Reply With Quote
Ad Hominem BS? Really? TypicalOriginally Posted by Jerome
Idiocy....even the STORY about the birth of a star refutes your BS. Did you not read it? Words such as "EMBRYONIC": An organism PRIOR TO BIRTH. Indeed then you have the ever popular objective scientific terms, "......we already BELIEVED....." . "...we were not expecting to see such a massive EMBRYONIC STAR...." "...this CLOUD is "EXPECTED" to "FORM" at least ONE STAR...."
Indeed this is a STORY....not based on the observed birth of a star but....as stated clearly in the STORY, "Different THORIES Exist (theory: an IDEA void of the objective evidence to be known as a FACT of SCIENCE...but a tentative INSIGHT of an accepted HYPOTHESIS)…….as to how these massive stars form but the teams findings LEND WEIGHT (another Objective Scientific Term?) to the IDEA that the entire cloud begins to collapse inward...….."
You presented no evidence of a NEW STAR born....you presented the USUAL pseudo bullshit presenting speculation, opinion and conjecture as some type of FACT. How do we know if this CLOUD will form a new star? Wait around for few billion more years?
Perhaps the authors of this (wink, wink) STORY have never heard of the LAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE. Either a position is true....or its negate is true, nothing can be both TRUE and FALSE.
You presented a STORY as proof of the birth of a new star.....yet YOUR OWN STORY presents the context of the story as presenting an UNBORN cloud of gas that is being THEROIZED as one day being a STAR.
The Truth? Its either a star or its a cloud of gas in a suggested "embryonic" state of PRE BIRTH. Its a cloud of cosmic dust that exists in what the pseudo scientists call a STAR NURSERY, i.e., a Nebula not a star...yet no one has witnessed the actual birth of a star.. http://www.nasa.gov/multiamedia/imag...ature_643.html
FYI: PRO CREATION is a fact of applied science as presented by the experiments of Louis Pasteur. LIFE ONLY COMES FROM EXISTING LIFE...i.e., pro-creation. Within species....i.e., BIO-GENESIS
Life cannot be duplicated in nature or in the lab....void of the pre-existing life of any species. Makes one wonder where the first life came from....no? If nature cannot produce life in a supposed Spontaneous (outside of existing life) Generation as claimed is the 1st tenet of Evolution ( first biological life arose from dead non living matter by random chance). No building will stand without a solid foundation. The evolutionists want to ignore the only logical conclusion to their theory...……..if life came about naturally, the 1st life had to form Spontaneously from DEAD MATTER....or there logically must have been a superior creating force.
The better question? Was Adam created without a belly button?Or....how many angels can dance on the head of pin? The point....you present ad hominem speculation that cannot be answered via the laws of physics or science and demand that be considered as truth. In reality: You present nothing worthy of debate.
Bookmarks