View Single Post
Old 02-13-2013, 12:07 PM   #105
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
No I said you are stupid to put your faith in a weak model (snowball comet model).
Which is the same as disagreeing with you. Someone doesn't buy McCanney's model (the one you support unsupportedly) you call them "idiots," "clowns," "stupid." My point stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
It's weak because it cannot predict comet behavior.
Unsupported assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
It's also weak because of the tremendous amount of evidence that comets are indistinguishable from asteroids.
Unsupported assertion. That one paper from NASA that you put up from 1994 did not make such a bold claim (i.e. "comets are indistinguishable from asteroids"). Here is what it did state:

Quote:
...comets and asteroids have so much in common: they are small bodies; they are primordial, having formed 4.6 billion years ago along with the planets and their satellites; either type of object can be expected to be found in Jupiter's vicinity. The key difference is that comets are largely icy while the asteroids are virtually devoid of ice because they formed too close to the Sun.
That doesn't support your assertion that there is a "tremendous amount of evidence that comets are indistinguishable from asteroids," I'm afraid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The search for cometary ice has come up dry.
Unsupported assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Why does mainstream science continue to support and advocate a dead model? Good question.
That the current cometary model is "dead" is just another in a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long stream of unsupported assertions.

This is getting tiresome.

Last edited by orangeatheist; 02-13-2013 at 12:16 PM..
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote