I've discussed some of this in the newsgroup, but here I'll leave it for the rebuttal phase of the debate.

The arguments I use are of the same basic type as those of the old-earth proponents: extrapolation of present-day trends into the past to determine how long something could have been going on.

I do not claim to be an expert in the fields involved. Short-period comets Short period comets disinagrate rather quickly due to interaction with the sun while in the inner portion of the solar system.

Or, alternatively, evidence that the solar system is far younger than commonly thought. Referring to the zodaical light, produced by reflection of sunlight from particles in space, Introduction to Astronomy, 2nd edition (Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin and Katherin Haramundanis, Smithsonian Astronmical Observatory, 1970) says: "The observed brightness of the zodaical light could be produced by a cloud of small bodies of the same albedo as the moon, 1 mm in diameter and 5 miles apart or 10 feet in diameter and 1000 miles apart." (page 272) Simply because the solar system is "known" to be old, small particles are then rejected in favor of those up to the size of baseballs. Waytt says, in Principals of Astronomy, 2nd edition (1971) that the particles responsible of the zodical light are on the order of 0.001 cm radius.Also, since there has been controversy on the net, unless otherwise indicated, all references and quotes are taken from works which I have personally examined.Any conclusions not specifically quoted are my own and may not agree with those who supply the facts on which I base them.By my implication, this indicates that whether the old solar system theory adequately explains observations is also unknown. Presence of small particles in the solar system This is an astronomical observation consistent with a young solar system but which, as in the case of comets, requires extra assumptions if the solar system is old.Because of the forward motion of an object in orbit around the sun, the sun's radition strikes it at an angle and exerts a backwards force. In the case particles on the order of 1 mm or less in diameter, this force degrades the orbit, causing the particle to fall into the sun within thousands to a few million years.First, of the three astronomy books mentioned, only this one mentioned comets as a source and another, as mentioned above, discountsd small particles almost entirely.This leads me to believe that the comet source theory might not be an agreed upon answer.He gives the likely source for these particles to be comets, since we know that comets can create meteors.This sounds plausible, but there are a few difficulties.This is the first of two postings generated by the debate.It contains Bob Bales's opening statement, Chris Stassen's rebuttal, and Bob Bales's closing remarks.Also, the arguments I use here deal with the solar system, the earth, and man.They do not deal with the age of the universe as a whole.Comets are supposedly diverted from the reservoir by the influence of passing stars.The question is whether or not enough comets will be supplied by this mechanism to agree with observations.