Summations Only

This is a science-based debate site, you need evidence to discuss here, it's in the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

--Percy

No one has denied that. These black holes just do not play the role that you suggest. No where in your article does it offer any credence to the argument as you have presented it. Why go? No one accepted your ideas here either.

Long expected meltdown ... now imminent.As Mike the Cool person once said...

quote:

---

MIKE: Rick, I don't wish to suggest your jokes are predictable, but there are as-of-yet undiscovered tribes in the heart of the Peruvian jungle, who knew you were going to say that.

---

Don't let the door knob hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.Edited by NoNukes, : Repair quote marks. I want that w/quote button back...

I think JT misspoke and actually intended to say that he was going where new theories are not *rejected*. Of course, what he considers rejection is actually just careful scrutiny, which is the best one could wish for a new idea.JT probably believes the harsh scrutiny was because of close-mindedness and antagonism toward new ideas. People usually project their own qualities onto others, and so he probably believes everyone here knows as little of science as he does, so he felt free to ignore what we told him about what the evidence actually indicates.--Percy

Of course. Just thought I would have a little fun with him since by his actions he is not here to have an actual discussion. Though I think he will find that anywhere he goes his ideas will be met with scrutiny and critisizm. The way that they should be. If his ideas had any merit than they and he should be able to weather that scrutiny. You can see how well that has gone so far though. Something tells me he will instead choose to go to a creation site where every one can pat his ass and tell him how right he is. Even though they are all as clueless as he.

Isn't christian love so beautiful.Really? Really?
You got nothing?
Do you even know what accretion theory is?
The key to success here is to know at least a little about the thread you are posting in.
Maybe you should go to school and take some classes on science. Then in 4-5 years you can come back and discuss things on a freshman college level.

I would hope that you would actually want to figure out if your ideas are correct or not. Anyone can make something up. Anyone can play make-believe. What we are interested in is if something is part of reality. For that, you need evidence.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Well, you know, if you start discussing an idea then one of the things people are going to want to discuss is "Is your idea true or false?" and "How do you know?" In fact, there hardly seems to be anything else one can discuss about an idea. I suppose one could ask: "Can you express it in rhyming couplets?" or "Is there an apt metaphor for your idea that involves anteaters?" but in the end what really interests people about ideas is their truth or falsehood.

Hello. I stopped by with a beer in one hand and a sponge on a 'pole' in the other. Check out the article from this web site:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/07/110701101750.htmBasically the article explains that ejecta from the sun captured by a space probe and returned to earth showed that the particles were slightly different from similar particles on the earth and other planets and asteroids.My conclusion is that the force event of planetary ejection caused the particles to be altered slightly. This conclusion is far superior to the conclusion derived from the accretion model, which is so far, nothing. No one should be surprised if the answer is 'its a mystery'. Hurry, this story is already old.At any rate, my conlusion is supported by this paragraph in the article. Speaking about the pariticles, particularly Oxygen: Of course, as always, the main point of the article is that based on current models, we have yet another unexplained discovery.
Bye!

But your conclusion is completely ruled out by my conclusion that it is magic fairies that caused the particles to be altered slightly.
Your conclusion is therefore wrong.

Hello Jet,Earlier in the thread you claimed that if we saw a black hole eating a star your theories were "finished". I provided you with a link to such a report and you claimed that it didn't count because the black hole is outside our galaxy. You never explained why black holes outside our galaxy don't count. Could you do so?

Then that totaly defeats your idea. You claim that the Earth was formed by being ejected from the Sun. However, particles ejected from the Sun were found to be different than what we find here on Earth. Then the Earth could not have been born from an ejecta from the Sun. If your idea had any merit, then we should see that particles that we know have been ejected from the Sun match particles here on Earth. No your conclusion is refuted by the article.

Hi JT,One thing we find most puzzling about creationists, and it's a quality you share with them, is that they're completely unbothered, even blas, about their errors. Here in this thread about the origins of the solar system where you have gotten almost nothing right, you have now added to your already lengthy list of errors. The article you cite (Sun and Planets Constructed Differently, Analysis from NASA Mission Suggests) is evidence *against* your ejection idea: Since the Earth is formed from isotopically different material than the sun, it could not have formed through being ejected from the sun, else its isotopic composition would have been identical.Now here's the mystery. After making yet another fatal error one would expect that any normal person would pause, think, reflect, reconsider, and rededicate themselves to improving their knowledge, but something tells me that won't be the case here.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Ignorance is indeed bliss.If you had read the article you would appreciate that the "particles" were different on the nuclear level rather than on the chemical level. Had you understood that, you would have been obliged to make up a convincing story about how that came to pass. But because you know jack-diddly-squat you are satisfied with spewing dubious crap with out the least shame. The problem for you is that current theory already explains this issue. There is no need to make up nonsense.FWIW, I could probably make up an answer that would explain the isotopic difference between oxygen in the sun and oxygen on earth using your ejecta scenario. But you cannot do so, because you aren't familiar with even the science that high school kids have mastered.And as if you hadn't been insufferable enough, you celebrate your ignorance and have the gall and hubris to belittle people who actually know what they are talking about.I tutor high school and college kids in math, physics, and chemistry several times a week, and I've never encountered from even the poorest student, the stubborn refusal to learn even the tiniest bit about those subjects as evidenced in every substantive post you make. It's actually something to celebrate when you get anything right.To /dev/null with your hopeless behind.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.