Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Because the amount would be so minuscule considering the current humidity of the planet was 0% it would have evaporated into parts per billion never to be seen again.  We would have to be talking about daily hits here over many years.

When and why was humidity 0% where?
You seem to hold this notion that evaporation means that the molecules just vanish from reality or something... 

We can be talking about daily hits over many years. How is that a problem?

I to have two knowns.  I know the universe exists, and I know there is enough holes in the scientific theory on how life started there must be another explanation.

Holes meaning something left unproven? So if we solve half of a puzzle and haven't placed the rest of the pieces, we throw the whole thing out? Better yet, we substitute it for a puzzle without pieces?

Did you get the videos to work yet?

47 percent of the crust is oxygen. Hydrogen would have been much more common in the early solar system. the question should be how could water not form here. Yes it could have formed different ways, However you have not pointed out any evidence besides," Well In my well informed opinion that seems unlikely," or there is lots of ways how it could have happened. Give us some facts, Besides you opinion. We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

To be continued.  Im working on 4 hours of sleep guys and I got to hit the rack.

Until next time.  CAPTAIN CREATION AWAAAYYYYYY!!

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 07:12:18 PM

Because the amount would be so minuscule considering the current humidity of the planet was 0% it would have evaporated into parts per billion never to be seen again.  We would have to be talking about daily hits here over many years.

When and why was humidity 0% where?
You seem to hold this notion that evaporation means that the molecules just vanish from reality or something... 

We can be talking about daily hits over many years. How is that a problem?

Quote

I to have two knowns.  I know the universe exists, and I know there is enough holes in the scientific theory on how life started there must be another explanation.

Holes meaning something left unproven? So if we solve half of a puzzle and haven't placed the rest of the pieces, we throw the whole thing out? Better yet, we substitute it for a puzzle without pieces?

Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?

No I definately can't watch the videos from my current location.  I am bandwidth limited. 


@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

[
Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?

I explained why there is no water on the moon, It doe not have the gravity to hold onto an atmosphere and it is close enough to the sun some of the water on it would turn to gas which would then leave so more of the ice would turn to a gas which would then leave. In other words it could not be able to hold onto any water that hit it.

@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

No I do not know the exact amount of comets in the early system. However in the early sysem comets would have been more plentiful. The reason is that is because of sublimation most of them would have been destroyed. this is the same concept as seeing a pot with boiling water knowing it has been boiling for a while and realizing that there was more water in it a earlier. So no I don't know how much comets were in the early solar system I do know that there was more of them earlier on.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM

[
Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?

I explained why there is no water on the moon, It doe not have the gravity to hold onto an atmosphere and it is close enough to the sun some of the water on it would turn to gas which would then leave so more of the ice would turn to a gas which would then leave. In other words it could not be able to hold onto any water that hit it.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM

@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

No I do not know the exact amount of comets in the early system. However in the early sysem comets would have been more plentiful. The reason is that is because of sublimation most of them would have been destroyed. this is the same concept as seeing a pot with boiling water knowing it has been boiling for a while and realizing that there was more water in it a earlier. So no I don't know how much comets were in the early solar system I do know that there was more of them earlier on.

  More yes, but you cannot say with any certainty the were slaming into our new home at a daily rate could you?  Has this been observed in other new systems?

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 09, 2009, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM

[
Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?

I explained why there is no water on the moon, It doe not have the gravity to hold onto an atmosphere and it is close enough to the sun some of the water on it would turn to gas which would then leave so more of the ice would turn to a gas which would then leave. In other words it could not be able to hold onto any water that hit it.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM

@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

No I do not know the exact amount of comets in the early system. However in the early sysem comets would have been more plentiful. The reason is that is because of sublimation most of them would have been destroyed. this is the same concept as seeing a pot with boiling water knowing it has been boiling for a while and realizing that there was more water in it a earlier. So no I don't know how much comets were in the early solar system I do know that there was more of them earlier on.

  More yes, but you cannot say with any certainty the were slaming into our new home at a daily rate could you?  Has this been observed in other new systems?

No it as not been observed in new systems. A big portion of that is we cant see a planet smaller then Jupiter. Let alone a comet a few miles long.  So no I am not certain about it. However there is evidence that it wold happen. do I know it is right. No I don't have certainty about i. How ever I think it is a valid Hypothesis. I could probably do some research to find out the average amount of water in the early system. with I could probably find the average amount of of comets that would be hitting it per a day. But frankly I don't know enough stats to do that. So know I can't say how likely it is to happen but it is possible. And I can't believe the person that made that hypothesis didn't run them.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was not enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess. A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

Nebular theory posits that the closet bodies to others collided and added to each other and that the early galaxy was a cloud a material.

The stable orbits remained while unstable ones decayed and impacted planets. Jupiter only helps with the asteroids drifting from outside our solar system from origins that don't really matter. If we superimpose the density of the asteroids, in say... the asteroid belt, then asteroids in the early planet formation are more than abundant.

And a guess and hypothesis are very different btw.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was not enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess. A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

Nebular theory posits that the closet bodies to others collided and added to each other and that the early galaxy was a cloud a material.

The stable orbits remained while unstable ones decayed and impacted planets. Jupiter only helps with the asteroids drifting from outside our solar system from origins that don't really matter. If we superimpose the density of the asteroids, in say... the asteroid belt, then asteroids in the early planet formation are more than abundant.

And a guess and hypothesis are very different btw.

We aren't talking about asteroids here.

Why? Because asteroids don't contain ice?
Ah, but they do.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 10, 2009, 12:18:29 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was not enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess. A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

Nebular theory posits that the closet bodies to others collided and added to each other and that the early galaxy was a cloud a material.

The stable orbits remained while unstable ones decayed and impacted planets. Jupiter only helps with the asteroids drifting from outside our solar system from origins that don't really matter. If we superimpose the density of the asteroids, in say... the asteroid belt, then asteroids in the early planet formation are more than abundant.

And a guess and hypothesis are very different btw.

We aren't talking about asteroids here.

It's actually more likely that the water came from asteroids because of the ratio of deuterium and protium found in Earth's water.

*sigh* 

Do you guys just make shit up? 

Internet quote follows.

When we look around our solar system, we notice that there are large amounts of water in the outer regions.  This water is mostly in the form of ice, but it is still prevalent.  Comets are bodies in the outermost regions of the solar system that contain large amounts of water.  They also have highly elliptical orbits that frequently bring them into the inner solar system ? and sometimes on a path that will cause them to collide with Earth.  Although we have a general sense of the composition of comets ? they are like dirty snowballs that contain organic matter ? we do not yet know for sure their exact makeup.  Astronomers have studied at least three well-known comets ? Halley?s Comet and Comets Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp ? and they have noticed one commonality between the three.  In these comets, the percentage of deuterium (a form of hydrogen with double the mass of normal hydrogen) is twice that of what we find in average seawater.  It is not yet clear whether or not these comets are representative of the types of comets that would have been colliding with early Earth.  Regardless, if Earth had received the majority of its water from comets with similar composition, we would expect the percentage of deuterium to be similar.  We could even accept it if the percentage of deuterium in our oceans were greater than that of the comets, due to photodissociation and subsequent loss of deuterium to outer space.  Neither of these is the case, so we cannot currently make any conclusions about the contribution of water by comets.  Based on the deuterium composition of the oceans, scientists have estimated that no more than 10% of the water on Earth originally came from comet collisions.

 

Although we have just focused on comets as a possible water bearer for Earth, there are other planetary bodies to consider.  Meteoritic material originating in the asteroid belt could also be responsible for bringing water to Earth.  Objects in the outer part of the asteroid belt are predicted to contain up to twenty percent water.  Jupiter?s large mass and gravitational influence could easily have perturbed the orbits of asteroids in the belt, sending some of them on a one-way trip to Earth.  The composition of asteroids within the belt vary depending on their distance from the Sun, so it is difficult to estimate exactly how much water could have been contributed to Earth.  However, scientists such as Alessandro Morbidelli have predicted that if asteroids had collided with Earth to bring it the majority of its water, delivery by comets could have contributed some water ? resulting in more appropriate deuterium to hydrogen ratios in Earth?s oceans.

 

Like so many things in science, the exact origin of water on Earth is still unknown.  Yet scientists continue to make observations, collect data, and analyze information to try and develop a more complete understanding of the natural world.  One way in which scientists will be gathering more evidence regarding the origin of Earth?s water is the Deep Impact mission, scheduled for July 2005.  This mission will send a spacecraft to crash into Comet Tempel 1.  Once the spacecraft collides and forms an impact crater, scientists will to try and determine the exact composition of the comet.  Discovering a low deuterium concentration in the comet could drastically alter our theories about how water came to Earth.

*sigh* 

Do you guys just make shit up? 

I can't speak for the rest of them, but I make shit up.

Like so many things in science, the exact origin of water on Earth is still unknown.  Yet scientists continue to make observations, collect data, and analyze information to try and develop a more complete understanding of the natural world.

Nothing can be known. This site is a demonstration of that mentality. Scientists only favor the most likely scenarios, so trying to rub that in our faces doesn't do anything. We are open to anything we can learn, and to do that we have to be ready to admit it when a hypothesis doesn't pan out.

On the off chance that you ever find a way to view this: 

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 03:47:48 PM

Like so many things in science, the exact origin of water on Earth is still unknown.  Yet scientists continue to make observations, collect data, and analyze information to try and develop a more complete understanding of the natural world.

Nothing can be known. This site is a demonstration of that mentality. Scientists only favor the most likely scenarios, so trying to rub that in our faces doesn't do anything. We are open to anything we can learn, and to do that we have to be ready to admit it when a hypothesis doesn't pan out.

He is right you know.  You would be hard pressed to find a scientist that claims to know the 100% truth of anything.  The best you will likely find is 99.999% assurances.  It's what keeps science honest and true.  If a better explanation comes along, scientists will drop the old explanation in the light of new evidence.  The only people who claim to know the 100% truth about anything is religious people.  X-thousand years ago someone claimed something and on their word alone followers of that religion can now say that they know with unwaivering doubt that the person's claim is > 100% true.  I know religion makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but perhaps that's why people say the truth hurts.

The point is we started on comets, moved to asteroids, and neither according to that report could have done it.

You guys seem to be forgetting what the main topic of discussion is here.  Your belief of an unknown.  The exact same thing which you fault me for.  Which I have proven over and over again.

The point is we started on comets, moved to asteroids, and neither according to that report could have done it.

You guys seem to be forgetting what the main topic of discussion is here.  Your belief of an unknown.  The exact same thing which you fault me for.  Which I have proven over and over again.

That's not true at all because of subtle yet significant differences.  We believe what experts in fields of science tell us because they conduct real repeatable experiments that lead them to their conclusions.  If their conclusions are found to be flawed we discard the explanations in place of new ones.  You believe in something told to you by someone you mistakenly trusted.  You confirm this with "personal truth".  If a scientist came up with a new theory to explain the water on earth, and his/her claim was supported better by the evidence than the current theories, then we would all note the theory and spread the knowledge.  When a claim is put forth that can better explain anything contradicting religion, then a person can expect at least social ramifications and at most stoning.

I find it amusing when religious people devalue science to the level of religion; claiming that things like evolution is as much of a belief as is creation, or that not believing in God is an extraordinary leap of faith. When arguments like this are put forth I wonder why a person would try and validate their argument by implicating the opposing side of being wrong because it's just as wrong as their argument.  Was that hard to follow?  Think about it, it's a weak argument and you should stop using it.

What evidence do you have that asteroids and comets were slamming into the earth 4 biillion years ago on a daily basis depositing water onto the surface and into the atmosphere?

Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 

Quote from: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:48:27 PM

Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 

Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:49:36 PM

Quote from: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:48:27 PM

Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 

Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

We have conception?  Does this mean we are dating now?

Quote from: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:54:50 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:49:36 PM

Quote from: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:48:27 PM

Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 

Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

We have conception?  Does this mean we are dating now?

It may or may not mean life has begun. The abortion debate crowd still needs to get back to us with that little clarification.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:57:31 PM

Quote from: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:54:50 PM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:49:36 PM

Quote from: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:48:27 PM

Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 

Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

We have conception?  Does this mean we are dating now?

It may or may not mean life has begun. The abortion debate crowd still needs to get back to us with that little clarification.

Ok Ill wait.  In the mean time don't tell you dad.  He's going to be pissed.

What evidence do you have that asteroids and comets were slamming into the earth 4 biillion years ago on a daily basis depositing water onto the surface and into the atmosphere?

I don't have proof of this, nor am I interested in finding it.  I do not accept or doubt the assertion that celestial bodies brought water to earth.  I have done no research on the topic and I do not plan to.  It is not something that interests me, my area of interest lies in molecular biology and organic chemistry.  The talk of organic material on comets perked my interest, but all that really means is that there is carbon on them.  Also, the hydrogen isotope caught a second glance.  Other than that, I am not going to try and prove or disprove the origin of water beyond molecular observations.  

I am not attacking your attack of a theory (I think it's unfair to call what you're doing an argument), I am passively attacking your faith.  Nothing more.

I am passively attacking your faith.  Nothing more.

And I yours. 


Regardless of what you think about the comets you have to have some theory on how water got here.

Show evidence of that theory then.

And quit using proof.  You have to start with evidence before we get to the proof part.

Quote from: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 08:05:40 PM

I am passively attacking your faith.  Nothing more.

And I yours. 


Regardless of what you think about the comets you have to have some theory on how water got here.

Show evidence of that theory then.

And quit using proof.  You have to start with evidence before we get to the proof part.

I can give you an uneducated and ignorant theory if you wish, but I will have no evidence.  As I said, I have not studied the topic.  Is that what you want? 

Also, quit calling science faith, you are belittling the nature of science.  It is a weak argument and I have already told you why.  It's a statement that will send up red flags in your opponents minds, they will label you woefully misinformed and discontinue to listen to your arguments.  For example (perhaps an extreme example), if I started off every post by saying, "Praise Hitler!" then you would not take anything I said seriously regardless of the content of my message.  When you make errant statements like that, people label you as an ill informed bible beater and stop listening to you (if your view opposes them).  It is a horrible debating tactic and I again recommend that you stop using it.

Look dude, you can put all the little condescending notions in your posts that you want.  It doesn't change the facts.

FACT I don't know how the earth was created and or had water put upon it.

FACT You don't know how the earth was created and or had water put upon it.

FACT I have a book that gives me an answer to that question that I believe.

FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

FACT Neither of us have any solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

How are we any different from one another again?

FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

That's not exactly how science works and if you think that's how it works then your education system has horribly failed you.  If you would like to further this discussion, I can cite numerous examples in your book that you pick and choose from.

FACT Neither of us have any solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

You are right, I have no solid evidence.  But I would bet a years pay that the person or persons who came up with the theory did so on mounds of evidence (Assuming the theory in questions is adopted by modern science. Like I said, I am not informed on the topic).  Things like that do not come about by conjecture.

The rest of your facts I do not disagree with.

Look dude, you can put all the little condescending notions in your posts that you want.  It doesn't change the facts.

You as well are free to put all the misinformed, dark-aged, ignorant, and unscientific notions in your posts.  It will never change the facts.