Note: my exams should be almost over by this point, and this makes the 9th out of 30 URCall videos that we’ve looked at. What do you make of these posts, as far as filler goes?
From the ICR’s URCall series of videos, hosted by Markus Lloyd. “Are comets evidence for a young Earth?” (link)
Did you know that comets are evidence for a young Earth? With each orbit around the Sun comets lose mass. If the solar system is really billions of years old these comets should no-longer exist. So how do you explain that?
This is an extremely short episode from URCall – so short, in fact, that they don’t actually manage to fit their argument in.
I’ve been doing this blog for more than three years now, as I discovered/remembered back in May when I stumbled upon these videos, and accordingly I’m quite familiar with the traditional young-Earth creationist line about comets. It’s a simplistic argument, sure – one that requires the omission and dismissal of the evidence that runs contrary to the narrative – but it needs a damn slight bit more than that. I’d much prefer the ICR to start relying exclusively on solid, well researched and explained points (we’d never hear from them again, most likely) but if they’re going to make this argument they need to actually make it.
This is no trivial point. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that I don’t quite understand the intended purpose of these videos. It seems most likely that they are trying to keep “millennials” raised in creationist traditions in the fold in the faith, but if so they’re doing a poor job of it. Failing to explain the logic that your audience is supposed to believe only encourages them to search for the remainder elsewhere, risking them turning up at this very site. If that’s how you found us, hello! I recommend you look for more information in my post from last year about the demise of comet ISON. The other hypothesis I have is that they want their young followers to parrot these claims to their friends and university lecturers, but if this is the most the ICR is offering them as far as evidence goes that’s not really going to work.
There are a couple of other things I want to add about the video itself. Lloyd is shown next to a bowl that contains some water and smoke-producing dry ice – or it did during the first take, anyway. He is holding above the bowl in a gloved hand an object which might be more dry ice, but might also just be a rock. Presumably it’s supposed to be evocative of a comet – hence my title – but it is never explained. I’m guessing that’s where all the budget for this video went, instead of towards fleshing out the script.
The script money certainly didn’t go to the animation at the end of the video. It shows a stereotypical classroom-type solar system, complete with the nine canonical planets we were sure existed back in primary school, the Sun, and Earth’s moon. And because this is a stereotypical depiction no part of it – neither sizes nor orbits – is even remotely to scale. But much more importantly, given the topic under discussion, it also contains no comets. Is it supposed to be a vision of our dystopian future? Don’t look at me.