Problems with the Oort Cloud---><quoted text>
Another distortion. Here it is, corrected:
There are comets, and they do not last millions of years. Granted.
This means either the universe is young
There is a natural source for fresh comets to arise from at times.
Does the existence of an Oort Cloud fit within the known paradigms of gravity and solar system development as we understand them? Why YES! So its not even an extraordinary claim. It's merely a prediction: given the model of stellar development and gravity that we have, the existence of comets today provide the basis of a PREDICTION that an Oort Cloud should exist. By and by, that prediction will be confirmed or falsified.
In the meantime, comets have a plausible source within the current paradigm, so they are certainly not "proof" that the universe is young.
No observational support.11 Therefore its doubtful that the Oort Cloud should be considered a scientific theory. It is really an ad hoc device to explain away the existence of long-period comets, given the dogma of billions of years.
---Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., Comet, Michael Joseph, London, p. 175, 1985
Collisions would have destroyed most comets: The classical Oort cloud is supposed to comprise comet nuclei left over from the evolutionary (nebular hypothesis) origin of the solar system, with a total mass of about 40 Earths.
But a newer study showed that collisions would have destroyed most of these, leaving a combined mass of comets equivalent to only about one Earth, or at most 3.5 Earths with some doubtful assumptions.
--Bailey, M.E., Where have all the comets gone? Science296(5576):21512153, 21 June 2002
The fading problem: The models predict about 100 times more NICs than are actually observed. So evolutionary astronomers postulate an arbitrary fading function.
A recent proposal is that the comets must disrupt before we get a chance to see them.
--Levison, H.F. et al., The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296(5576):22122215, 21 June 2002
"It seems desperate to propose an unobserved source to keep comets supplied for the alleged billions of years, then make excuses for why this hypothetical source doesnt feed in comets nearly as fast as it should."
Sayeth Dr Sarfati, physical chemist and NZ chess champ...and creationist, of course