Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits

In article <C2C696CE.576C%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article 842r93daquhgg50b9mb7vpdmljmvpekmm7@xxxxxxx, Jack Dominey
at look@xxxxxx wrote on 7/17/07 8:41 PM:

In
<timberwoof.spam-FE1E44.13530815072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <C2BFC248.4E52%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Evans
<georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article
timberwoof.spam-F69959.22204814072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Timberwoof at timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on
7/14/07 10:20 PM:

In article <C2BE553E.4CB1%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Evans
<georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The accretion model seems much more likely because of the great
acceptance of the big bang hypothesis.

The accretion model of planetary formation was devised
independently of the Big Bang doesn't depend on the Big Bang to
work.

Did I say that accidentally? No. I said the big bang model lends
weight to the accretion model.

Well, it seems to me that since the accretion model stands on its
own based on information from our own solar system and works well
with the Big Bang hypothesis (as well as stellar physics theory),
it's a pretty good theory. But you don't seem to like it. What's
your alternative? (And you don't seem to like Big Bang either.
What's your alternative?)

Timberwoof, I think you went far to easy on Mr. Evans.

The accretion model of planetary formation is absolutely and
utterly independent of the Big Bang. If a Steady State model were
to be introduced and solve all the unanswered questions in
cosmology, the accretion model would be unaffected.

The accretion model (unless my understanding is fundamentally
flawed, always a possibility) depends on the nature and behavior of
material surrounding a young star. That's it. Big Bang's got
nothing to do with it.

If you read the dialog carefully, you will see I never talk about a
cause and effect relationship. I think the two ideas lend weight to
each other since both are naturalistic. OTOH, I could be comfortable
with God going around and building everything we see as is--no big
bang, no accretion.

Omphalos. Last Thursdayism.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits
    ... George Evans wrote: ... The accretion model of planetary formation was devised independently of the ... Big Bang doesn't depend on the Big Bang to work. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits
    ... acceptance of the big bang hypothesis. ... The accretion model of planetary formation was devised ... Big Bang hypothesis, ... The accretion model of planetary formation is absolutely and utterly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits
    ... And these freeze frames bring us a long history of conditions in the solar ... The surface of an object does not give you a long history. ... acceptance of the big bang hypothesis. ... The accretion model of planetary formation was devised ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits
    ... George Evans wrote: ... The surface of an object does not give you a long history. ... acceptance of the big bang hypothesis. ... The accretion model of planetary formation was devised ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists dying
    ... so you've only read strawman versions of the Big Bang hypothesis ... >>which is intended to account for the observation that most of the ... >>came from, whether they existed before the big bang or not, nor about ... >>random universe with some tendencies, or it might have been an infinitely ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading