At the risk of repeating myself over and over again, I
have provided a
major reference, namely the
peer-reviewed article on the new Stardust findings which prompted me to start this thread. I offer this as something which I consider to be strong additional
observational evidence in support of
the EC model. I believe it was a perfectly valid reason for re-opening the debate on
the EC model and I repeat that I vigorously contest Nereid's attempt at the end of post
#201 to have this sort of observational evidence disbarred from being used to argue the case for
the EC model. What sort of "science-based" approach is this, which refuses to even look at new, albeit embarrassing, observational evidence which challenges the existing theory? This would truly be standing science on its head, with overriding priority apparently being given to the defence of the existing theory in the face of contradictory evidence.
True to form, there has so far been deafening silence on this "new Stardust findings" reference on the part of mainstream contributors. By my reckoning there remain something like 28 hours to at last respond, before the thread is closed. Any offers?