Postulate: Round Craters are Not From Asteroids

You're making a big mistake when you put a lable on me, Mac. I dont come with lables. I learn something new every day and believe in it for a day and thats it...then I change. And I dispise Creationism in all its forms also. Reality is far, far beyond any silly Creation/Evolution debate. What you may not understand is that the universe corrects itself every so often and with those corrections it promotes Involutionary and Evolutionary development, not destruction. No Sir, planets do not blow up in the middle of their life cycle. Suns perhaps do, but not planets.

Yes, Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter are gas balls but all of them have a solid small core there, guranteed. You knew that. Were you just making a joke about Uranus?

Meta

These corrective frequencies are for one purpose and one purpose only...to KEEP the universe functioning properly, not causing planets to explode.[UnQuote]

You may not have meant it in the vein it appears to invoke but I take exception to the term "Purpose" here. It certainly sounds "Creationist".

Also is not Uranus mostly gas? Would that not account for not seeing a impact scar. Look at Jupiter after the Shumaker-Levi incident.

Meta,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>You're making a big mistake when you put a lable on me, Mac.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


ANS: Don't get sensative. I didn't lable you. I said you may not have meant it in that way but that the use of the term "Purpose" appeared creationist. It was a comment on your choice of words, not a judgement or your character.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Yes, Uranus, Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter are gas balls but all of them have a solid small core there, guranteed. You knew that.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Yes. I knew it is believed that they do have some solid core.

[/quote][/b]Were you just making a joke about Uranus? [/b][/quote]

ANS: No I wasn't joking. Due to the thickness of the atmosphere ad the smallness of any core the likely hood that the core of having a direct strike is minimized, any strike that may have occured would have had the bulk of the energy dissapated before reaching the core.

And most importantly I am not aware of any detailed surface maps or photographs. The atmosphere would not retain evidence of strikes.

Unless I am missing something about what you were claiming.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Yes Mac,

You are correct. All of science is missing something about the cause of the round crater strikes, Mac. I know what it is but Im going to let you figure it out yourself, for a time.

Meta

Meta,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Yes Mac,

You are correct. All of science is missing something about the cause of the round crater strikes, Mac. I know what it is but Im going to let you figure it out yourself, for a time.

Meta</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Personally, I am content with our understandings and there will be no thought concerning the issue.

If you actually had something of merit I would suggest it would have been shared.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

It will be but not here.

Meta

everyone is missing the point... the postulate was that round or near round craters aren't formed by asteroids, and you all are arguing about oblique ones... what the heck?!?!? the fact of the matter is, asteroids can come down and hit the surface of a planet at 90 degrees, or near 90 degrees... this is really quite pointless and irrelivant to be arguing whether there are oblique craters or not.