Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Find a single scientist who does not know how water got here and I'll show you someone that needs to take a little more chemistry.

Lets start with this one.

Apparently this scientist - "A key question is 'How did the ice get there in the first place?'" said James Head of Brown University

The reason they are doubtful about mars is because it lacks an atmosphere.

Oh so now it went from "ATTENTION EVERYONE THERE IS WATER ON MARS!"  To reasons they are doubtful?  C'mon man.

Look up jupiter's moons. One of them is covered in ice. Water ice.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/europa.htm

Europa may be internally active, and its crust may have, or had in the past, liquid water which can harbor life.  
My have or had?  So they aren't sure if it is there now or maybe used to be there?  Seriously, why do you post these links?

Then we have comets made of ice. You are trying to make water sound like this rare chemical that only exists in select quantities in rare places. It is a compound easily made from two common atoms.

http://www.u24u.com/


this article is on water being one of the most abundant chemicals in the universe.

Water is not rare.

Ahh, I knew it was going to come to this.  How many comets had to hit the earth to form enough to cover 75% of the earths surface?  Or was that just a biproduct of one or two hitting the planet and then rain started falling?

And why even bring up the comets.  I thought there was enough hydrogen and oxygen floating around to produce oceans?

Warrdog will switch from "god made the earth special, that's why it has water" to the equally profound "god made water everywhere so Earth could exist"

Until you prove all these other planets have water(which you haven't) Im not switching to anything

I ask you this warrdog, do you seriously think god, with infinite power, infinite time, infinite wisdom, poofed the earth into existence exactly as it was 8,000 years ago, but made it look much older. Then he explained it to the people of long ago who did not really care about its age. Then we develop ways to figure out about how old it is, and he feels no need to tell us we are wrong?

The ways that you speak of are flawed.  But Im not getting into a carbon dating discussion with you until we resolve where the water came from.

Why didn't god create the universe the way it looks like it is created? Do you seriously believe he lacks the power to set up every event and miracle he wanted to happen from the beginning?

Because he wanted people to believe in him regardless of whatever they may find out there.  Again Im not trying to get into religous debate here either.  We are discussing water and its arrival on earth.

Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. oxygen I believe is one of the most plentiful elements in the earths crust. yes there is not much hydrogen here now but there was in the early solar system. That is where the water came from. I have already explained why the other planets don't have water.

Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. oxygen I believe is one of the most plentiful elements in the earths crust. yes there is not much hydrogen here now but there was in the early solar system. That is where the water came from. I have already explained why the other planets don't have water.

Really?  So now we've gone from they all have it, or their moons have it, back to where I started.  Earth is the only one.  On top of that, why is it that different scientists have different opinions on where it came from?

We are also the only planet that is the correct distance from the star to have liquid water. Now you may say this is luck but water could have formed on any planat big enough to hold an atmospher and in the belt of where liquid water can form. There isn't any planet that does both of those besides earth. if there was we would be two close together to it and our orbits would be thrown off. So the fact we are here talking is why there is only one planet that has liquid water.

Man, you have it all figured out don't you?  Maybe you should go work for NASA or a college or something.

Why is it that different scientists have different opinions on where it came from?

Man, you have it all figured out don't you?  Maybe you should go work for NASA or a college or something.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 09:23:17 PM

Why is it that different scientists have different opinions on where it came from?

because scientist are people. there will always be someone who disagrees with the group. Now I don't feel like looking this up but you can if you want. is there a strong majority of the  way  that scientists believe how the water got here?

Here are some common themes.  Each one very different from the other.  Take your pick, and enjoy the kool-aid.

    * The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.

    * Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich asteroids (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the asteroid belt colliding with a pre-historic Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.

    * Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis (guttation, transpiration).

    * Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.

    * Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

And only one can be right because...?

Yeah, a combination of all of the above right?

The point being?  No one fucking knows.  Period. 

The reason that it is doubtful there is liquid water is because of the miles deep ice all over the planet. It's hard to tell if there is water on the bottom of that.

The reason that it is doubtful there is liquid water is because of the miles deep ice all over the planet. It's hard to tell if there is water on the bottom of that.

Miles deep of CO2 ice.

Except it isn't CO2 Ice.

Except it isn't CO2 Ice.

'

Dry ice, your point?

Not what I said either.

Are you drunk, or extremely tired?

Neither. I'm saying that the ice is water. "Water Helen, Wa-ter"

Neither. I'm saying that the ice is water. "Water Helen, Wa-ter"

Ahh you're right.  I misread your post.  Maybe Im drunk. 

Except it isn't CO2 Ice.

According to this it is.

Southern - The top layer consists of frozen carbon dioxide and about 8 meters (27 feet) thick

Northern - this gains a seasonal coating of frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice) about one meter (three feet) thick.


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html

We can only speculate whats underneath.

That's mars you linked me to.

Uropa.

That's mars you linked me to.

Uropa.

Moons, planets, make up your mind.

The reason that it is doubtful there is liquid water is because of the miles deep ice all over the planet. It's hard to tell if there is water on the bottom of that.

Fine Europa,

Ahh crap.  Foiled again.

We also summarized the evidence for liquid water at Europa based on geological evidence from images of Europa taken by the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft. The geological evidence is tantalizing, but incomplete it suggests that liquid water could be present.

The Voyager and Galileo spacecraft were not equipped with instruments which could directly detect water or water ice. Observations of Europa show the geometric albedo is generally high, indicative of a reflective surface. Earth-based observations of the infrared spectra of Europa and the other Galilean satellites were made in the early 1970's from ground and airborne observatories.



I still would only call this evidence, wouldn't you?

Ah yes. I forgot something is never evidence unless it was written by someone 2,000 years ago.

Ah yes. I forgot something is never evidence unless it was written by someone 2,000 years ago.

It's the exact same as some scientists' guess about whats on the surface of a moon 480 million miles away.  Or how water formed on the earth, which you still haven't answered.

Belief in an unknown.  Great Job.

Quote from: Pongo on April 02, 2009, 03:16:16 PM

I'm at work now typing on my phone so I soooooo hope Raist owns you. You really should fact check before posting.

I guess that didn't work out as well as you hoped, did it? 

Raist preformed above and beyond expectations.  I'm not sure what's sadder, that you've lost so soundly that your continued debate only illustrates the depths and facets of your ignorance, or that your trust in wherever you pulled these arguments from is so sound that you do not even realize that you've lost.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 07:22:04 PM

Quote from: Pongo on April 02, 2009, 03:16:16 PM

I'm at work now typing on my phone so I soooooo hope Raist owns you. You really should fact check before posting.

I guess that didn't work out as well as you hoped, did it? 

Raist preformed above and beyond expectations.  I'm not sure what's sadder, that you've lost so soundly that your continued debate only illustrates the depths and facets of your ignorance, or that your trust in wherever you pulled these arguments from is so sound that you do not even realize that you've lost.

That entire post is what every facepalm.jpg's and fail.jpg's were made for.


This is my favorite part.
 

or that your trust in wherever you pulled these arguments from is so sound that you do not even realize that you've lost.

I pulled them from his links.  Wow.

Those were your counter remarks. He means things like your argument about water being rare except for Earth. Also questioning how it formed. I showed an article claiming it is the most abundant chemical in the universe so you bring up the ridiculous statement "we don't know how it formed" Then you start up your ridiculous sidetrack about how we're sure there is water on other planets. Then claim that Uropa is possibly buried under a sea of carbon dioxide miles deep.

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

You remember you're asking a creationist right?

So..... god poofed a giant lake of carbon dioxide onto a planet when he never does anything similar to this anywhere else namely because it would not make sense when he is tricking us reasonable people in every other category so well? Makes sense. The fact is that much carbon dioxide would not naturally be around an object that size. God has managed to follow general rules of formation for everything else.


A mistake?

As for the rest of my post that you ignored.

So..... god poofed a giant lake of carbon dioxide onto a planet when he never does anything similar to this anywhere else namely because it would not make sense when he is tricking us reasonable people in every other category so well? Makes sense. The fact is that much carbon dioxide would not naturally be around an object that size. God has managed to follow general rules of formation for everything else.


A mistake?

As for the rest of my post that you ignored.

You are giving me shit about ignoring parts of your post?  Try going back a page.  You got a lot of catching up to do.

Quote from: Raist on April 03, 2009, 12:01:07 AM

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

You remember you're asking a creationist right?

It's generally looked down upon and considered infantile when all your arguments have to evoke dues ex machina.  That kind of thinking cannot even stand in the same ball park as science. 

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 12:03:41 AM

Quote from: Raist on April 03, 2009, 12:01:07 AM

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

You remember you're asking a creationist right?

It's generally looked down upon and considered infantile when all your arguments have to evoke dues ex machina.  That kind of thinking cannot even stand in the same ball park as science. 

I am, what I am. 

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.