Statler Wrote:Oh brother. Oort Clouds are not even a Scientific Theory, so don't pull that on me. Since you yourself admitted that there is no observed evidence to support their existance then they can't be a working theory. I can just go all Dawkins on you here too, "Well maybe a pink unicorn or a giant teapot is spitting out these comets!" Sad thing is that Oort Clouds appear in our high school textbooks as proven fact. I hate it when Old-Earthers lie to our children. I love bringing up Oort Clouds and other magical things because Old-Earthers have to use the very forms of arguments that they bash when Creationists use. "Well just because we have not seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" "Well they help explain the gaps we have in Comet Theory!"
What I said was that there was no difinitive (i.e., unambiguous) evidence (yet). The Oort cloud is a hypothesis based on the observational criteria I set forth in items 1 through 3. Unless you have a working hypothesis that better explains those observations, all you are doing here is blowing smoke rings outta yer arse.
Statler Wrote:Huh? I said that? Please show me where I said that. I have never brought up the "Neutrino Sea" in any of my posts. I think you are being dishonest and misquoting me again. It's sad you have to stoop to that level to try and prove your point.
Note that he didn't actually address the refutation. Typical. Oh, and by the way, you can make all the, ahem, logical arguments you care to make, but at the end of the day, if you don't prove your premise (God did it), then those arguments are meaningless.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
