Early solar system formation in one image 450 light years away

[Padawanbater2]

HL Tauri

This shows the beginning stages of planet formation, the same way our solar system was formed nearly 5 billion years ago

Why would a god create such a system?

 

[Dr Kynes]

HL Tauri

This shows the beginning stages of planet formation, the same way our solar system was formed nearly 5 billion years ago

Why would a god create such a system?

Typical Toby thread

Toby starts with an False Dilemma
Opponent chooses Facts
Opponent commands Facts to use Reality Attack
It's super effective
Toby's False Dilemma uses Endless Fallacies attack
it's not very effective
False Dilemma is confused, False Dilemma hurt itself in confusion
False Dilemma fainted
Toby chooses Derailment
Derailment uses Ad Hominem Attack
it's not very effective
Opponent's Facts uses Logic Attack
Toby evades the attack and recalls his Derailment to the safety of his pokeball
Toby declares victory
Toby demands Gym Badge
make new thread
rinse and repeat

 

[Padawanbater2]

Typical Toby thread

Toby starts with an False Dilemma
Opponent chooses Facts
Opponent commands Facts to use Reality Attack
It's super effective
Toby's False Dilemma uses Endless Fallacies attack
it's not very effective
False Dilemma is confused, False Dilemma hurt itself in confusion
False Dilemma fainted
Toby chooses Derailment
Derailment uses Ad Hominem Attack
it's not very effective
Opponent's Facts uses Logic Attack
Toby evades the attack and recalls his Derailment to the safety of his pokeball
Toby declares victory
Toby demands Gym Badge
make new thread
rinse and repeat

Does this make it harder for you to believe in imaginary friends?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Does this make it harder for you to believe in imaginary friends?

no.

you couldnt convince an eskimo of the existence of snow.

that hypothetical innuit would listen to your "arguments" realize they were nothing but rhetorical fallacies and leaps of irrational non-logic, and discount your wild assertions out of hand, and go back to building his igloo.

a stopped clock might be right twice a day but only a fool would rely on it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

no.

you couldnt convince an eskimo of the existence of snow.

that hypothetical innuit would listen to your "arguments" realize they were nothing but rhetorical fallacies and leaps of irrational non-logic, and discount your wild assertions out of hand, and go back to building his igloo.

a stopped clock might be right twice a day but only a fool would rely on it.

Are you denying the fact that picture shows the beginning stages of planetary formation, just like our solar system around 5 billion years ago?

Is this another one of your global conspiracy theories perpetuated by the scientists?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Are you denying the fact that picture shows the beginning stages of planetary formation, just like our solar system around 5 billion years ago?

Is this another one of your global conspiracy theories perpetuated by the scientists?

looks like an accretion disc.

lemme know when it forms planets, until then it's just a theory.


saturn has an accretion disc too.

they are COMMON

 

[Padawanbater2]

looks like an accretion disc.

lemme know when it forms planets, until then it's just a theory.


saturn has an accretion disc too.

they are COMMON

It took over 13 billion years for our solar system to form, your argument from incredulity is invalid

Plate tectonics, gravity and evolution are theory, do you know what that word means in science?

Our Moon formed in a similar way

 

[bradburry]

HL Tauri

This shows the beginning stages of planet formation, the same way our solar system was formed nearly 5 billion years ago

Why would a god create such a system?

what you create if you were god

 

[Dr Kynes]

It took over 13 billion years for our solar system to form, your argument from incredulity is invalid

Plate tectonics, gravity and evolution are theory, do you know what that word means in science?

Our Moon formed in a similar way

argument from ignorance?

it is BELIEVED that such disc may form planets SOMETIMES, but they do not always do so, yet here you are arguing that this image is definitive proof of something, and this is actually planets forming right now.

you made a positive statement of fact, based on one image which does not even show what you claim is happening, then went on to declare that it was positive proof of the non-existence of something entirely unrelated.

the THEORY holds that our solar system may have looked summat like that some billions of years ago, but that THEORY is not proved by this image, and nobody but you would declare such.

there have been many images of accretion discs, yet not one has been declared to be proof positive of the theory.

you have manufactured a claim out of whole cloth, and your own fundamental ignorance of the issues at question, then you tried to prop your strawman up as proof of the falsity of another claim.

that image does NOT show planets forming, nor do any of the other photos of accretion discs. that claim is entirely a product of your own fevered imagination.

even if the image DID actually show planets forming in real time, that would still not be proof of the non-existence of anyone's deity(s).

your appeal to ignorance is so profound, you dont even know what youre arguing about

Edit: even astrophysicists dont agree on how the moon was formed, so your declarations of fact on that score are just more of your usual ignorance on parade.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html

 

[Padawanbater2]

argument from ignorance?

Yes, you don't understand how it could happen so it didn't/couldn't: argument from incredulity

it is BELIEVED that such disc may form planets SOMETIMES, but they do not always do so, yet here you are arguing that this image is definitive proof of something, and this is actually planets forming right now.

you made a positive statement of fact, based on one image which does not even show what you claim is happening, then went on to declare that it was positive proof of the non-existence of something entirely unrelated.

the THEORY holds that our solar system may have looked summat like that some billions of years ago, but that THEORY is not proved by this image, and nobody but you would declare such.

there have been many images of accretion discs, yet not one has been declared to be proof positive of the theory.

you have manufactured a claim out of whole cloth, and your own fundamental ignorance of the issues at question, then you tried to prop your strawman up as proof of the falsity of another claim.

that image does NOT show planets forming, nor do any of the other photos of accretion discs. that claim is entirely a product of your own fevered imagination.

even if the image DID actually show planets forming in real time, that would still not be proof of the non-existence of anyone's deity(s).

your appeal to ignorance is so profound, you dont even know what youre arguing about

Edit: even astrophysicists dont agree on how the moon was formed, so your declarations of fact on that score are just more of your usual ignorance on parade.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_formation.html

""These features are almost certainly the result of young planet-like bodies that are being formed in the disc. This is surprising since such young stars are not expected to have large planetary bodies capable of producing the structures we see in this image," said Stuartt Corder, ALMA Deputy Director.

“When we first saw this image we were astounded at the spectacular level of detail. HL Tauri is no more than a million years old, yet already its disc appears to be full of forming planets. This one image alone will revolutionise theories of planet formation,” explained Catherine Vlahakis, ALMA Deputy Program Scientist and Lead Program Scientist for the ALMA Long Baseline Campaign."

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1436/

According to the ESA, that picture shows exactly what I said it did in the OP, early planetary formation which lends even more credence to how our own solar system formed. Have you ever wondered why all planetary bodies revolve in the same direction except for bodies captured by gravity?

I also didn't make any positive statement about God. I asked a question based on the image compared to what religious texts say about the origin of the Earth

It's clear you don't understand how scientific terminology differentiates from common terminology, there are only degrees of certainty in science, and each statement I've made already assumes that, because that's how it works in science

"The most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the Moon involves a collision of two protoplanetary bodies during the early accretional period of Solar System evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

 

[Dadioski]

It does appear that some accretion is occurring in this picture. Physics is physics, that gas gets constipated and forms a planet, happens all the time. It would take a heavenly metamucil to stop that shit. I really like the word though, "accretion" but as mentioned that's some pretty heavy shit. My company was accreted, I don't think we had any planetary shit happen, must of been just enough fiber in the deal.
Maybe I got into an ongoing conversation, is there a chapter 1 this appears to be chapter 2. I feel innuendo and all sorts of stuff going on. It's all willy nilly.
OK time for bed. It may be years before i get back on line, this thread may have astrobiologically done me in. Not a real word but it should be.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes, you don't understand how it could happen so it didn't/couldn't: argument from incredulity



""These features are almost certainly the result of young planet-like bodies that are being formed in the disc. This is surprising since such young stars are not expected to have large planetary bodies capable of producing the structures we see in this image," said Stuartt Corder, ALMA Deputy Director.

“When we first saw this image we were astounded at the spectacular level of detail. HL Tauri is no more than a million years old, yet already its disc appears to be full of forming planets. This one image alone will revolutionise theories of planet formation,” explained Catherine Vlahakis, ALMA Deputy Program Scientist and Lead Program Scientist for the ALMA Long Baseline Campaign."

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1436/

According to the ESA, that picture shows exactly what I said it did in the OP, early planetary formation which lends even more credence to how our own solar system formed. Have you ever wondered why all planetary bodies revolve in the same direction except for bodies captured by gravity?

I also didn't make any positive statement about God. I asked a question based on the image compared to what religious texts say about the origin of the Earth

It's clear you don't understand how scientific terminology differentiates from common terminology, there are only degrees of certainty in science, and each statement I've made already assumes that, because that's how it works in science

"The most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the Moon involves a collision of two protoplanetary bodies during the early accretional period of Solar System evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

and none of that blather actually says what you claim.

that image MAY show planetary bodies forming, but even the cited article doesnt declare it to be proof positive like you do.

the moon MAY have formed with the earth, or it MAY be a result of a collision, or it MAY be the result of something else entirely. not even your sacred text wikipedia claims that any of that shit actually happened bu t rather lays out THEORIES.

when challenged on your bullshit, you habitually take theories and transmute them into facts and definitve declarations then cite studies and articles which do not even begin to make the sweepoing claims you assert, before you declare victory, declare "The Science Is Settled" and move on to your next strawman.

thats why you are clownshoes.

Edit: and none of that blather even begins to claim that this image (even if it were Proof Positive of the theory in question, which it aint) proves your subsequent claim that this therefore proves that deities dont exist.

 

[UncleBuck]

lol, another kynes meltdown.

hard to believe this guy is stocking the hostess products at walmart rather than calculating launch trajectories for NASA.

but that's probably a good thing since he can't do simple exponents.

 

[Padawanbater2]

and none of that blather actually says what you claim.

that image MAY show planetary bodies forming, but even the cited article doesnt declare it to be proof positive like you do.

the moon MAY have formed with the earth, or it MAY be a result of a collision, or it MAY be the result of something else entirely. not even your sacred text wikipedia claims that any of that shit actually happened bu t rather lays out THEORIES.

when challenged on your bullshit, you habitually take theories and transmute them into facts and definitve declarations then cite studies and articles which do not even begin to make the sweepoing claims you assert, before you declare victory, declare "The Science Is Settled" and move on to your next strawman.

thats why you are clownshoes.

Edit: and none of that blather even begins to claim that this image (even if it were Proof Positive of the theory in question, which it aint) proves your subsequent claim that this therefore proves that deities dont exist.

Quote where I claimed the picture disproves God

I'll wait..

 

[Dr Kynes]

Quote where I claimed the picture disproves God

I'll wait..

Why would a god create such a system?

 

[Padawanbater2]

"Why would a God create such a system?" Is not claiming anything. I am asking a question not making a claim

You can tell because there is a question mark at the end...

 

[Dr Kynes]

"Why would a God create such a system?" Is not claiming anything. I am asking a question not making a claim

You can tell because there is a question mark at the end...

 

[UncleBuck]

View attachment 3300707

that was a question, not a claim.

for example, a question: how does one remove semen from kitten fur?

and now, a claim: dr kynes is no longer to be trusted around kittens.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Just like I said, you can never admit when you're wrong

A big sign of weakness

 

[Dr Kynes]

Just like I said, you can never admit when you're wrong

A big sign of weakness

your cowardly retreat from your position doesnt make me wrong.
it means you have turned tail and fled.

you begged the question, created the false dilemma, and now you are running away from it as fast as you can.

and of course, you declare victory and demand your gym badge.

exactly as predicted.

so many lulz.