Comet 3I/ATLAS is not expected to get very close to Earth; the closest it will come is approximately 1.8 astronomical units (about 170 million miles or 270 million kilometers)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3I_ATLAS_animation3.gif
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (66)
sorted by:
Elaborate
Well, first let me apologize for the haste, because I often dash off quickies for the benefit of c/Conspiracies to see who's interested. In this case I meant interstellar but miscalculated and said intergalactic instead.
Since young-earth proponents favor the accretion hypothesis of star-planet-satellite formation, they have no problem extending this to comets. Old-earth proponents are stuck arguing that all these things existed for billions of years and didn't wear down, leading to numerous difficulties (e.g. Oort cloud); in this case their presupposition requires that the interstellar comet arose from a star system sometime rather than accreting like a rogue planet did. Similarly their assumptions require that stars are constantly being newly born but that the first stars were stuck with being H-He only, except that we don't really have any stars of that nature so it's a (yet another) imagination created to fill in a gap in the theory. And of course this relies heavily on the greatest god of the gaps of this age, dark energy and dark matter!
Anyway, if we did have 10-20 billion years then there should have been many more collisions and escapes that would free many more interstellar objects. In terms of rogue planets, the mainstream is estimating that the number of rogue planets per star is somewhere between 0.25 and 100,000. Quite a margin of error there, indicating that the model for formation of material outside solar systems is thoroughly unsettled. It's my prediction that as we discover more of both rogue planets and interstellar objects, we will see numbers heavily weighted toward one end, I believe paucity, and this will force the mainstream to revise their picture once again.
It turns out that NASA is already on top of resolving such questions (despite its bias), planning to launch the Roman Telescope in 2027, which will produce very interesting information about "extra-solar planets ... chronology of the universe and growth of cosmic structure, ... dark energy, the consistency of general relativity, and the curvature of spacetime." Looking forward to it surprising the mainstream!
Looking more into 3I/ATLAS, it turns out to be the first (of 3) to approach from the sun's south, which basically means it's overtaking the sun as they both travel around the Milky Way core (Sagittarius A*). This was thoroughly unexpected and it either means 3I is an outlier that should've been rare or (yet again) the model was wrong to start with and southern approach is more common than predicted. Well, with so much that is unknown about interstellars and rogue planets, it's safe to say that I think there's a high likelihood that southern approach will continue to be detected more often than current models predict.
While much of that is new to me, my initial comment was based on the fact that whenever I peel back the Tyson-Nye facade of modern science I find guesswork upon imagination upon horror movie. (Yes, I literally just discovered that Fred Hoyle based his steady-state theory upon a horror movie, Dead of Night 1945, based on Hindu cyclicality.) So I could confidently predict that such anomalies appear when I look at this one, and there they are. People want interstellar objects to mean evidence of an origin other than Yahweh, but other classes of objects keep testifying of their true Creator instead, and so it will be seen with interstellars.
So the Bible is true and the universe really was created recently for the purpose of humanity developing an internet where they could argue over the Jews.
u/commanderofcheese Thoughts on this one?
It's true that what we understand about star/ planet formation is still very much in a hypothesis phase, but it's not pure spitballing -- we do have quite a bit of data on star formation.
But just because numbers of interstellar objects aren't exactly what one particular model predicted doesn't mean that you roll back to a YEC model that doesn't actually make any predictions.
His point about numbers of interstellars is... well, pointless. They're really hard to see. Heck, it's only recently we're even seeing some of the stuff that's in our own solar system.
Long story short this guy is talking out of his ass and you're eating it up because he's saying (without real evidence) that it supports your view of a young earth.
" Why the Standard Definition Masks the Lack of Functional Innovation
.. defining evolution as changes in allele frequencies oversimplifies the concept and ignores the need for new functional genetic information. It critiques common examples of genetic change—gain, selection, and loss—as insufficient to explain creative biological innovation, favoring a design-based interpretation instead.
One of the most commonly cited definitions of evolution in modern biology is simple: “Evolution is a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time.”
(Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (3rd ed., 2013), p. 5) Textbooks echo this idea widely: “Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.” (Campbell Biology, 11th ed., Urry et al., Pearson, 2017, p. 488) At first glance, this seems harmless—perhaps even intuitive. Populations change over time, and those changes involve genetics. What’s the problem? The problem is this: such definitions are tautological. They define evolution as “change,” and then treat all change as proof of evolution. They collapse a deep explanatory question into a mere operational description. And most importantly, they mask the actual nature of those changes—whether the change adds new biological functions (actual evolution), merely shifts existing traits (design), or degrades what already exists (design). 2. Three Categories of Genetic Change The standard definition obscures a crucial distinction: not all allele frequency changes are created equal. We must ask: what kind of change is taking place? Genetic variation can be divided into three broad categories: 2.1 Supposed Gain-of-Function Mutations (i.e. evolution) These would be truly evolutionary in the Darwinian sense—mutations that add new, specified functional information to the genome. If evolution is to build from bacteria to Beethoven, it must do this countless times. However, no clear examples exist of this in observed microbial evolution. Several case studies often cited as gain-of-function collapse under scrutiny: Nylonase (Flavobacterium): Arises from a frameshift mutation of a pre-existing gene. Function is crude and inefficient. (Source: Negoro, S. (2000). Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology) Rifampin Resistance (Mycobacterium tuberculosis): Point mutation in rpoB alters binding site for antibiotic. Results in degraded specificity and reduced fitness. (Source: Telenti et al., Lancet, 1993) Penicillin Resistance (Staphylococcus aureus): Production of β-lactamase, usually through gene acquisition (not mutation). Mutations that do occur only increase expression. (Source: Livermore, D. M., Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 1995) Tetracycline Resistance (E. coli): Caused by overexpression of efflux pumps or loss of repressor function—none of which introduce new functions. (Source: Levy, S. B., Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1992) Vancomycin Resistance (Enterococcus): Resistance arises from horizontal gene transfer of the vanA cluster. No novel mutation involved. (Source: Arthur & Courvalin, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1993) In summary, no known mutation in these examples introduces a truly novel function. All involve degradation, overexpression, or acquisition of pre-existing information—not innovation. So let me translate this – there is currently NO CLEAR DNA EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION. 2.2 Selection Among Existing Variation In some cases, allele frequencies shift due to selection pressures favoring certain pre-existing traits. For example, an organism may already carry alleles better suited to high temperatures or antibiotic exposure. The environment then selects these alleles. This is genuine adaptation, but not evolution in the creative sense. It merely shuffles or amplifies existing options. No new functionality is introduced into the genome. It’s like picking your warmest coat on a cold day—you haven’t invented anything new, just chosen from what you already had. 2.3 Loss-of-Function Mutations By far the most common mutations are loss-of-function mutations. These may confer short-term advantages by disabling or breaking existing systems—especially under artificial laboratory pressures. Examples include blocking membrane channels to prevent antibiotic uptake, disrupting metabolic genes, or deactivating regulatory systems. “The great majority of beneficial mutations are loss-of-function mutations… They adapt an organism by breaking or blunting a pre-existing system.” (Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 2019, p. 182) “Most real mutations are deleterious, and only a very few beneficial mutations represent a gain of new functional information.” (John Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 2005, p. 23) 3. The Design Hypothesis Explains the Data Design theory predicts exactly what we see: Genomes were originally rich in functional, specified information. Over time, mutations tend to degrade that information or repurpose existing parts. Natural selection fine-tunes what is already there—but it does not create new, integrated systems. Far from supporting evolution, the data points toward degeneration over time—a slow erosion of original function. This explains why beneficial mutations are overwhelmingly destructive and why observed changes never add genuine complexity. “Evolution has become in many respects a theory driven by its definitions. It is one thing to say that species change; it is another to define that change as evolution.” (— David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin, 2009, p. 16) 4. Conclusion Yes, allele frequencies change. But unless we ask what kind of change, we are only playing with semantics. The standard definition of evolution—“change in allele frequencies”—is an operational metric, not an explanatory mechanism. When all change is labeled “evolution,” the term loses explanatory power. Most importantly, the types of changes we observe—selection among existing traits and loss-of-function mutations—do not support Darwin’s vision of ever-increasing complexity. They support a design-centered model of descent with degradation, not ascent with innovation"
It’s a paid shill. Don’t listen to anything it says.
Who is giving out the checks? What currency? How much money? Does it earn it weekly, monthly, or yearly?
And how can others come to this conclusion?
For what?
Israel.
Whichever; they own all of them.
50¢ per post, per the leaked documents.
White genocide and the eradication of Christendom.
Ok
So how did you determine THAT specific country, out of 100+ on this earth, pays?
So weak and small an amount. SR is typically inactive. he posts un-commonly. If that were true, he'd be a post and comment FACTORY.
He is pro Christian, I see no evidence he wanted either to die..