me point out that the projected life span of one short-period comet, that of Halley's comet, is 40,000 years (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.339). Thus, we can forget about Dr. Hovind's 10,000-year figure! A comet's actual life span depends on its size.

Ovo cu da naglasim: A comet's actual life span depends on its size.

Short-period comets can be used to support a young solar system, hence a young earth, only if they have no reasonable source of replenishment. By definition, they orbit the sun at least once every 200 years. Since they lose material each time they pass near the sun, they soon burn out and must constantly be replaced over billions of years. To destroy the creationist argument, we need only throw reasonable doubt on their claim that short-period comets are not replaced. If that point is in doubt, then the whole argument crumbles away.

Creationism's main argument seems to be that we don't have close-up photos of the Oort Cloud and, therefore, cannot be 100% certain that it really exists! Sorry fellas, but if you want to use this comet argument it is up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Oort Cloud and other sources don't exist! (The Oort Cloud, named after Jan Hendrik Oort, is a calculated accumulation of comets and cometary material occupying the fringes of the solar system at a distance of roughly 50,000 to 100,000 AU. One AU is the average distance of the earth from the sun, i.e., 93 million miles. Various computer studies of cometary orbital data in conjunction with other evidence strongly supports the existence of the Oort Cloud.)

Let's briefly summarize what science knows about comets. In 1950, based on a study of the orbits of several long-period comets, the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort proposed that a great spherical shell of them existed at the remote frontiers of our solar system. Better statistics in more recent years have supported the existence of the Oort Cloud and put it at a distance of 50,000 AU (1.3 light-years).

    During the 1980s, astronomers realized that Oort Cloud comets may be outnumbered by an inner cloud that begins about 3,000 AU from the Sun and continues to the edge of the classical Oort Cloud at 20,000 AU. Most estimates place the population of the inner Oort Cloud at about five to ten times that of the outer cloud -- say, 20 trillion or so -- although the number could be ten times greater than that. The innermost portion of the inner Oort Cloud is relatively flattened, with comets extending a few degrees above and below the ecliptic. But the cloud rapidly expands, forming a complete sphere by the time it reaches several thousand AU.

    (Benningfield, 1990, p.33)

This inner cloud of comets is called the Hills Cloud. Originally, it was thought that short-period comets were merely long-period comets from the Oort Cloud which had been converted by close encounters with Jupiter or the other large outer planets. That may well be true for some of them, but modern studies of short-period comets have identified their probable origin in a region of space now named the Kuiper Belt, which resembles a flattened ring just beyond the orbit of Neptune. Computer simulations show that such a source would account beautifully for the low-inclination, short-period, prograde orbits, and other features associated with short-period comets. The Kuiper Belt probably has anywhere from 100 million to several billion comets, which probably formed there when the planets formed. The gradual pull of the giant gas planets over time continually send a few of those comets towards the sun. Thus, the short-period comets are replenished from the Kuiper Belt. The Kuiper Belt is no longer "just" a theoretical construct. As of 1998, more than 60 of the larger objects in the Kuiper Belt have been directly observed! That translates to some 70,000 objects out there whose diameter exceeds a whopping 100 kilometers—not to mention countless numbers of normal-sized comets. Jim Foley was kind enough to pass along an Internet site for those of you who may be interested in these new discoveries. The Kuiper Belt web page (http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb.html) is maintained by David Jewitt, who personally discovered many of these objects.

    Thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have finally proven that short-period comets come from a vast region of space beyond Neptune. This is the realm of the Kuiper disk — an enormous population of shadowy mini-ice worlds that slowly orbit the Sun in near total darkness.

    (Astronomy, October 1995, p.28)

Theoretical calculations indicate that the great bulk of comets were originally formed in the region between Uranus and Neptune. They represent planetesimals which escaped being gobbled up by the outer planets. Gravitational interactions eventually tossed them into elliptical orbits which took them thousands of astronomical units (AU) away from the sun. This region, then, is the ultimate source of those comets making up the Oort Cloud.

    Oort determined that comets tossed into highly elliptical orbits by Uranus and Neptune would be nudged into more nearly circular orbits by encounters with passing stars. Stellar encounters also would scatter comets above and below the ecliptic plane, creating a sphere of comets instead of a flattened disk. After four decades of refinements to Oort's original ideas, astronomers today believe the Oort Cloud extends from about 20,000 to 100,000 AU (almost 2 light-years) from the Sun and contains as many as two trillion comets with a total mass several times Earth's.

    (Benningfield, 1990, p.31)

A star passing within a few light-years would likely perturb the orbits of the comets in the Oort Cloud, sending some of them towards the sun. Statistics indicate that about 5000 stars have passed that closely during the earth's lifetime. An encounter with a giant molecular cloud, which is likely to happen every few hundred million years as our sun orbits our galaxy, would also perturb the Oort Cloud.

    Another newly discovered agent for perturbing Oort Cloud comets is gravitational tides. Created by the gravitational force of material in the Galactic disk, these tides could alter the orbits of Oort Cloud comets. In fact, some astronomers estimate that as many as 80 percent of the long-period comets entering the inner solar system for the first time were shoved from their previous orbits by the gentle tug of Galactic tides.

    (Benningfield, 1990, pp.32-33)

Once in a great while, perhaps 9 times during the lifetime of our Earth (Astronomy, February 1982, p.63), a star will pass so close as to stir up even the Hills Cloud of comets (the innermost Oort Cloud which is shaped mostly like a disk). A collision with a giant molecular cloud would have a similar effect.

    Occasionally, though, a star or giant molecular cloud passes directly through both Oort Clouds, scattering comets like a cue ball striking the neatly racked balls on a billiard table. Such an event kicks many comets into the outer cloud, replenishing those lost to other processes.

    (Benningfield, 1990, pp.33-34)

Thus, we have adequate sources for replenishing both our long-period comets and our short-period comets over a period of several billion years. In the case of the latter, we can actually see some of the larger ones lurking in the Kuiper Belt!

Granted, we don't have photos of comets in the Oort Cloud or the Hills Cloud. At those distances comets are too small to show up even in the best telescopes. The fact that the Oort and Hills Clouds are still "theoretical" does not mean that they are based on guesswork and rank speculation. Computer simulation, as already mentioned, matched the short-period comets to the Kuiper Belt. Now, we have visual confirmation. Similar studies of long-period comets, even from the 1950s, points clearly to their origin in the Oort Cloud. All in all, a great deal of computer work has been done that supports and refines the above models. The astronomical community treats the Oort Cloud, at the very least, as an excellent working hypotheses.

That there is some kind of large comet reservoir beyond the range of our telescopes follows directly from a simple observation. Astronomers detect new long-period comets at the rate of about one per month. By that rough estimate, 24,000 long-period comets have entered the inner solar system since the time of Christ! Orbital analysis show that these approaching comets generally take several million years to orbit the sun, and, as they are more or less randomly distributed in their orbits, we may deduce that the bulk of them are presently beyond the range of our telescopes. Only the exceptional comet, at any given moment, would be in that small portion of its orbit which crosses the inner solar system.

For the sake of argument, suppose that it takes each of these comets four million years to orbit the sun. In 2000 years we see only 2000/4,000,000 or 1/2000 of them. Thus, we would have about 48 million comets altogether. However, even that figure is extremely low since only the exceptional comet would have an elongated orbit which takes it anywhere near the sun. Oort showed that most of them would happily orbit the fringes of our solar system and never come near the inner regions. Obviously, as you can see from this ballpark calculation, there is an ample source of comets beyond the range of our telescopes.

    This reservoir of cometary nuclei surrounding the Sun is called the Oort Cloud . . . Estimates of the number of "dirty snowballs" in the Oort Cloud range as high as 12 billion. Only such a large reservoir of cometary nuclei would explain why we see so many long-period comets, even though each one takes several million years to travel once around its orbit.

    (Kaufmann, 1994, p.304)

Another simple observation applies to the short-period comets, which means that we didn't even need the visual confirmation of the Kuiper Belt to win the argument! If there were no means for replenishing comets, then all of them would have the same age. In creationist eyes, they would all be 6000 years old. Yet, observations show that short-period comets with equivalent orbits and sizes have a variety of ages. They range from gaseous "babies," which could hardly have gone around the sun more than a few times, to burnt-out gravel heaps, which have been around the sun once too often. This simple observation proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the short-period comets are being replaced.

Benningfield (1990, p.32) gives some interesting evidence indicating that vast comet clouds exist around certain stars, but we shall not pursue the matter further. The point has already been made. In order to win this argument, the creationist must prove that there are no reasonable sources for replenishing comets. Instead, we find compelling evidence for cometary reservoirs!

Nemaš potrebe da lepiš više taj tekst, imamo link, ok je.........