You're moving the goal posts in the same post you deny moving them. "I want evidence" became "I want an astronomer who agrees". And many published studies and links support my side of the argument, some have already been posted. Didn't a couple people on your side complain about mentioning "sides"?
An astronomer's statement IS the evidence I'll accept. Please provide that or admit that you're just speculating.
I'm not responsible for what other people post.
I've been providing the evidence... Where is yours?
Where is the "evidence" you've been providing? What claim did I make that requires evidence? All I've said is that there's no evidence for your claims.
Calling someone your friend is neutral but calling them yer buddy is sneering? I thought both terms were positive. What does that make an acquaintance? A negative? Do you have a link to these definitions? I dont think you should be complaining about discourteous and unfriendly people, the victims of your charm might get a chuckle but the hypocrisy leaves a stench.
Would you just leave this alone? Really, just drop it. I explained that it wasn't so much your words, but your entire tone that was rude and disrespectful. You know full well that "your friend Lorizael" and "yer buddy Lori" (I don't refer to him as "Lori"; I normally refer to people by their full usernames unless they've indicated that a nickname is preferred) have two entirely different connotations. Especially when I've explained the circumstances of his involvement in this thread at least a half-dozen times and you still refuse to acknowledge that.
You asked him to check the thread out, you invited him. He's yer buddy...
1. I explained the thread. I explained your notion. I asked him if he knew of any articles that would support your notion. I provided a link to this thread IF he wanted to see it for himself. There was no invitation to post here, as I had no idea at that time that he was a member here. Posting here was his own choice.
2. No. We are fellow forum members, and I respect his decision to study astronomy and appreciate his willingness to share what he's learned. That's it. I'm not saying I don't like him - I do - but that doesn't translate into friendship the way you keep insisting.
The authors of the article I linked.
There was no statement that Earth formed in the asteroid belt.
You were one of the complainers... But how does complaining about "buddy', 'snowline', 'theory' or 'without form' suggest anything other than the pedantry identified by Manfred? He's on yer side!
I have no knowledge of what Manfred posts.
I am complaining about your persistent deliberate mischaracterization of the interaction/relationship between me and another forum member. You continually confuse the term "theory" with "hypothesis/idea/notion", and you insist that land that's underwater is without form. Anyone dunking their head underwater in a lake, pond, or ocean can see that this is not true, providing their eyes are open. Have you ever gone swimming anywhere other than a swimming pool? I learned how to swim in a lake, and the land that's underwater, ie. not dry, is not "formless."
Its just a name for the primordial world before the creation of land and life.
It's not a name listed in any astronomy source I've read. If you've come across a reference book or journal article (written by real astronomers), please point that out. A link to the article or the relevant Amazon page or even a library reference number would do.
Genesis doesn't say Heaven is where we go upon death, it says Heaven is a firmament placed amidst the water.
The only "firmament" amidst the water I can think of is the reflection of the sky on a body of water.
An asteroid belt is okay but an asteroid bracelet is just unfathomable? Belts are solid too...
"Asteroid belt" is a term we've all grown up with. No, I don't know offhand where it comes from. "Kuiper Belt" is another term with which we're all becoming more familiar, ie. Pluto is one of the Kuiper Belt Objects. Nobody is saying that there is a real belt out there.
This "hammered bracelet" nonsense doesn't make any sense. I could understand that as a metaphor for the Milky Way, but not the asteroid belt.
I dont know what "carrying on" means, what did I say?
Fussing, preaching, insisting, being stubborn. People have pointed out both here and at Apolyton that your notion about Pluto being one of Saturn's moons doesn't make any sense.
If the Earth formed at the snow line it might survive the red giant phase. And if the snow line is a logical location for a planet to form - and it is - then life bearing planets will also more likely form at snow lines. The goldilocks zone is based on life on this planet in its current orbit, but this orbit did not produce our water - so we have a skewed goldilocks zone that may not reflect the norm. Planets located where water is forming will occupy more distant orbits from their suns and more likely survive.
There aren't any planets in the place where you insist Earth formed. The only body in the asteroid belt that could remotely be called a planet is Ceres. The scientific jury is still out on that one, because they've really only begun to study it.
Now let's review your post above. You say that planets located where water is forming will occupy more distant orbits from their suns. You say water formed in the asteroid belt, yet that's not where Earth is located. We're closer to our primary, not farther. It doesn't matter if we get swallowed up along with Mercury and Venus - we don't have a lot of time, relatively speaking, before life will no longer be possible here. The Sun may have another 5 billion years or so, but life on Earth - according to some current theories - has less than a billion years. We're going to cook, bake, roast, burn (and many other related verbs) long before the Sun finishes its red giant phase. Hopefully we or our descendants will have left by then.
It does appear the Earth was hit by large objects loaded with heavy elements during the late heavy bombardment around 4 bya. These were presumed to be asteroids, but I believe such heavy material came from a nearby supernova. Perhaps one that helped trigger the collapse of our solar nebula. Or a rogue planet that survived the death of its star finding a new home in our system.
You think a supernova explosion throws off solid chunks?
You've been awfully thin with evidence, so it was refreshing to see an admission of speculation.
Why does it need to be a scientific term? I said the increasing knowledge of good and evil on display in Genesis is an example of evolution.
It needs to be a scientific term because you're claiming that Genesis and these Babylonian myths describe real science.
You disagree with my criticism?
Doesn't the smiley make that clear? I don't use that one when I'm agreeing with someone.
There is an idea, a notion, a bare hypothesis that this mythical planet exists. So far there's no proof that it exists.
If you're going to claim that humans can evolve on a planet that takes 3600 years to make one orbit and spends most of its time well beyond the goldilocks zone, you're going to have to do some lively stepping to show us the evidence for that. Humans need liquid water, not only to survive, but to exist in the first place.
