Oort Cloud Fails Secular Cosmologists

A frequent evidence used by biblical creationists in support of  the young solar system is short-term comets. These dirty snowballs have elliptical orbits around the sun, and with each pass, part of each gets burned away. If the solar system were as old as secularists maintain, these comets would no longer exist.

Jan Oort used some jiggery-pokery to help save deep time by saying that way out yonder, beyond the orbits Neptune, Pluto, and all that good stuff, is a huge collection of comets just waiting to be stirred up by wandering stars and such. Then we have comets again, deep time be praised.

Short-term comets should not exist if the universe was very old, so secularists made up the Oort cloud to save deep time. Something recently happened that greatly shocked them.
NASA / JPL, based on illustration by Donald K. Yeoman (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There is no observational evidence for this obvious rescuing device. Like invisible space aliens and the Big Bang, believers in cosmic evolution take this by blind faith. Some are determined to propagate the mythology, sometimes through ignorance, but probably by deceit:

Used under federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)
In more recent news, a rock fell to Earth. Not a big rock, but it was terribly upsetting to secular cosmologists since it defied the prevailing view of solar system formation. Yep, another stick in the spokes. You see, after a certain point in the solar system, there isn't supposed to be rocky stuff, so the appearance of the rock resulted in wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Interesting that a backward comet that was also contrary to cosmic evolution seems to have simply ignored.) This helps illustrate the limited thinking attached to articles of faith held by secularists, but biblical creationists do not have a problem with the actual evidence.
Scientists are really good at one thing: rewriting the textbooks. At one level, this is to be expected as science discovers new facts. Sometimes, though, the clash between textbook orthodoxy and observations calls into question what scientists thought they knew.

. . .

How many years have planetary scientists taught that rocks are close to the sun, and ices are farther out from the sun? Decades? A century or more? Remember the “frost line” that supposedly explained why distant gas giants were composed of volatiles (water and ice) and inner planets were composed of rocks? It made intuitive sense; there should be a radius beyond which it is colder. The “Oort Cloud” of comets was supposed to be all ice at vast distances.

The rest of the article is at "Wrong Again: Oort Cloud Fail." Other material is found at "The Oort Cloud: Faith Without Evidence."