Old solar system unlikely - "Oort comet cloud"

Do you expect anything different from the fun-loving non-scientists at AiG?

 

More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’ by Danny Faulkner
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/oort.asp

Dr Danny R. Faulkner has a B.S. (Math), M.S. (Physics), M.A. and Ph.D. (Astronomy, Indiana University). He is Full Professor at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster, where he teaches physics and astronomy. He has published about two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals.

Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/comets.asp
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M.
Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled “A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules”. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

 

He may have some credentials, but here's a couple of problems. All of the so-called scientists who do work for AiG are on the fringes. Read the article...No Oort Cloud? Now that is certainly not the conclusion of most reputable scientists.

AiG's big problem is they have a presupposed outcome with which facts must align. They are not willing to do research and accept whereever the facts bring them. If it doesn't match their interpretation of Genesis, it gets thrown out, or twisted to fit. That is not science. Science has no dogmas. AiG has a dog in the fight, facts or no facts.

 

Excellent debate methodology. If you don't agree with a scientist who just happens to be a creationist, first call him a non-scientist. Then when they are proven to be real, live scientists, call them "fringe" (even if they teach at major universities) and then suggest they are biased and always make the research fit their pre-conceived notions. This is a perfect example of why most "Internet debates" will never be real debates. :laugh: :laugh:

Kendemyer, are you sure you want to do this with Magnetic Poles? You see how it started. This kind of thing is why the evolution-debate forum on the BB was abolished some time ago. :smilewinkgrin:

 

=="Some credentials"? Come now. Many, if not all, of the scientists at AiG have the same credentials as the evolutionist scientists. They have PhDs from the same Universities, in the same fields, they just come to different conclusions based on a different worldview. Does that mean they are not "real" scientists? No, it means they are human (just like the evolutionists).

=="So-called"? Again they have the same credentials. If disagreeing with evolution puts a person "on the fringes" of scientific research then science has fallen from grace (to say the least).

==Same with the evolutionists. Do atheistic evolutions allow the facts, which clearly speak of intelligent design, to speak for themselves? Will they allow for the facts to bring them to the conclusion of a creator? No. So if AiG scientists have a big problem in this area, so do the evolutionists.

=="Science has no dogmas"? Of course it does. Two reasons: 1) Evolutionists have plenty of dogmas, as do all other scientists, and 2) Christians are required to put God's Word above their human/sinful reasoning.

Btw, the only consistant understanding of Genesis 1 is the literal six day understanding. Any other understanding, and I mean this, throws the whole thing into utter chaos.

You know I am sick and tired, and I mean sick and tired, of these type of attacks on AiG. I have followed AiG for years, I have seen several of them (including Ken Ham) in person, and I know they are real scientists who have real credentials, who are really serious. Now if you, or anyone else in the Church, disagree with AiG scientists fine. However please disagree with documented reasons. For Christians to call AiG scientists "so-called scientists" who have "some credentials", just because they disagree with AiG, is far below the standards Christian scientists, theologians, and historians should seek to uphold.