Embryonic Dust Cloud Theory

I would like to finish this debate with an exhausted smile. I was quite happy that my opponent was able to entertain this debate with his full strength. Reviewing the arguments: I argued that collision of larger particles is destructive, not constructive. I explained the forces governing collision (m1• v1 + m2 • v2 = m1 • v1' + m2 • v2'). I provided examples which accurately display collision and I refuted the counterargument. The counterargument was: "If the common gravity of the two objects is large enough they will collide and fuse." "In reality this is like throwing a water balloon on a brick wall, firing a bullet into a charging person." Conclusion: As I've stated before, my opponent used false imagery to support a broken theory. Collision dynamics between large bodies of mass is correctly analogized as a brick colliding with a brick wall, or firing a bullet into a charging iron mass. He assumes the voter will be satisfied by this "water balloon" pseudo-science. 　 I argued that retrograde motion not only hinders the theory, but that it destroys the theory in it's current incarnation. I have provided quotes from NASA engineer/astrophysicist Jack Lissenauer, who stated emphatically: "the idea of forming planetary cores in this manner is far from demonstrated." I have also provided examples in our own solar system, I have provided examples in six other SUPERWASP systems and if my opponent had done his research, he would know that WASP-8 has multiple planets in retrograde (something he admitted to be the breaking component of this theory). The counterargument was: "What I meant were systems with several planets, in which the majority of the planets were in retrograde orbit." "Planetary systems, ours included, must have an origin or otherwise must have always existed. The nebular hypothesis, like you quoted, is considered by some as weak but it is the strongest and most plausible explanation we have." Conclusion: Not only has my opponent failed to follow through in researching the SuperWASP observatory findings (multiplanetary retrograde systems have been found), he makes a startling proclamation. He summarizes that the Nebular Hypothesis must be true because planets exist and nothing else makes sense. Is that science? We don't understand why we have solar systems, so our vague, unproven guess must be right? At this point, his argument left science and entered the realm of religion. He admitted, that he must take this theory on good faith, because nothing else makes sense. Ladies and Gentlemen, the retrograde activity is the nail in the coffin. It's not by my witt or intelligence that I may seal the coffin. It's by the discovery of real science at the hands of men and women much smarter than I. Do not mistake this for a declaration of victory. I am, however, confident that my opponent has utterly failed to refute this evidence. I argued that collision of planetoids would mix the mantle and the core, based on the arguments of provided sources. I offered the liquid state of our planetary core as proof. We know our planet has a liquid core, because our planet has a magnetic field. My opponent then attempts to sway the voter with half-truths by stating: "our inner core is a dense solid thanks to gravity." That is true, our inner core is "thought" to be solid, but the inner core is not the entire construct. We also have a liquid outer core. I will not provide extended argument on this, since it's the final round. I do, however, urge the voter to look deeper than the surface arguments made by my opponent. 　 I thank the voting public for hanging on. Unless you have a passion for the subject, this would be a dry and long-winded debate. My opponent has argued well and I have absolute respect for him. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. 　 Thank you for your time, -Genesis-Creation-