So what do you say? Did a comet crash into earth??? :) Or what? There's pretty much water on earth, it's hard to imagine how it got there....really.

Also, for the earth (and sun and the planets) to form, there should have been much debri, so where did that come from? And by much, I REALLY really really do mean MUCH! Not imagining some dust cloud floating in space, but MUCH, like a gigantic FLOOD of dust.

You seem to have all the answers, but only if you make them tiny...only if they fit into your theories...

it's hard to imagine how it got there....really. Not imagining some dust cloud floating in space

Science does not try to 'imagine' how things work as do those who won't take the time to learn something.

You seem to have all the answers, but only if you make them tiny...only if they fit into your theories...

God did it. Isn't that what you wanted to hear? Does that not fit your 'tiny' worldview?

So what do you say? Did a comet crash into earth??? :) Or what? There's pretty much water on earth, it's hard to imagine how it got there....really.

Also, for the earth (and sun and the planets) to form, there should have been much debri, so where did that come from? And by much, I REALLY really really do mean MUCH! Not imagining some dust cloud floating in space, but MUCH, like a gigantic FLOOD of dust.

You seem to have all the answers, but only if you make them tiny...only if they fit into your theories...

The idea that most of Earth's water was brought by comets doesn't hold water (pun intended) anymore. Actually is believed that it came from the interior of Earth

But even if it did come from a comet, the dust cloud would have settled millions of years ago.

Yeah, I seem to be all over the places ...

it's hard to imagine how it got there....really. Not imagining some dust cloud floating in space

Science does not try to 'imagine' how things work as do those who won't take the time to learn something.Science? Oh, I didn't expect "Science" to imagine anything, I really don't expect "Science" to do anything else either.

People who does scientific things once in a while has to imagine things. Sometimes a stretch is needed.

People are people, you don't think they dream just because they are scientists? You don't think they look at things with awe?

Do you imagine things? I'm sure you do, otherwise things would get pretty boring.

In fact, imagining is a great way to learn.

You seem to have all the answers, but only if you make them tiny...only if they fit into your theories...

God did it. Isn't that what you wanted to hear? Does that not fit your 'tiny' worldview?No, what I wanted to hear is "I don't know" so we can move on. Would I expect atheists to say "God did it"?

But I want you to see that all is not crystal clear and your Theories are just a detailed description of imagination. I also try to imagine things that is consistent with reality. Consistent but not known is a great imagination.

Do you imagine things? I'm sure you do, otherwise things would get pretty boring.

In fact, imagining is a great way to learn.

I agree, and yes, I can imagine a great many things.

I can imagine an all-powerful being whipping the universe into shape, carefully placing each star and galaxy in its proper position, moving away from us, exactly which would fool us into thinking the universe came about from a single point. I can imagine we were placed here by said being in our current form, once again fooled into thinking we evolved on our own.

Yes, I can imagine a great many things.

I also try to imagine things that is consistent with reality. Consistent but not known is a great imagination.

Then, you must imagine the earth to be flat, as that is consistent with the view out your window.

Then, you must imagine the earth to be flat, as that is consistent with the view out your window.

The earth is flat. It's also spherical.

Lucas "The idea that most of Earth's water was brought by comets doesn't hold water (pun intended) anymore. Actually is believed that it came from the interior of Earth"

Interesting theory... considering this, from Genesis "and the subterrranean waters burst forth upon the earth for forty days and nights".

The Genesis model describes also a canopy of liquid water, (or very extreme humidity) that surrounded the earth. When that broke, that was the first rain. Prior to that; water for plants, survival etc. rose up from the earth, or collected as dew in the morning. This is said to be pre-rain cycle.

The only way to account for a world wide flood, (under present circumstances) would be for the atmosphere to release all of the water it contained all at once, and for all 'glacial reserves' to be available, and for all the other water, usually underground etc. to be on the surface all at once.

Natuarally, the water would begin evaporaing imediately (begining the rain cycle as we know it), and we know this kind of world wide, 'water release' is not possible now for certain. The Genesis story also promises that such a flood would not ever happen again. It was only possible for this to happen one time, so the model is consistant.

The Genesis 'water canopy' pre-flood notion, is interesting to consider also with other findings as well. With such a canopy, the whole earth would have been much more balanced and temperate. There would not have been such extreme hot and cold spots, as we see with polar caps etc. The sun's energy would have radiated more generally all over the globe.

When palm trees were found burried in ice at the North Pole, the creation story is a more sensable explanation than some sort of metaphysical earth conveyor, which some have posed.

Anyhow, there's more to the Genesis story than some of you know, or care to learn about, much more. But whatever; that's enough for now.

Do you imagine things? I'm sure you do, otherwise things would get pretty boring.

In fact, imagining is a great way to learn.

I agree, and yes, I can imagine a great many things.

I can imagine an all-powerful being whipping the universe into shape, carefully placing each star and galaxy in its proper position, moving away from us, exactly which would fool us into thinking the universe came about from a single point. I can imagine we were placed here by said being in our current form, once again fooled into thinking we evolved on our own.

Yes, I can imagine a great many things.

I also try to imagine things that is consistent with reality. Consistent but not known is a great imagination.

Then, you must imagine the earth to be flat, as that is consistent with the view out your window.

This is always in the conversation, but the short-sighted church leaders of that time failed to read the book they claimed infalible. If they had, they would have known that the Bible mentions a sphere of the earth.

I'll find it for you sometime. I don't remember where it is, but it was not the Bible, or God who gave the 'flat earth' notion, it was a few guys, so get over it. They do not represent me, (or the biblically based science) anymore than spontaneously generated flies represents your views.

"biblically based science"

*rolls in laughter*

"biblically based science"

*rolls in laughter*

HMMMM...

Please disprove the Bible for us using Science.

Do you imagine things? I'm sure you do, otherwise things would get pretty boring.

In fact, imagining is a great way to learn.

I agree, and yes, I can imagine a great many things.

I can imagine an all-powerful being whipping the universe into shape, carefully placing each star and galaxy in its proper position, moving away from us, exactly which would fool us into thinking the universe came about from a single point. I can imagine we were placed here by said being in our current form, once again fooled into thinking we evolved on our own.

Yes, I can imagine a great many things.That's better. But I sense irony...

I can imagine that everything came from one point to our view, while the point where everything came from in reality existed in all points. You see, it's much better when it is consistent with reality.



I also try to imagine things that is consistent with reality. Consistent but not known is a great imagination.

Then, you must imagine the earth to be flat, as that is consistent with the view out your window.Yeah! Bring it on! I can believe the earth is flat! You can too :) it's fun. WHOOAH! Let's make belief! Yeah!

For a much more interesting imagination though, face this:
Here we are at the earth, we think that we have the no.1 perspective, the important point to make conclusions. We saw the earth was round since we moved out to space and saw it through our own eyes (our no.1 perspective - a.k.a the important point). Though Nils von Granderhoffen got into a space rocket, and flew through space to a vast point away from all eyes of humanly importance. It wasn't really of this world, it was through a perspective far, far from us, but close, close to us. Everything was everywhere, each point was inside out, and through each perspective visible. Thought was made to think, "how" and "why"? He saw our ignorance at earth, where we didn't realise what it meant what we said. Everything at every point moves away, not only from us, from everything, everything moves away from everything else, there is no center point, at every point the other points moved away (at the same pace?), he realised that on earth he was inside the dimensions. While being outside the dimensions, he could see everything at every angle.

ok, I have a question; does everything move away from us at the same speed at all directions?

Q,

Science does not try to 'imagine' how things work as do those who won't take the time to learn something.

Umm.
Actually.
Yeah it does.
Watch it, Q. You're becoming an inductivist. Maybe even a positivist if you're not careful.

The thing is that science doesn't only imagine. It also works out methods that would falsify that which is imagined (the theory). If these methods don't falsify the theory then it stands... for the time being. Until someone else imagines different ways to falsify the theory. In which case, another theory had better be imagined to replace the old (or the original theory can be imagined differently to make up for the new observations).

Imagination is key.
Predictions and experiments are not science. They are merely part of the method of science. They do not create the theories themselves.
Imagination does that.


Cyperium,

Anyway.
As to the topic. (The side-topic.)
A flood of dust? Yeah? So? Is that so difficult to imagine?
Pretty limitied imagination you got there.

We saw the earth was round since we moved out to space and saw it through our own eyes (our no.1 perspective - a.k.a the important point).

Umm. Not quite. People knew the earth was round long before it was seen from space...
In fact, the ancient greeks were the first to show that the Earth was round, but that knowledge was lost because religious junkies like you interpreted their bible to say that the Earth was flat. So for a thousand years or more the Earth was flat because of your religion's mandates. And it was quite averse to being proven wrong in that. As it has in so many other things.

Q,



Umm.
Actually.
Yeah it does.
Watch it, Q. You're becoming an inductivist. Maybe even a positivist if you're not careful.

The thing is that science doesn't only imagine. It also works out methods that would falsify that which is imagined (the theory). If these methods don't falsify the theory then it stands... for the time being. Until someone else imagines different ways to falsify the theory. In which case, another theory had better be imagined to replace the old (or the original theory can be imagined differently to make up for the new observations).

Imagination is key.
Predictions and experiments are not science. They are merely part of the method of science. They do not create the theories themselves.
Imagination does that.


Cyperium,

Anyway.
As to the topic. (The side-topic.)
A flood of dust? Yeah? So? Is that so difficult to imagine?
Pretty limitied imagination you got there.He he! You still didn't get it :) ha ha :) lol !!!

Please disprove the Bible for us using Science.
I don't have to disprove it! Like any other mythology, to understand bible it has to be read like poetry not prose, like metaphor, not some scientifical or other factual information.
Should I give you the DNA of the snake in the garden of Eden or tell you what the serpent as a archetype in human psyche means?
Quite simply, there is no such DNA to discover, it is not a biological and it isn't a spiritual question; it's a psychological one.

He he! You still didn't get it ha ha lol !!!

Let me guess. You've got some bible verse in mind about a FLOOD of dust or something? Or are you going to equate the flood of dust with a flood of water and make it the Biblical flood (which was originally a Babylonian tale, by the way.)

Why are you trying to be so sly? There are multiple ways of interpreting the bible so that it can be seen to jibe with modern science. In fact, I encourage you religious types to do so, so that you'll stop trying to drag us back to the middle ages. The problem with you doing so is being made apparent in your present attitude, however. If you interpret your bible that way, then you end up believing that the bible said it first rather than the other way around. And then when science moves on (as it always does) your convictions will be so wedded to the faith you've already ascribed to in your new interpretation of the bible that you'll have to be dragged, kicking and screaming again into the modern age (meanwhile you'll be trying to drag us back into the past as religion dwells in the past as a habit, a safe zone.)

So. Why don't you just spit it out? You're not being as witty as you think you are, I asssure you.


(BY the way, I edited my post above yours to add to my comments to you. You might not have ssen it.)

ok, I have a question; does everything move away from us at the same speed at all directions?

If we agree that our observations are correct, regarding an expanding universe, then yes, all things move away from us at the same speed in all directions. This is very important, and at first glance has the feeling of an egocentric view, but if you try to model it, the only way for the expansion to not be centered around us, and our observations, then your statement must be true.

If you cam visualize the the X Y and Z in cubist forms, and then expand your imagined universe equally6 in all dimensions, depths.. you will notice that from any point in space, the observations are equal. There is no relative difference. Try it.

I think you are accurate, since the earth is not the center of a physical universe. All points are equal, and observably so.

I don't have to disprove it! Like any other mythology, to understand bible it has to be read like poetry not prose, like metaphor, not some scientifical or other factual information.
Should I give you the DNA of the snake in the garden of Eden or tell you what the serpent as a archetype in human psyche means?
Quite simply, there is no such DNA to discover, it is not a biological and it isn't a spiritual question; it's a psychological one.I agree, the Bible isn't scientific and shouldn't be treated that way. The Bible is a teaching of the world, but not scientifically. The important things is that God made it, we got a story behind it so that we can make it actual, even if it is not exactly as portraited in the Bible, the universe is still any way you see it a complex and 'intelligent' construction which holds the laws for any complexibility and any intelligence and any symmetry. We are a part of it, and really, if complexity of order can make us think, then the universe has some resources too, cause everything is by law, thus also ordered.

By intelligent, I mean that it is made with insight of it's own needs. Either it is intelligent or it has to have been more universes that didn't work out (if it was by random) possibly infinite number of universes, or the laws had to evolve to represent a working universe somehow.

Let me guess. You've got some bible verse in mind about a FLOOD of dust or something? Or are you going to equate the flood of dust with a flood of water and make it the Biblical flood (which was originally a Babylonian tale, by the way.)

Why are you trying to be so sly? There are multiple ways of interpreting the bible so that it can be seen to jibe with modern science. In fact, I encourage you religious types to do so, so that you'll stop trying to drag us back to the middle ages. The problem with you doing so is being made apparent in your present attitude, however. If you interpret your bible that way, then you end up believing that the bible said it first rather than the other way around. And then when science moves on (as it always does) your convictions will be so wedded to the faith you've already ascribed to in your new interpretation of the bible that you'll have to be dragged, kicking and screaming again into the modern age (meanwhile you'll be trying to drag us back into the past as religion dwells in the past as a habit, a safe zone.)

So. Why don't you just spit it out? You're not being as witty as you think you are, I asssure you.


(BY the way, I edited my post above yours to add to my comments to you. You might not have ssen it.)I just mean that you didn't see the "grandness" and HUGENESS that I tried to describe in my first post. Now it was only a flood of dust :) That was what I meant with that you still didn't understand even though you said I had small imagination not to be able to imagine it :)

It's difficult to imagine things on such a large scale, but you're really saying that none of us actually can?

I'll go you one better. The sun took a lot larger cloud of dust than the Earth.

Hell, you don't even have to really 'imagine' these monstrous clouds of dust, you can see them in space. Look at nebulas and look at the little pinpricks of light that are stars forming and you get a sense of the scale we're talking about.

Look at pictures of galaxies and see the huge spirals of dust that range from the center of the galaxy all the way to its extremities and you get even more scale.

So. This thread is that you think that scientists (or people with a scientific viewpoint) are incapable of imagining things on such a large scale?
Pshaw.
Tell that to Einstein. Relativity is utterly dependent upon imagining scales of such a large size.

Perhaps you should look to yourself. Your imagination of what science is and what scientists are capable of imagining is what is limited.


Edit: Or how about you delve the opposite end of scale? It's easy to imagine the extremely large. Huge monstrous clouds of dust. But what about the yawning abyss that exists within our own bodies? The howling nothingness between our very constituent particles? Imagine that. And then tell me what science is capable or incapable of imagining.

The difference, as I stated earlier, is that science requires more than imagination. Imagination must be controlled. It must be tempered. If we wish our imaginations (which can be quite prodiigious and lead us on extreme flights of fancy with little connection to reality) then we need some sort of method to prove our knowledge. Justification of knowledge has proved to be an impossible task, and so we are left with falsifiability as the prime method of science. (With prediction being a close second.) Thus, every bit of scientific fact is just one step away from being thrown away because it only takes one observation to lay waste to the most beautifully imagined theory.

How much does it take to knock down the bible? What is there to keep the bible on track?

By intelligent, I mean that it is made with insight of it's own needs. Either it is intelligent or it has to have been more universes that didn't work out (if it was by random) possibly infinite number of universes, or the laws had to evolve to represent a working universe somehow.
That is what the multiverse assumption suggests. Of course it can't be scientifically proven, we aren't developed and smart enough yet.
The atomic theory was introduced by the ancient Greeks more than 2000 years ago, and we could fully prove (or disprove) it only in the beginning of the 20th century or so.
It could well take us a 1000 years maybe to address the multiverse assumption with some competence, but there is no reason to claim until that that everything is created by some being from another dimension or something, we simply don't know. To imagine a creator is not science, to know it, would be science.
So to say that there is a creator is pure imagination. The problem is that most people want to have all the answers, then they are given a Quoran or something.
I have no problems with the state of not knowing, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to know. And to know is something else than to pretend to know (as christians do).

Lucas "The idea that most of Earth's water was brought by comets doesn't hold water (pun intended) anymore. Actually is believed that it came from the interior of Earth"

Interesting theory... considering this, from Genesis "and the subterrranean waters burst forth upon the earth for forty days and nights".

The Genesis model describes also a canopy of liquid water, (or very extreme humidity) that surrounded the earth. When that broke, that was the first rain. Prior to that; water for plants, survival etc. rose up from the earth, or collected as dew in the morning. This is said to be pre-rain cycle.

The only way to account for a world wide flood, (under present circumstances) would be for the atmosphere to release all of the water it contained all at once, and for all 'glacial reserves' to be available, and for all the other water, usually underground etc. to be on the surface all at once.

Natuarally, the water would begin evaporaing imediately (begining the rain cycle as we know it), and we know this kind of world wide, 'water release' is not possible now for certain. The Genesis story also promises that such a flood would not ever happen again. It was only possible for this to happen one time, so the model is consistant.

The Genesis 'water canopy' pre-flood notion, is interesting to consider also with other findings as well. With such a canopy, the whole earth would have been much more balanced and temperate. There would not have been such extreme hot and cold spots, as we see with polar caps etc. The sun's energy would have radiated more generally all over the globe.

When palm trees were found burried in ice at the North Pole, the creation story is a more sensable explanation than some sort of metaphysical earth conveyor, which some have posed.

Anyhow, there's more to the Genesis story than some of you know, or care to learn about, much more. But whatever; that's enough for now.

I wonder if the Bible also explains the water of Mars by postulating the existence of a canopy of water surrounding the red planet. Oh, perhaps the Bible says that Mars doesn't exist at all! I beg you pardon, it has been such a long time since I don't read the Bible

HMMMM...

Please disprove the Bible for us using Science.

You do have to prove one or the other, if in fact you believe they are diametrically opposed. It’s your point, not mine.

The Babylonian ‘Deluge’ is the oldest found record. What makes one believe there was no earlier story. Before this written History, there was no History? It didn’t exist because someone didn’t write it down first?

I wonder if the Bible also explains the water of Mars by postulating the existence of a canopy of water surrounding the red planet. Oh, perhaps the Bible says that Mars doesn't exist at all! I beg you pardon, it has been such a long time since I don't read the Bible

Dis-prove the canopy. Does science know where the water on mars comes from? Whatever we find on Mars has little to do with a book that does not address it. The Bible makes no claim to address Martian atmosphere.

This can only be speculated, as yet, so your point is ad homonym.

Dis-prove the canopy. Does science know where the water on mars comes from? Whatever we find on Mars has little to do with a book that does not address it. The Bible makes no claim to address Martian atmosphere.

This can only be speculated, as yet, so your point is ad homonym.

Yes, science can explain the origin of Mars' water. It also came from the interior of the planet, according to this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1135028.stm

So science is superior to the Bible because is able to explain the origin of water in at least two planets, not only one :cool:

Neat! Is this where the idea of earth's water (interior that is) also came from? The folks who wrote this?

I was going to ask what school the idea came from.

The Bible is superior to Science, because when it makes a statement like, 'water came up from inside the earth' it takes science many centuries to catch up! :)

It's difficult to imagine things on such a large scale, but you're really saying that none of us actually can?

I'll go you one better. The sun took a lot larger cloud of dust than the Earth.

Hell, you don't even have to really 'imagine' these monstrous clouds of dust, you can see them in space. Look at nebulas and look at the little pinpricks of light that are stars forming and you get a sense of the scale we're talking about.

Look at pictures of galaxies and see the huge spirals of dust that range from the center of the galaxy all the way to its extremities and you get even more scale.

So. This thread is that you think that scientists (or people with a scientific viewpoint) are incapable of imagining things on such a large scale?
Pshaw.
Tell that to Einstein. Relativity is utterly dependent upon imagining scales of such a large size.

Perhaps you should look to yourself. Your imagination of what science is and what scientists are capable of imagining is what is limited.


Edit: Or how about you delve the opposite end of scale? It's easy to imagine the extremely large. Huge monstrous clouds of dust. But what about the yawning abyss that exists within our own bodies? The howling nothingness between our very constituent particles? Imagine that. And then tell me what science is capable or incapable of imagining.

The difference, as I stated earlier, is that science requires more than imagination. Imagination must be controlled. It must be tempered. If we wish our imaginations (which can be quite prodiigious and lead us on extreme flights of fancy with little connection to reality) then we need some sort of method to prove our knowledge. Justification of knowledge has proved to be an impossible task, and so we are left with falsifiability as the prime method of science. (With prediction being a close second.) Thus, every bit of scientific fact is just one step away from being thrown away because it only takes one observation to lay waste to the most beautifully imagined theory.

How much does it take to knock down the bible? What is there to keep the bible on track?I didn't say that people that do science cannot imagine things, I said they probably can.

But one thing that is unforseen (or so it seems) by most, is that there is so MUCH debri, it's not just some little cloud. Even if you look at it through pictures, it is hard to imagine how it all got there. It's hard to imagine the explosion of nothingness (?) to produce such a vast amount of matter. That even Einstein couldn't imagine, cause that would be impossible, you try to imagine 10 billion galaxies containing 10 billion stars each contained in a grain which just wasn't there before :) or was it? Was it allways there? Where did the singularity come from? I was happy before, when they said "we don't know" now they pretend to know. like; "ooooh but time was bent over then 'round the singularity and ...yabbirish libberish...". Saying also that "space" exploded. "SPACE"! BOOM, the space exploded and left a singularity which BOOM! exploded! Big Badaboom! Or was space the singularity? Tell me, cause I honestly don't know. Maybe it was a knot?

But remember all; space is NOT, it can't explode, it's the same thing saying that nothingness exploded, nothingness is NOT, it can't explode !!!

Oh, maybe someone recognise this as some fundamentalist ideas? It's not, it's simple reasoning...ok, surely I got ontop of myself there for I while, but still, it's simple reasoning that anyone can follow.

So what's the deal?

Is space the singularity? Was it space that exploded?

Or did space explode only to bring the singularity, which then in turn exploded?

Was the singularity allways there or did it just pop into existance.
...or maybe you prefer that it "just doesn't matter, therefor it got there ! ha!"

Duh…water comes from Slovenia… :rolleyes: ..Jeez.

This isn't philosophy. Why did you post it here?

Scott Myers:

Please. Please. Please. Please. Please tell me you're just playing the devil's advocate with this nonsense Creationist Water Canopy crap? -Please-?

The thing is that science doesn't only imagine.

Sorry invert, I was using the other definition of 'imagine.' I should have made that clear. My bad.

Cyperium

Yeah! Bring it on! I can believe the earth is flat! You can too it's fun. WHOOAH! Let's make belief! Yeah!

Yes, that was the definition I was referring.

I was happy before, when they said "we don't know" now they pretend to know. like; "ooooh but time was bent over then 'round the singularity and ...yabbirish libberish...". Saying also that "space" exploded. "SPACE"! BOOM, the space exploded and left a singularity which BOOM! exploded! Big Badaboom!

... and another example.

This isn't philosophy. Why did you post it here?It's a very general kind of philosophy, like "what's beyond the universe?" but just much lesser than that. Feel free to share your ideas.

I was happy before, when they said "we don't know" now they pretend to know. like; "ooooh but time was bent over then 'round the singularity and ...yabbirish libberish...". Saying also that "space" exploded. "SPACE"! BOOM, the space exploded and left a singularity which BOOM! exploded! Big Badaboom!

... and another example.Ok, I can agree on the first example you brought, but this one does have some grounds. I have heard that space exploded, so tell me, how can space explode? and wasn't it a singularity? A singularity made of space or?

Umm. Not quite. People knew the earth was round long before it was seen from space...Sure, but it was not commonly known.

In fact, the ancient greeks were the first to show that the Earth was round, but that knowledge was lost because religious junkies like you interpreted their bible to say that the Earth was flat.I would probably be one of those that said it was round. But anyway, we should expect them to think that the world was flat, even if the ancient greeks the common knowledge still probably would be that the earth was flat, it was the knowledge at that time, religion reflected at that knowledge to explain things in a way that people could understand and appreciate.

So for a thousand years or more the Earth was flat because of your religion's mandates. And it was quite averse to being proven wrong in that. As it has in so many other things.It's averse to be proven wrong because it don't want the masses to loose their faith and be mislead.

how can space explode? and wasn't it a singularity? A singularity made of space or?

Space didn't explode. Space was CREATED from the Big Bang. Space is loosely defined as the distance between objects. So, it is the objects in space that we be concerned about. From observation, we see them receeding away from one another. If we back track that motion, we find that all objects in the universe originally existed all together at one point. Hence, Big Bang theory, the theory that explains what happened after the initial event, explains this observation.

But, what you're asking is what happened at the time of the event, and what happened before the event that caused the event. Those questions remain unanswered and can only be speculative in nature. Therefore, no theories exist.

If one wishes to ascribe a god as the cause of the event, so be it. Again, purely speculative.

So what do you say? Did a comet crash into earth??? :) Or what? There's pretty much water on earth, it's hard to imagine how it got there....really.

Also, for the earth (and sun and the planets) to form, there should have been much debri, so where did that come from? And by much, I REALLY really really do mean MUCH! Not imagining some dust cloud floating in space, but MUCH, like a gigantic FLOOD of dust.

You seem to have all the answers, but only if you make them tiny...only if they fit into your theories...
Ice meteors. The meteors were made mostly of ice, nd when they crashed, made massive craters in the hard, rocky crust of the earth, and the ice melted, becoming water, i.e oceans. The water cycle began and rivers, streams, creeks, brooks, lakes, ponds, etc. formed from the process.

Cyperium:

It's a very general kind of philosophy, like "what's beyond the universe?" but just much lesser than that. Feel free to share your ideas.

It's a matter of science/pseudo-science.

There are two ways to look at this "where did water come from" question.

A. God does exist
God created the earth and as stated in Genesis, there were massive floods on earth that originated from under the surface, so the water came from inside the earth. There may have been some type of siphonage that sucked the water from underneath the surface of the earth.

B. God does not exist
There is a purely scientific solution to this question that does not involve God or creation whatsoever.


Okay, setting God aside for a moment, we must assume that there is a scientific explanation for "where did water come from" even if God did play a part in creating the earth. I think we are off topic in trying to figure out where water comes from. We are actually beating a bigger debate such as "where did matter come from". Some argue that this come from the "big bang", "creation" or orther theories. There is actually no certain answer to this question. Christians argue that God created matter, but then atheists ask Christians "where did God come from?"

I found some interesting articles about the origins of water on Earth which will answer parts of the overall question:

http://www.waterindustry.org/Water-Facts/water-1.htm
"The planetary picture that is emerging is that Earth was formed with very little water, or no water at all. The hydration of Earth came from comets and some hydrous asteroids. These sources are the Kuiper belt out past Neptune and the Oort cloud on the edges of our solar system. Comets are one of the most primitive members of our universe and due to their remoteness and small size have not undergone much chemical change; they are frozen fossils of a long past epoch. While asteroids are more numerous (70% of visitations to comets 30%) they contain little water, mainly rock and metal."

"Using spectroscopy physicists discovered that our planets and observable comets each have their own distinctive water signatures. In the depths of space some water is formed when the isotopes of hydrogen, known as deuterium bond with an oxygen ion. They form what we know as heavy water."

The following discussion is childishly convoluted but it has some points in it about God creating water
http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm331461.html
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." So Moses did say God created the waters and all things. In Ps 95:5 David says, The sea is His and He made it and His hands formed the dry land and in Pr 8:29 it says "When He gave to the sea His decree that the waters should not pass His commandment; when He appointed the foundations of the earth"

The Scientific but unclear approach
http://www.newint.org/issue207/simply.htm
"Millennia ago, heat in the interior of the young earth drove oxygen and hydrogen atoms out of combination inside the rocks in which they were contained. The newly formed molecules came to the surface in streams of lava and were then released as water vapour. Great clouds formed that rained once the earth had cooled and covered it with seas. So what are now oceans were once our rocks. These oceans cover 71 per cent of the earth’s surface and have an average depth of six kilometres."

A very good BBC article about the origins of life:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_comments_origins_life.shtml

This is a very detailed scientific article that is a must read to answer scientific queries:
http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/geology/02-03-04.htm
"Our solar system is believed to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago. By 4 billion years ago, we have evidence that the first sedimentary rocks were formed on Earth (Delsemme 432). How did the earth go from a “hot dry rock” to a planet with an ocean and an atmosphere so “quickly” in its early life? Armand Delsemme, a noted astrophysicist, believes comets are the answer. Comets, which are made up of about half water along with rock and dust, were much more common in the earth’s early history (Delsemme 440). Delsemme has calculated that millions of comets impacted the earth during its first few hundred million years. He believes that they brought 5.8 times the amount of water now present in Earth’s oceans. The high velocity of the comets is thought to have thrown several oceans’ worth of water back into space.

A competing theory for the origin of Earth’s water also involves space objects – asteroids instead of comets. A “problem” with the comet theory is that the ratio of 2H (deuterium) to ordinary hydrogen (1H) in cometary water is twice the ratio found in the ocean (Beatty 26). In response to this puzzlement, a team of dynamicists (modelers) led by Alessandro Morbidelli, proposes that asteroids (some of which may be 10 percent water) may have brought water to the earth (Beatty 27). The Morbidelli team thinks that, early in the solar system’s formation, many asteroids (some moon and Mars size) may have hit the earth. Even taking into account collision ejecta, within tens of millions of years, the modelers believe asteroids contributed a third of the earth’s mass and more than enough water for the oceans (Beatty 27).

Delsemme, the comet-origin proponent, has his own rationale for why our water did not come primarily from asteroids. He has an explanation for the troubling deuterium/hydrogen ratio data but it is more detailed than I want to explain here. In any case, the explanation for where our water came from seems more interesting and complex compared to what my student’s textbook (Glencoe Earth Science) says. It simply notes that water vapor from volcanic eruptions began to condense, precipitate, and collect in basins 4 billion years ago (Feather 479). This is true, and is the generally accepted theory of water’s origin today. As magma containing hydrated minerals and water vapor is brought to the surface, water vapor is given off. Today, this process continues as subduction of one plate under another removes water from the oceans, and volcanic processes release water vapor. However, it’s not the whole story. My students need to understand that science is not necessarily as simple as it’s laid out in their textbook. They can appreciate that data can be open to different interpretations, that scientists can disagree, and that scientific theories are open to the possibility of being modified or disproved. "

Other articles that discuss the same concepts:
http://www.suite101.com/print_article.cfm/12057/114830
http://www3.telus.net/csabc/CatS.pdf
http://lava.tamu.edu/courses/geol308/MYWEBS~1/hydrology.pdf
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/x/kxc156/unit/originofatmosphere.pdf
http://www.crps.us/files/CNApr05.pdf
http://aaron_mp.tripod.com/id3.html

Ice meteors. The meteors were made mostly of ice, nd when they crashed, made massive craters in the hard, rocky crust of the earth, and the ice melted, becoming water, i.e oceans. The water cycle began and rivers, streams, creeks, brooks, lakes, ponds, etc. formed from the process.Where did the water on the other planets go? Sure mars seems to have had water, but how can such a vast amount of water just vanish? It's hard for me to understand so please answer this. Also why don't we find more water on the bigger planets which would have been bombarded probably as much times the earths bombardment as the size is times the earths size (and probably more yet due to gravity of the object with more mass).

sure mars seems to have had water, but how can such a vast amount of water just vanish?
1. Mars can't hold its atmosphere, it just flows into space
2. It has large ammounts of frozen H2O, there is water on Mars. And for short periods of time liquid water is possible too.
3. Presumably Europa may be an ocean world, it almost certainly is an ice world.
Actually water ice is not uncommon.
4. Venus and Mercury can't have water, because it's too hot there.
Also why don't we find more water on the bigger planets which would have been bombarded probably as much times the earths bombardment as the size is times the earths size
Those are gas giants.

1. Mars can't hold its atmosphere, it just flows into spaceBut doesn't the gravity hold the water? Water drops :), or did it vapourise into space? Wouldn't it be too cold so that it condensed again? How long is a day on mars?


2. It has large ammounts of frozen H2O, there is water on Mars. And for short periods of time liquid water is possible too.
3. Presumably Europa may be an ocean world, it almost certainly is an ice world.
Actually water ice is not uncommon.
4. Venus and Mercury can't have water, because it's too hot there.ok
Those are gas giants.But there should be water anyway, yes? Even if frozen or whatever? The "gas" is frozen or liquid, yes? Or is it just as you said "gas" what in the planets core? It surely must be pressured so much that it is in another state than gas? Doesn't it turn liquid when enough pressure?

But doesn't the gravity hold the water? Water drops , or did it vaporise into space? Wouldn't it be too cold so that it condensed again? How long is a day on mars?
The water in atmosphere, there can be no rain on Mars as far as I know.
As regarding the ground, it is there.
The hottest day on Mars on its' equator is at about +25C, the usual average daytime temp. is at about -55C (as I remember)
There is water on Mars, it's frozen, that's all. There will be sent a probe in the following years that will have better ability to search for water in any state in Mars' underground.
ut there should be water anyway, yes? Even if frozen or whatever? The "gas" is frozen or liquid, yes?
It's really just that - gas. The core is thought to be a ball consisting of various metals and rock,
but nothing really is known about the cores of gas giants, just speculations and assumptions.

Jupiter is about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium (by numbers of atoms, 75/25% by mass) with traces of methane, water, ammonia and "rock". This is very close to the composition of the primordial Solar Nebula from which the entire solar system was formed. Saturn has a similar composition, but Uranus and Neptune have much less hydrogen and helium.*
There is no place for the water to be, it can only be in small amounts in a vaporised or ice crystal state.

*From http://www.nineplanets.org/

Mars was warmer in the past, so a liquid ocean existed then. Now is colder, and is believed that liquid water froze and became trapped within the ground. In fact, recent studies show that there is a huge quantity of frozen water under Mars surface. Some people say that Mars is actually experiencing an "Ice age", or emerging from it

The length of a Martian day is very similar to the lenght of Earth's day; Mars day is slightly longer

Where did the water on the other planets go? Sure mars seems to have had water, but how can such a vast amount of water just vanish?
Froze.

Also why don't we find more water on the bigger planets which would have been bombarded probably as much times the earths bombardment as the size is times the earths size (and probably more yet due to gravity of the object with more mass).
Those are gas giants, they have no surface for ice meteors to hit. Rather, they get stuck in the gravitational field at some point, and help to form rings, like on Jupiter, Uranus, Saturn, etc.

I am now convinced that this thread does not belong in the philosophy section unless we discuss where matter came from. This is a scientific thread.

Thank you, Closet. Thank you.

But one thing that is unforseen (or so it seems) by most, is that there is so MUCH debri, it's not just some little cloud. Even if you look at it through pictures, it is hard to imagine how it all got there. It's hard to imagine the explosion of nothingness (?) to produce such a vast amount of matter. That even Einstein couldn't imagine, cause that would be impossible, you try to imagine 10 billion galaxies containing 10 billion stars each contained in a grain which just wasn't there before :) or was it? Was it allways there? Where did the singularity come from? I was happy before, when they said "we don't know" now they pretend to know. like; "ooooh but time was bent over then 'round the singularity and ...yabbirish libberish...". Saying also that "space" exploded. "SPACE"! BOOM, the space exploded and left a singularity which BOOM! exploded! Big Badaboom! Or was space the singularity? Tell me, cause I honestly don't know. Maybe it was a knot?
people like me can imagine it easily, or at least a lot easier than you can, because we think about it all the time. saying things like "ooooh but time was bent over then 'round the singularity and ...yabbirish libberish..." only shows your ignorance in what these scientific theories actually are. singularity only explains that, under those conditions, the known laws of physics break down; its a description.

also, there are a lot more galaxies in the universe than 10 billion, thats a fact. the number would be on the order of hundreds of billions. and our galaxy alone holds at least 200 billion stars.

But remember all; space is NOT, it can't explode, it's the same thing saying that nothingness exploded, nothingness is NOT, it can't explode !!!
the big bang is [supposedly] and explosion of energy (and possibly negative energy) into the universe. matter formed soon thereafter. celestial bodies have been forming ever since. energy and therefore space is still expanding outwards.

a plausible explanation for how the big bang could occur from seemingly nothing is that all energy in the universe has an opposite (a negative for every positive). as you know from math, 1 + (-1) = 0. so there would be nothing before the big bang.

I am now convinced that this thread does not belong in the philosophy section unless we discuss where matter came from. This is a scientific thread.
That is a scientifical question too.

people like me can imagine it easily, or at least a lot easier than you can, because we think about it all the time. saying things like "ooooh but time was bent over then 'round the singularity and ...yabbirish libberish..." only shows your ignorance in what these scientific theories actually are. singularity only explains that, under those conditions, the known laws of physics break down; its a description.You can of course imagine it, but not in full scale and therefor the limitations of your imagination becomes obvious.



also, there are a lot more galaxies in the universe than 10 billion, thats a fact. the number would be on the order of hundreds of billions. and our galaxy alone holds at least 200 billion stars.Ok, sorry, I still think 10 billion is enough to imagine. Can you really imagine that much?

You have to understand that all that supposidly came from nothing.

*BRAAM*



the big bang is [supposedly] and explosion of energy (and possibly negative energy) into the universe. matter formed soon thereafter. celestial bodies have been forming ever since. energy and therefore space is still expanding outwards.Ok, let's say it's a explosion of energy. Let's say that the universe came into existance because it had to. There's no
time for conditions in nothingness. The only answer I can understand, would be that everything exists because "nothing" cannot. The only natural way for "everything" to appear where "nothing" were.


a plausible explanation for how the big bang could occur from seemingly nothing is that all energy in the universe has an opposite (a negative for every positive). as you know from math, 1 + (-1) = 0. so there would be nothing before the big bang.But both "1" and "-1" exists! There is no opposite to existance! In existance 1 + (-1) doesn't equal 0! It equals 1 + (-1) (since all the energy bursts out in form of light) - if you are talking about matter vs. anti-matter (or do you say that there is something like "dark light"?). Is this anti-matter made of anti-energy?? That matter vs. anti-matter makes everything into pure energy shows that energy has no opposite (at least it shows that to me).

You have to understand that all that supposidly came from nothing.
Not nothing, "nothing" is not really required;
if it was from a singularity, then the energy was there, only "compressed",
if the big bang is a result of two other universes colliding, then it's the energy that was released through that event.

Not nothing, "nothing" is not really required;
if it was from a singularity, then the energy was there, only "compressed",
if the big bang is a result of two other universes colliding, then it's the energy that was released through that event.What was outside this singularity?

Nothing?

Which (supposedly) is outside the universe also...

So it's not just that the universe came into existance from a singularity which either; had it's base in "nothing" or came into existance from "nothing" and thus had to become *everything*.

Somehow I can't get around the idea that reality must be infinite.

Ok, so what if the universe isn't everything? Then what is the base of existance?

Where does the spontaniously "popping-up" particles come from? What defined them? They come ready, from nothing. Then nothing isn't what we thought it were. Rather they come ready, from hidden.

Check out multiverse assumption and M-theory

Ok, let's say it's a explosion of energy. Let's say that the universe came into existance because it had to. There's no
time for conditions in nothingness. The only answer I can understand, would be that everything exists because "nothing" cannot. The only natural way for "everything" to appear where "nothing" were.
but who's to say that there was nothing before the big bang? some forms of the big bang theory do propose this idea, but others do not. or perhaps it would appear to be nothing to our observations, but in fact there is something that we are missing. it could, hypothetically, seem to be that all energy in the universe erupted from virtually nothing, but in actuality, there was/is an underlying form of energy there that we are totally unaware of.

But both "1" and "-1" exists! There is no opposite to existance! In existance 1 + (-1) doesn't equal 0! It equals 1 + (-1) (since all the energy bursts out in form of light) - if you are talking about matter vs. anti-matter (or do you say that there is something like "dark light"?). Is this anti-matter made of anti-energy?? That matter vs. anti-matter makes everything into pure energy shows that energy has no opposite (at least it shows that to me).
1 and -1 exist in the sense that we know, but to a both infinite and timeless universe, they are 0. the way math works (which seems the most accurate in describing our universe) allows for both negative and positive on a grid. negative energy could be explained as acting like normal positive particles, only that they are moving backwards through time instead of forward, as normal energy is. i dont really know much about negative energy, but i think the universe could have been filled with it, and the big bang erputed all positive energy forth (or possibly the other way around). this could explain how the universe is apparently expanding at an increasing rate (dark energy would push positive energy away from it), but there would have to be sufficiently more dark energy in the universe for this to happen.

So what do you say? Did a comet crash into earth??? :) Or what? There's pretty much water on earth, it's hard to imagine how it got there....really.

Also, for the earth (and sun and the planets) to form, there should have been much debri, so where did that come from? And by much, I REALLY really really do mean MUCH! Not imagining some dust cloud floating in space, but MUCH, like a gigantic FLOOD of dust.

You seem to have all the answers, but only if you make them tiny...only if they fit into your theories...
here is something i read.

"scholar louis frank of the university of iowa, has proposed that water came to earth in the form of chunks of ice from outer space.

professer frank began his investigation when he became puzzled by the fact that sattelite photos showed some black spots; he reached the conclusion that these black spots were small comets that were falling to earth.

these mini-comets are actually balls of water and ice weighing a hundred tons or more, and falling into the earths atmosphere at a rate of about twenty per minute (or ten million per year). the theory is that these balls of ice bombarded the earth forty billion years ago, creating the oceans and seas, and this same phenomenon contiues today.

as the earths gravity pulls these ice comets into the atmosphere, the heat of the sun evaporates them and turns them into gas. as they fall fifty-five kilometers from outer space, the gas particles mix with the air in the atmosphere and are blown about, falling to the earth as rain or snow.

a few years ago, an announcement by nasa and the university of hawii that dr. franks theory does have credibility was widely publicized by the media, but there are still many scientist who refuse to accept this new way of looking at the world."

we are all aliens.

we are all aliens.
We're all inhabitants of this universe. I don't see how a planet of origin would matter.

We're all inhabitants of this universe. I don't see how a planet of origin would matter.
agreed, i should say we're all aliens to earth

:D My thought is that we're not aliens on any planet.
Anyways, the assumption that life originated outside of Earth is not proven, it's only an assumption.

:D My thought is that we're not aliens on any planet.
Anyways, the assumption that life originated outside of Earth is not proven, it's only an assumption.
wich came first the chicken or the egg? :eek:

the egg of course, chicken is a very recent species,
dinosaurs are older

the egg of course, chicken is a very recent species,
dinosaurs are older
heh,heh no just an evolved dinosaur :D

heh,heh no just an evolved dinosaur :D
this is obviously a joke

well, birds are evolved from dinosaurs, but chicken is a new species

well, birds are evolved from dinosaurs, but chicken is a new species
how new?

The Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus), a tropical member of the Pheasant family, is the direct ancestor of the domestic chicken. It was first raised in captivity at least 5,000 years ago in southern Asia, and the domesticated form has been taken all around the world as a very productive food source for both meat and eggs, which some breeds have been specifically developed to produce.

--from wikipedia

i noticed you mentioned the M theory i think it explains the big bang pretty well, how bout you?

is there any other substance that acts like water. in the sense that water in its dense state actuallly becomes more bouyant and will float?
that seems fairly odd if you really think about it. but also its a good thing that it does. or else none of us would be here. if it acted as most other substances it would freeze and fall to the bottom of the lake or ocean and no life would have ever survived.
so quite likely when they probe mars' frozen oceans or whatever, if there has ever been life there, thats where they will find it.

The Red Junglefowl (Gallus gallus), a tropical member of the Pheasant family, is the direct ancestor of the domestic chicken. It was first raised in captivity at least 5,000 years ago in southern Asia, and the domesticated form has been taken all around the world as a very productive food source for both meat and eggs, which some breeds have been specifically developed to produce.

--from wikipedia
is there anything you dont know? :eek:

but who's to say that there was nothing before the big bang? some forms of the big bang theory do propose this idea, but others do not. or perhaps it would appear to be nothing to our observations, but in fact there is something that we are missing. it could, hypothetically, seem to be that all energy in the universe erupted from virtually nothing, but in actuality, there was/is an underlying form of energy there that we are totally unaware of.Yes, it could be that the universe is a part of something greater (greater, obviously).


1 and -1 exist in the sense that we know, but to a both infinite and timeless universe, they are 0. the way math works (which seems the most accurate in describing our universe) allows for both negative and positive on a grid. negative energy could be explained as acting like normal positive particles, only that they are moving backwards through time instead of forward, as normal energy is. i dont really know much about negative energy, but i think the universe could have been filled with it, and the big bang erputed all positive energy forth (or possibly the other way around). this could explain how the universe is apparently expanding at an increasing rate (dark energy would push positive energy away from it), but there would have to be sufficiently more dark energy in the universe for this to happen.Ok, I've heard that particles can move back in time, but is that really their general movement?

The newest theory is that there are "points" and particles can only be on these "points" (so they have to "jump" from one point to another), the points then make "pathways" through the universe. Now, "points" is symbolic for somthing else and "pathways" also, it would be nice if someone else here have heard about that theory.



Ok --- the idea that you came up with is then that everything exist, but really doesn't? To a infinite and timeless universe, wouldn't that equal 0 here too?

Or we can't non-exist? We must exist? Even though we equate to '0' the universe can't take us out of the equation?