This guy, Andrew, thinks that there are more new comets discovered
simply because more people are looking out for them today than at any
time in history.
> >An up-to-date review of comets has been written by the creationist
> >astronomer Dr Danny Faulkner, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal
> >11(3):264-273, 1997. Danny sets out the status quo on the issue of the
> >comets and is still convinced that the short-period comets are a
> >powerful argument for a young Solar System and a young Earth. He deals
> >in far more detail with the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud than does Morton,
> >and he is a qualified astronomer which Morton isn't."
> No I am not an astronomer. If one wants to play that game then I will cite
> Hugh Ross and the thousands of other qualified astronomers who think
> Faulkner's views are out to lunch. But trying the argument from authority
> is a useless game. If you want votes, the young-earth view loses in every
> single field--geology, astronomy, biology, physics etc. So lets stay on the
> high road and deal with the data.
This approach of appealing to authority has been a favored strategy of
YEC supporters in my experience.
> > Has Morton actually read the Austin/Humphreys paper,
> >ĪThe seaās missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionistsā, Proceedings of
> >the 2nd International Conference on Creationism, 1990, pp. 17-31?
> Several times. Adrian, has your friend read my salt in the sea post I
> posted along with this?
I bet you he hasn't, but I'll post the question to him anyway. His
primary (perhaps only) source of information comes from YEC researchers.
Anyway, thanks Glenn for the responses. I'll forward them to Andrew.