The link does not work, but I found thisOriginally Posted by sol88
Earth-shattering news! Astrophysicists need to revise their theories based on new experimental data... just as they have always done.Comet from coldest spot in solar system has material from hottest places
Scientists analyzing recent samples of comet dust have discovered minerals that formed near the sun or other stars. That means materials from the innermost part of the solar system could have traveled to the outer reaches, where comets formed.
"The interesting thing is we are finding these high-temperature minerals in materials from the coldest place in the solar system," said Donald Brownlee, a University of Washington astronomer who is principal investigator, or lead scientist, for NASA's Stardust mission.
Among the finds in material brought back by Stardust is olivine, a mineral that is the primary component of the green sand found on some Hawaiian beaches. It is among the most common minerals in the universe, but finding it in comet Wild 2 could challenge a common view of how such crystalline materials form.
So, where is the EU-based theory that explains comet formation better than the mainstream theories?
Or do you really think, just like Intelligent Design proponents or Conspiracy Theorists, that because mainstream theories are not 100.00000000% confirmed and don't have every little detail worked out, that alternative "theories" composed of half-baked qualitative ideas with no self-consistent structure, unsupported or even disproven by experimental evidence, are then by default correct?
I called it in the closed EU thread the mors tua, vita mea fallacy.
At least real scientists can admit when they are wrong and then correct their mistakes. That is not something EU proponents seem willing to do.Originally Posted by sol88
Are you, sol88, prepared to face the fact that EU ideas are wrong and admit so?
Or are you going to run around in circles, tap dancing around the issues, moving goalposts and avoiding the questions, just so you won't have to admit that you were wrong?
Now, address my points:
And again:Originally Posted by papageno
Originally Posted by papageno