In early science, which included a great deal of superstition, comets were considered portents of calamity. In ancient societies the scientists were often the priests of a particular religious culture, and they interpreted the heavens for the king and the people. Today, those who interpret the heavens are called scientists (or cosmologists). Some believe in God, while others do not, but each one interprets what he sees according to his worldview, just as the ancients did.
Comets are heavenly bodies that must come from somewhere, and at least some of them are made of (dirty) ice, but some are combinations of ice and rock. In any case, many of their orbits intersect our solar system, and at least some of those travel around our sun, just as Earth does. The comets lose some of their mass, predominantly the ice, as their orbits come nearer to the sun. Therefore, it is a logical conclusion that at least one day the ice would be completely melted and those comets that are composed entirely of ice would cease to exist.
This presents a problem for evolutionary scientists, including cosmological naturalists. If we take into consideration the rates at which a comet loses its mass while passing near to the sun, we can conclude that they couldn’t have been around after planets began forming, billions of years ago—according to the Big Bang Theory. In fact, the lives of these astrological “icebergs” are calculated only into the thousands of years, not millions or billions! Therefore, in order for the Big Bang Theory to be true (and the evolutionary theory as well, since it requires great ages for the rise of the many species on earth), naturalists must come up with a logical conclusion for the origin and existence of comets.
Most non-creation cosmologists account for the origin of comets by postulating the existence of the Oort Cloud (proposed by Dutch astronomer, Jan Hendrik Oort in 1950), which is said to be about one to three light years from our sun. Some sources say it was believed the Oort Cloud was said to lose comets as other astrological bodies collided with them, but this doesn’t seem to be a feasible reason for their orbiting our sun, since collisions with other heavenly bodies would undoubtedly end in their destruction. Even if comets were merely disrupted by passing heavenly bodies, one would think the comets would tend to be drawn by their gravitational pull rather than that of our distant sun. In any event, the Oort Cloud has never been observed by anyone, not even with the Hubble Telescope. Its existence rests entirely upon supposition to account for the existence of comets orbiting our sun, whose orbits and mass would not survive beyond thousands of years. It is difficult to not presume the Oort Cloud is nothing more than an improvisational device to support the Big Bang Theory. In other words, the Big Bang Theory “is” true; therefore, something like the Oort Cloud must exist.
Creationists are able to account for short lived comets through either creation by God in Genesis 1, or as a result of the breakup of the Earth’s crust during the Genesis Flood. If the Earth shook so violently that its plates were broken up with an energy release of cir. 10 billion atomic bombs, something like Dr. Walt Brown’s model may have occurred:
“As the crack raced around the earth, the ten-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth. Pressure in the subterranean chamber immediately beneath the rupture suddenly dropped to almost atmospheric pressure. Water exploded with great violence out of the ten-mile-deep “slit” that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.
“All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path corresponds to today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge,31 a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere. Much of the water fragmented into an “ocean” of droplets that fell as rain great distances away. This produced torrential rains such as the earth has never experienced—before or after.
“Some jetting water rose above the atmosphere where it froze and then fell on various regions of the earth as huge masses of extremely cold, muddy “hail.” That hail buried, suffocated, and froze many animals, including some mammoths. Finally, the most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped the earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids, and meteoroids.”
Dr. Brown’s model calls for a much larger land mass for the Earth, and some of this mass in the form of rocks, together with frozen water, methane and other elements were casts into space as asteroids, meteorites and comets, which after awhile began orbiting other planets and our sun. Some of this earthly material may even carry the remains of life that once existed on our planet.
The offerings above amount to a provable hypothesis from the creationist standpoint. That is, it can be proved according to its accuracy or inaccuracy to show its truth or fallacy. The problem with the naturalist’s model (the Oort Cloud) is that it’s not subject to the scientific method, and cannot be proved one way or another, because no one is able to see it and make studies and conclusions. It seems this happens to be the general modus operandi of many modern naturalists. If their model is proved wrong, they simply make up something that cannot be seen, offer a few mathematical equations to fortify the theory and move on. Which of these models do you think seems to be the most scientific approach to the truth?
 Dr. Walt Brown; In the Beginning, page 101.
 The Oort Cloud to answer the existence of comets; black matter an black energy to answer the existence of spiral galaxies in the observable limits of the Hubel telescope. None of these postulations have ever been seen, but they are assumed to exist in order to fortify a theory in danger of collapse.