For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Not at all. God is purely mythical. Meteors are real. Huge difference!

    Except there is no "who", so . . .

    In brief, the Whos of Whoville came billions of years after the fact.

    Yes and no. Even the moon is not made of exactly the same stuff as the Earth (regardless of the collision that created it). But the potential for meteors (including all cosmic dust) to deliver raw materials to the Earth (at an average of . . . many thousands of tons per year? ) while the Earth is transitioning (from say volcanism to a massive biome of early microbes building the atmosphere) is significant. It's another piece of the larger process that has to be considered. Most of this, of course, is highly speculative, but certainly has to dovetail with all of geochemistry and all the fragmentary evidence about the primordial atmosphere. The puzzle pieces need to somehow fit together.
    Hmm. I don't know about that. One of the ways water formed on Earth was due to hydrogen gas evolving from thermal vents and reacting with atmospheric oxygen. However, this may be irrelevant until sometime reasonably close to the Great Oxygenation Event. It could have been a little and it could have been a lot. Water is also a by product of several kinds of primitive microbial cycles. First, apparently, came extremophiles (I mean first in a vague relative sense). Methanogens, sulfate/sulfide and iron reducing forms are cited, for example. And there are multiple reasons to expect water to condense earlier than that, which is the main point here. One of the problems with trying to nail this down is that no one knows how much water existed during any hypothetical "abiogenesis event". For example, there is credible evidence suggesting that early microbes were thriving when oxygen levels were only 1% of current levels, so any water from reacting hydrogen from vents would have accumulated relatively slowly "then". Some water arrives the same way rocky meteors do, and of course free hydrogen as well, and no one knows how many icy comets crashed into Earth, nor is it clear whether the collision that created the moon involved copious amounts of ice or liquid water that vaporized and rained back to Earth to form the bulk of the solvent in our primordial soup. It's all very speculative, but all the pieces, including at least some of these, somehow dovetail together to complete the picture. We just happen to live in the era when the nature of various evidentiary fragments are beginning to emerge.

    I think the other way to approach this is to say: what kind of infalling debris do we see today, and how likely is it that similar infalling matter persisted like this long after the planetary accretion was a done deal? And how did the collision that created the Moon factor into water formation (it certainly created plenty of vents on our chunk of the wreckage). But if we see even trace quantities of amino acids on meteors, then it's reasonable to assume that some much smaller amount survived the heat of entry (again, once we decide what the state of the atmosphere then was) and was able to "seed" a particular "abiogenesis event". It's just within the realm of possibility. While Ockham's Razor plays into the way we like to stitch the facts together, it's also important to remember that the truth is often stranger than fiction. But of course superstition is entirely a different thing, so we avoid it like the plague. :m:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    There are all kinds of creationists, but in this context they are mean, stupid people. That is, we are specifically referring to the morons peddling superstition as science. That was the thing I couldn't get you to nail down. They really are insidious vermin, preying on the minds of vulnerable victims.

    The classic example is the museum built to support the ridiculous lie that humans roamed the Earth with dinosaurs.

    It's pretty hard, in this day and age, to tolerate such idiotic nonsense with a poker face. This is the age of transparency. We just call a spade a spade and move on.

    But that's the kind of response you would expect from a science board, right? That's what makes your posts such a curiosity. It's very hard to understand what you're driving at. (Giving you full faith and credit, and assuming nothing else about you or your posts.) It just doesn't add up. If you don't see the harm of lying to youngsters, and forever altering their access to the truth of the world around them, as revealed through academic endeavor, then everybody just collectively sighs and goes "wow, leo, wussup with that?". :bugeye:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    So you're now in the position of disregarding physical evidence? Got it.

    What you're presenting here is an argument from personal incredulity. It's a logical fallacy. You're then using that fallacy as a basis for ridicule. The simple fact of the matter is, we don't put meteorites under a microscope and see god in them, we do, however, put them under a microscope and see water in them.

    Stop waisting my time. So far you've shown less inclination to learn than leopold.

    There are two significant differences between the earth and meteorites. The meteorites we observe carrying water have not been heated to the same extent that the Earth was early in its history. Meteorites, unlike earth, formed or travelled beyond the frost line - that point in the solar system that was cool enough for crystals of ice to form.

    None what so ever, however, that is only part of the picture.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    how was the site superstitious in regards to chirality and the methods used?
    i'm not "driving" at anything.
    i find "things becoming alive" ridiculous.
    i find an "intelligence without substance" next to impossible.
    so, where does that leave me?
    quite possibly because you have made faulty assumptions.
    can you point to a specific part of the site that allegedly lied?
     
  8. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    We are here. So how did we get here? I find the idea of some magic bloke in the sky as ridiculous.
    Have you ever hear of chemistry.



    Quite possibly because you are a closet Creationist?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Get used to it leopold. Abiogenesis and Evolution are for all intents and purposes fact.
    We were all born in the belly of stars, and through processes such as nucleosynthesis and chemistry.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Aha. That hadn't quite crossed my mind at this point. Excellent insight. Let me speak to that, too. I think the assumption here is that the bulk of meteorites are fragments of asteroids belonging to the matter that accreted in our early solar system; they broke free from the central disks or spheroids during that early chaos and became opportunistic shrapnel. That means they missed the opportunity to be crushed into smithereens and recycled through the mantles of rocky planets and moons the way you Earth Sciences guys have discovered happens continuously here on Earth. So they aren't nearly as "fully baked" as on Earth. And, as we know, the average rock you find on the ground isn't nearly as old as the oldest of rocks. So indeed these typical Earth rocks have been recycled through tremendous temps and pressures.

    Meanwhile, the asteroids and their fragments hurtle just wherever Kepler's laws take them, which, for the ones with enough energy, includes the very coldest of solar orbits (at apogee, and then heating at perigee, but not at the extremes of recycling through a planet's mantle). And of course the evidence for the process you're referring to is seen in the tails of icy comets which gradually lose ice in proximity to the Sun.

    One other point that this illustrates is that there was obviously free Hydrogen and free Oxygen in the primordial solar system, some of which simply reacted to form free water in one phase or another. Based on the various boiling points of all of the primordial compounds that could have existed, it stands to reason that water was one of the molecules most likely to distill itself out of the solar soup. And, as you Earth Guys have shown us, some of that water also reacts further with the minerals then forming, creating those species of minerals known to contain water molecules and/or the residual Hydrogen and/or Oxygen derived from water, but trapped in chemical bonds. Then there is free water like the rocky ice of comets that simply sticks to the rocks as ice will do normally on Earth.

    Then there is the potential for amino acid production through processes that I imagine were present on Earth, but potentially occurring in the primordial solar system under a wider range of conditions. That's an esoteric detail I suppose, but one to ponder along with all the rest of the evidence.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/study-says-asteroids-delivered-water-to-earth.html

    How did the Earth get its oceans? The primordial Earth was a seething ball of magma, so the water that it began with would have evaporated into space. As a result, planetary scientists have long debated which of two types of objects, comets or asteroids, were more responsible for delivering Earth’s water.

    A new study, published today in Science, says that asteroids were the source. The authors, led by Conel Alexander of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in Washington DC, analysed the isotopic abundances of nitrogen and hydrogen in 86 primitive meteorites, and found that they coordinate with Earth’s.

    Asteroids had already been the favored source. Studies of solar system dynamics suggest that there was a period of time around 3.9 billion years ago, called the Late Heavy Bombardment, during which the Earth would have been barraged, mostly by asteroids.

    Even though comets are ideal sources, with their high percentage content of water, rich with amino acids, there are a few strikes against them. Six studies of comets from the Oort Cloud found that their isotopic ratios of heavy hydrogen (or deuterium) were much higher than Earth’s. When a 2011 Nature paper found isotopic levels of heavy hydrogen in the comet Hartley 2 to be similar to Earth’s, it revived interest in water-from-comets idea. But Alexander and his colleagues suggest that the overall levels of heavy hydrogen in Hartley 2 (and not just the levels in the comet’s ice) would be much higher
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Just a comment on my previous link, with regards to Asteroids and comets.

    Comets are in essence dirty snow balls with a rocky core.
    The ice water and dust is evaporated away every time they reach near perigee.
    So it would be logical to conclude that all comets over time, end up as Asteroids, would it not?
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    OK, I think I have found a possible answer to my above proposal.....
    It appears contrary to what I thought, that not all comets have a rocky core.

    In the following article at.....
    http://www.universetoday.com/25822/water-on-earth/

    It says the following........."
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    "Comets are 80% water, and would deliver vast amounts of water to Earth, but they’re also volatile, and would have a difficult time surviving the harsh radiation of the young Sun. Asteroids have a lower ratio of water, but they could protect that water a little better, delivering less with each catastrophic impact.

    Astronomers have also found many hybrid objects which contain large amounts of both rock and water. It’s hard to classify them either way."
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""



    The article finishes with the following.......
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "
    Idea #2 is that large amounts of water just came directly from the solar nebula. As we orbited around the young Sun, it passed through the water-rich material in the nebula and scooped it up. Gravitational interactions between the planets would have transferred material around the Solar System, and it would have added to the Earth’s volume of water over hundreds of millions of years.

    Of course, it’s entirely possible that the answer is “all of the above”. Asteroids and comets and the early solar nebula all delivered water to the Earth. Where did the Earth’s water come from? Astronomers don’t know for sure. But I’m sure glad the water is here; life here wouldn’t exist without it."
    from:
    http://www.universetoday.com/25822/water-on-earth/
    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


    I like "All of the above" answer.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The idea that those who take part in the scientific literature are 'cheerleaders for science' is ludicrous. Not taking part in the scientific literature while continuing with the intellectual dishonest posting in a science forum is ludicrous. It's what makes these threads ...... whatever ...... ludicrous to some limit < 1. Being intellectually honest is something you like to do.
     
  17. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    The point is it doesn't explain anything, it just moves the question further away - how did water and amino acids form on meteorites? It actually makes it worse, now you also have to explain why did water and amino acids form on meteorites and yet they did not on Earth - the largest meteor of all?


    Earth is made of meteorites, the only difference is the time they were assimilated, resistance was futile. Why do you think meteorites the Earth was first made of did not contain water and amino acids, but just meteorites that joined only after the Earth was already formed? Did these meteorites that brought water and amino acids maybe arrive from outside of the solar system?
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It doesn't say that at all. :sheesh!:
    It's just saying that both, was possibly what happened.
    Consider, the young Earth was hot and molten. What ever water that was formed, may well have evaporated away.




    Long period comets originate from the Oort cloud.
    Again, no one is saying or meaning water, amino acids and whatever did not form on Earth.
    Panspermia is just another speculative scenario.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, and don't you dare tell anyone your "take" turned out to be wrong.
    and don't you dare tell anyone what my source was.
    you make me puke paddoboy.
    no wonder i have you on ignore.
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,093
    That is an incomplete statement. There are three options available for future events. No one except theists say that the laws of nature can be controlled (by god). But the laws of nature can be used intentionally, to create or prevent an event in the Future. Thus, while we have no free will during an event, we are able to anticipate and influence future events. We can and do influence the future all the time. "Wiggle room"

    IMO, Planning (action) for the future is a product of the mind, understanding the laws of nature, and using them to advantage. Thus it is not a question of either one or the other, the third option allows us to control (in a limited way) the desired future conditions and outcomes.

    Example: An isolated mountain lake filled with pristine water but inaccessible for use. Now we engineer a canal down the slope of the mountain and place an electric generator in the path of the downward streaming water. The kinetic energy of the water will provide sufficient electricity for the entire town, in addition to an unlimited supply of fresh water for consumption and irrigation.

    Thus where in the past the water was prevented from supplying the town by the laws of nature (isolation), we use the laws of nature (gravity) to supply the town with energy and clean water. Thus we have influenced the existing laws of nature preventing the water from being used to a system which benefits the town.

    IOW, we have added (used) a law of nature (gravity) to alter the future. IMHO, that constitutes an act of free will, though no natural laws were broken. We made use of another natural law to our benefit. All strictly following the laws of nature. The benefits are offset by the energy expended during the building of the canal, in accordance with Natural law.
     
  21. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    Only if you stop blaming me for your own inability to understand.


    What do you believe temperature has to do with anything? Molecules of hydrogen, oxygen and water are just as any other molecule, like iron, carbon or silicon - they all have their mass and they will be attracted to and assimilated with whatever other such mass comes close enough.


    So from the very beginnings of the solar system formation, water molecules and amino acids were floating around among all the other material the Earth was forming from? What then do you need meteorites for?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647


    Again....
     
  23. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    Messages:
    557
    It's not another scenario if all the material came from the same place and was made out of the same stuff. It's only another scenario if those meteorites with water and amino acids are supposed to have came from outside of the solar system. Did they?
     

Share This Page