aaronson:
Nothing surprises me anymore because have learnt psychology way to much to reply to your reverse psychology, Now, the meaning of that trait you just showed is as a result of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

Here's is my diagnosis----Reading! Studying facts while reading badly damages ignorance and when it does, it dissolves that trait of cognitive dissonance.

Bla bla bla bla

You are so fvcking boring

Get lost, Attention seeker!

I know way to much about psychology to know that you want some attention. Baby boy, I am not in the mood

bqlekan:
Daretodiffer and aaronson, pls let's refrain from insulting each other. This thread's sole purpose is to debate on our beliefs and not to insult one's intellects. You wanna debate, drop your points and be ready to defend them.


Thanks

Coolusername, I'm still coming for you having issues with my phone. I've been on pc which I can't carry around

I didn't start it but I will definitely finish it he doesn't respect himself

bqlekan:


i'm against evolution and abiogenesis.. here are my reasons

I don't see why you feel the need to conflate evolution and abiogenesis.

*life could not have started by chance

Where is it said that life started by chance?

*Evolution failed to provide how life originated

Theory of evolution doe not attempt to answer the question of the origin of life, and it is not clear to me how that makes it wrong. By your reasoning, you should also reject your doctor's prescriptions because the field of medicine fails to provide the origins of the chemicals in the medicine.

*Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claims

Please provide the fossil evidence that refutes evolutionary claims.

* evolutional forgeries existed in the past (why forge if evolution is real)

Certificate forgeries exist in Nigeria. Why forge if real Nigerian certificates exist?

*law of mathematical probability refutes the formation of DNA in the cell by chance

What is "law of mathematical probability"? And where is it said that DNA formed by chance?

*Mutation could not have caused the evolution of new species

On what evidence is this claim based? Mutation is not the driver of evolution, but it is a necessary precursor to evolution. This fact has been known by horse and dog breeders for centuries.

*Basic inconsistencies exist in theories of Evolution

What are these basic inconsistencies?


You are advised to be thorough and sure of your facts regarding this subject before fumbling through it.

AgentOfAllah:
I don't see why you feel the need to conflate evolution and abiogenesis.

Where is it said that life started by chance?
Theory of evolution doe not attempt to answer the question of the origin of life, and it is not clear to me how that makes it wrong. By your reasoning, you should also reject your doctor's prescriptions because the field of medicine fails to provide the origins of the chemicals in the medicine.
[Quote]
*Fossil Evidence refutes all evolutionary claims
[/Quote] Please provide the fossil evidence that refutes evolutionary claims.
Certificate forgeries exist in Nigeria. Why forge if real Nigerian certificates exist?
What is "law of mathematical probability"? And where is it said that DNA formed by chance?
On what evidence is this claim based? Mutation is not the driver of evolution, but it is a necessary precursor to evolution. This fact has been known by horse and dog breeders for centuries.
What are these basic inconsistencies?


You are advised to be thorough and sure of your facts regarding this subject before fumbling through it.

just one question bro, can you provide a detailed explanation of how life originated here on earth. GodWilling, later today, I will answer all your questions. Thanks

bqlekan:
just one question bro, can you provide a detailed explanation of how life originated here on earth. GodWilling, later today, I will answer all your questions. Thanks

No I can't.

daretodiffer:


Bla bla bla bla

You are so fvcking boring

Get lost, Attention seeker!

I know way to much about psychology to know that you want some attention. Baby boy, I am not in the mood

There she goes again, Another contradiction.

If you vast in psychology you wouldn't see my intention to correcting you as attention seeking, And for that reason, I would be forced to prognose to you another disorder trait you need to seek therapy on which is, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Do something about it so it don't ruin you relationship with you significant orders.

aaronson:
[s]There she goes again, Another contradiction.

If you vast in psychology you wouldn't see my intention to correcting you as attention seeking, And for that reason, I would be forced to prognose to you another disorder trait you need to seek therapy on which is, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Do something about it so it don't ruin you relationship with you significant orders[/s].

*yawns*

Somebody please get this boy a pacifier

AgentOfAllah:
No I can't.

Most Muslims believe in evolution but not human evolution.

I understand mutation and evolution and the fact that mutation precedes evolution. Admitting that evolution is probable would mean I have to agree with human evolution. That I do not want to and I don't care

daretodiffer:


I know what evolution means however I don't agree that extreme conditions are enough to transform one animal into another. I understand and agree with mutation, I agree that rats can learn to run faster to adapt to their changing environment but did then to completely develop wings. I don't think so.

I had this book serieswhile I was growing up. I can't remember if anyone is familiar with it. The books had hard cover, lovely shiny pictures,great quality paper. It was on dinosaurs, it contained every tiny bit of details about dinosaurs to birds. I think they were published by Ladybird(not sure).

I am a religious nut and my understanding of my religion tells me that God has the power to create any animal if he so desires.

You say you know what evolution means, yet you say you don't agree that extreme conditions can transform one animal into another. This statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding. Extreme conditions do not transform one animal into another, extreme conditions kill animals. In the strictest sense, mutation is what transforms animals! In every animal, thousands of mutations occur on a regular basis, most of them, useless and ineffectual. They are just random changes! However, on very rare occasions, a beneficial mutation occurs that will help the organism to survive its harsh environment better. Since DNAs are adept at self-replication, all genetic mutations also get replicated along with their parent strand.

It is at this point that evolution sets in: Consider a scenario where two antelopes were born, one with a mutation that makes it able to run faster than its sibling. I'm sure you'll agree with me that were both of them to be chased by a lion, the faster one is more likely to survive that harsh ordeal. After survival, the faster antelope consummates with one of the opposite gender and produces offspring. What will you then have? A new generation of faster antelopes because the fast gene of their parent was passed down to them. Evolution has happened!

In the example, evolution made antelopes faster, not by suddenly giving them the ability to run faster when chased by lions, but by eliminating the genes of slow antelopes from the gene pool. It's a kind of very harsh naturally induced order. Nature is rigged to kill us, but sometimes, some animals develop abilities to survive the harsh reality of nature. This is, in fact, why 99% of all known animal species are extinct.

I can give you another example where mindless nature can cause order. Think sedimentation! Here's an experiment to try out at home: Fetch with your hand, a random quantity of sand and pour it into a bottle filled with water. Shake the bottle thoroughly and then, place it on a steady table. After an hour come back and check the water-sand mixture, and you will find very clear lines of sand particles grouped together according to their sizes. Although these lines may look like they were purposely arranged, it was nothing but gravity and the intrinsic properties of the particles, like their masses that caused them to be ordered in such a beautiful way. This is precisely how evolution works.

AgentOfAllah:


You say you know what evolution means, yet you say you don't agree that extreme conditions can transform one animal into another. This statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding. Extreme conditions do not transform one animal into another, extreme conditions kill animals. In the strictest sense, mutation is what transforms animals! In every animal, thousands of mutations occur on a regular basis, most of them, useless and ineffectual. They are just random changes! However, on very rare occasions, a beneficial mutation occurs that will help the organism to survive its harsh environment better. Since DNAs are adept at self-replication, all genetic mutations also get replicated along with their parent strand.

It is at this point that evolution sets in: Consider a scenario where two antelopes were born, one with a mutation that makes it able to run faster than its sibling. I'm sure you'll agree with me that were both of them to be chased by a lion, the faster one is more likely to survive that harsh ordeal. After survival, the faster antelope consummates with one of the opposite gender and produces offspring. What will you then have? A new generation of faster antelopes because the fast gene of their parents was passed down to them. Evolution has happened!

In the example, evolution made antelopes faster, not by suddenly giving them the ability to run faster when chased by lions, but by eliminating the genes of slow antelopes from the gene pool. It's a kind of very harsh naturally induced order. Nature is rigged to kill us, but sometimes, some animals develop abilities to survive the harsh reality of nature. This is, in fact, why 99% of all known animal species are extinct.

I can give you another example where mindless nature can cause order. Think sedimentation! Here's an experiment to try out at home: Fetch with your hand, a random quantity of sand and pour it into a bottle filled with water. Shake the bottle thoroughly and then, place it on a steady table. After an hour come back and check the water-sand mixture, and you will find very clear lines of sand particles grouped together according to their sizes. Although these lines may look like they were purposely arranged, it was nothing but gravity and the intrinsic properties of the particles, like their masses that caused them to be ordered in such a beautiful way. This is precisely how evolution works.

I understand everything. I just do not want to agree with it.

There is a difference

daretodiffer:


*yawns*

Somebody please get this boy a pacifier

You see something about the brain and yawning.....When the brain frequency jams up and can't take in new information no more, that's when boredom sets in then you eventually yawn. So all along, my advice and prognosis to you never entered that brain of yours because I over loaded your neurological nerves up in your brain. Girl, update the OS of that brain, Ignorance is why you called African.

daretodiffer:


Most Muslims believe in evolution but not human evolution.

I understand mutation and evolution and the fact that mutation precedes evolution. Admitting that evolution is probable would mean I have to agree with human evolution. That I do not want to and I don't care

So you reject something that is based on facts because you are afraid of the implications? So what if humans evolved? Does that take anything away from what we are now?

Griffon:


I'm yet to get the final word. Ronald you and many other scientists out there are yet to deliver with all sincerity and certainty where water came from. The analysis have been supported with limited samples, the many theories have been contradicting. From the Hydrogen and oxygen claims to Comets and Asteroids claims. You lot have been clutching at straws

Come to think of it the formation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the subsequent formation of water are two different things. That's because even when hydrogen and oxygen molecules mix, they still need a spark of energy to form water. The process is a violent one, and that certainly can't be a safe way to create water on Earth.

On the other hand, if the claim that comets is the source of the earth’s ocean water, then they too must contain just the right ratio of heavy to regular water, but that seems not to be the case.

Nwanne is it safe to say the "God did it" team are leading by one nil?

Hmmm Scientists may not have a definite answer yet. But we cannot substitute "God" for "I don't know." If we do, then "God" becomes just an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

We can only admit we don't know so that we know what answers to look for. And not rely on a supernatural being whose existence hasn't been proven.

Griffon:


I'm yet to get the final word. Ronald you and many other scientists out there are yet to deliver with all sincerity and certainty where water came from. The analysis have been supported with limited samples, the many theories have been contradicting. From the Hydrogen and oxygen claims to Comets and Asteroids claims. You lot have been clutching at straws

What do you mean by "analysis have been supported by little samples"? Have you learned anything about absorption spectra of matter? Okay, let's start from the scratch. It makes probabilistic sense that water should be one of the universe's most abundant compound, judging by the abundance of its constituent elements. Let this be our hypothesis. The question then is, how do we test this hypothesis? This can be done simply by measuring the wavelength spectrum of the star-light passing through/nearby the atmosphere of any planet/comet. Due to their extremely high densities, stars are considered to be black bodies, which makes them perfect emitters of energy. In other words, stars emit light (electromagnetic waves) at all wavelengths, from ultra-gamma rays to ULFs. This means when you measure the EM spectrum of a star, you'll see all wavelengths. This property is very useful because all matter, including you, absorbs light at very well defined wavelengths. This is a direct consequence of their elemental composition. As such, when you measure the light of a star passing through the atmosphere of a celestial body like a planet, there will be some missing wavelengths because these have been absorbed by the matter around that planet. Each element, molecule, compound has a signature absorption spectra. The missing light from the star is compared to the database of absorption spectra which we have on record. From this, we can tell what elements are abundant in the atmosphere of that celestial body. This is how we are able to test the hypothesis that water is a universally abundant molecule, and consistently, this hypothesis has proven true. Another method, the favoured one for objects closer to home, like within our solar system, is to use powerful spacecrafts. For example, the abundance of water in Titan, Saturn's moon, was discovered by NASA's Cassini which was launched in 1997 and is presently orbiting Saturn. Also, the Hubble space telescope discovered water on Europa, Jupiter's moon. Another space craft, phoenix, recently collected samples of water on Mars. Clearly, water is not unique to earth, and its presence in other celestial bodies strongly suggests its universal abundance. It also suggests that water got to these places in the same manner.

Come to think of it the formation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules and the subsequent formation of water are two different things. That's because even when hydrogen and oxygen molecules mix, they still need a spark of energy to form water. The process is a violent one, and that certainly can't be a safe way to create water on Earth.

Water was not created on earth! Water on earth most likely came to be after the death of the star that birthed earth and our solar system. That process was a very violent one with enough energy to fuse abundant oxygen and hydrogen into their various allotropes and compounds, including water. Water was hidden within and outside the massive rocks that eventually amassed to form the earth. Most rocks contain ionic minerals like salt. In vacuum (like space), these ions start to form weak bonds, attracting each other closer and closer (this experiment was demonstrated by NASA using salt. Look it up on youtube). When the amassing rocks become big enough, gravity takes over, and continues to attract nearby rocks. This process continues until some kind of steady state is reached, where all nearby rocks have been pulled down. Thus, a planet is formed. If you can imagine the amount of rocks that were needed to form earth, then it is definitely conceivable that earth's water came from within these rocks.

On the other hand, if the claim that comets is the source of the earth’s ocean water, then they too must contain just the right ratio of heavy to regular water, but that seems not to be the case.

When you make reference to scientific disputes, be sure to understand what you're remarking on. There is no doubt that water came from terrestrial rocks that formed the earth. The dispute exists in the type rocks. Yes, the higher ratio of D₂0 in the (only two) Comets from Kuiper's belt suggest water might not have come from comets in that ring. However, there were other asteroids that didn't come from Kuiper's belt that have been tested, and they have similar D₂0:H₂0 ratio as earth's water.

Nwanne is it safe to say the "God did it" team are leading by one nil?

Here lies the problem! Now, supposing it is granted that we don't know the source of water on earth, I fail to understand how this automatically translates to "God did it". This is just a lazy invocation of god-of-the-gaps explanation. It is boring and lacks explanatory power!

I'm at work, I hope to submit my rebuttal once I am back home.

Griffon:
Question: No proposed mechanism for the formation of the solar system from a gradually collapsing nebula can account for the earth's vast quantities of water. Where did the earth's large volumes of water come from?

Ronald4lyf this is for you.

Not Ranald4lyf, but I guess no knowledge is lost.

According to collapsing nebula theory, planetary water could have come from asteroids due to large amounts of asteroid showers during that time and the fact that these same asteroids contain hydrating compounds.

Some water must have been brought forth by hydrate rocks within the earth, the extent is still unknown, though.

Earth's gradual cooling should have been enough to condense a large amount of volatile compounds in the atmosphere.

There are several more theories that I can't really go into now but I think that a combination of some or all of these should be enough to account for earth's water content.

bqlekan:


bro, you getting it all wrong, natural selection could not have caused variation in species, even darwin acknowledged this. Mutation, Fossils, Punctuated equilibrium etc have all failed in their attempt to explain the evolutionary gap.

what happened in the Precambrian period?

First off, I think the problem with evolution is because we cannot recognize the time involved. "Life" earth has been existing for 300 million years ago. Look at man's life 2000 years ago and look at it now. See the difference? Now consider it to MILLIONS of years.
When we consider the time involved, the diverse types of environments , the question why there are so many different species on earth will not be so dauntening.


Now as to answer your question on Variation; I think Darwin's Finches does do justice to the question regarding the inter-species variation






The pre-cambrian era is perhaps the greatest gap so far; but that does not prove a flaw!
Palentology is still a growing aspect; how many times have we read that scientists discover a new fossil? Who know, perhaps the fossils are on the horizion.

AgentOfAllah:


What do you mean by "analysis have been supported by little samples"? Have you learned anything about absorption spectra of matter? Okay, let's start from the scratch. It makes probabilistic sense that water should be one of the universe's most abundant compound, judging by the abundance of its constituent elements. Let this be our hypothesis. The question then is, how do we test this hypothesis? This can be done simply by measuring the wavelength spectrum of the star-light passing through/nearby the atmosphere of any planet/comet. Due to their extremely high densities, stars are considered to be black bodies, which makes them perfect emitters of energy. In other words, stars emit light (electromagnetic waves) at all wavelengths, from ultra-gamma rays to ULFs. This means when you measure the EM spectrum of a star, you'll see all wavelengths. This property is very useful because all matter, including you, absorbs light at very well defined wavelengths. This is a direct consequence of their elemental composition. As such, when you measure the light of a star passing through the atmosphere of a celestial body like a planet, there will be some missing wavelengths because these have been absorbed by the matter around that planet. Each element, molecule, compound has a signature absorption spectra. The missing light from the star is compared to the database of absorption spectra which we have on record. From this, we can tell what elements are abundant in the atmosphere of that celestial body. This is how we are able to test the hypothesis that water is a universally abundant molecule, and consistently, this hypothesis has proven true. Another method, the favoured one for objects closer to home, like within our solar system, is to use powerful spacecrafts. For example, the abundance of water in Titan, Saturn's moon, was discovered by NASA's Cassini which was launched in 1997 and is presently orbiting Saturn. Also, the Hubble space telescope discovered water on Europa, Jupiter's moon. Another space craft, phoenix, recently collected samples of water on Mars. Clearly, water is not unique to earth, and its presence in other celestial bodies strongly suggests its universal abundance. It also suggests that water got to these places in the same manner.

Water was not created on earth! Water on earth most likely came to be after the death of the star that birthed earth and our solar system. That process was a very violent one with enough energy to fuse abundant oxygen and hydrogen into their various allotropes and compounds, including water. Water was hidden within and outside the massive rocks that eventually amassed to form the earth. Most rocks contain ionic minerals like salt. In vacuum (like space), these ions start to form weak bonds, attracting each other closer and closer (this experiment was demonstrated by NASA using salt. Look it up on youtube). When the amassing rocks become big enough, gravity takes over, and continues to attract nearby rocks. This process continues until some kind of steady state is reached, where all nearby rocks have been pulled down. Thus, a planet is formed. If you can imagine the amount of rocks that were needed to form earth, then it is definitely conceivable that earth's water came from within these rocks.

When you make reference to scientific disputes, be sure to understand what you're remarking on. There is no doubt that water came from terrestrial rocks that formed the earth. The dispute exists in the type rocks. Yes, the higher ratio of D₂0 in the (only two) Comets from Kuiper's belt suggest water might not have come from comets in that ring. However, there were other asteroids that didn't come from Kuiper's belt that have been tested, and they have similar D₂0:H₂0 ratio as earth's water.

Here lies the problem! Now, supposing it is granted that we don't know the source of water on earth, I fail to understand how this automatically translates to "God did it". This is just a lazy invocation of god-of-the-gaps explanation. It is boring and lacks explanatory power!

Mate I asserted that there has been a hell lot of contradictions in the theories presented by science about the origin of water on earth and I still stand by that assertion. You're only proving me right by the submission of this your 'rocky theory', a theory I believe disagrees wholly with many other scientific theories.

You accuse the 'God did it" team of lacking explanatory power yet the submissions you and your team have been dropping hugely lacks consistency. So how different are you from us?

When scientists talk about the origin of water on Earth, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of scientism requires no proof, only conjectures. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of scientism.

This is not unusual in religion. For example, I assume God created water and I don't need to "prove" it. Its existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong ; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject yet follows the exact same pattern.

Let's move on from here 'cos I have other questions that needs answering.

Question 2: Where did life ORIGINATE?

This is for all proponents of the Big Bang theory. And please folks I need a concise consistent explanation this time around not throwing around some technical-sounding words around this lovely thread

Griffon:


Mate I asserted that there has been a hell lot of contradictions in the theories presented by science about the origin of water on earth and I still stand by that assertion. You're only proving me right by the submission of this your 'rocky theory', a theory I believe disagrees wholly with many other scientific theories.

Please highlight these many other theories and contradictions, let's scrutinise them.

You accuse the 'God did it" team of lacking explanatory power yet the submissions you and your team have been dropping hugely lacks consistency. So how different are you from us?

Are you kidding me? How different am I from you? How about the fact that I'm willing to present a plausible, logically consistent physical explanation that can be tested and falsified? Or the fact that I am not dogmatic about my position, and I will change it when a more compelling proposition comes (and it will!)? Or the fact that I don't invoke imperceptible, unfalsifiable and formless ideas to explain away things which I don't know. Please refrain from making nonsensical comparisons, it'll not help your course.

When scientists talk about the origin of water on Earth, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of scientism requires no proof, only conjectures. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of scientism.

No, they do so from an educated position. The arrogance is in dismissing the plethora of evidence as trivial because they don't conform to your distorted versions of reality. I understand that you wish to attribute the origins of water on earth to some miracle performing entity. The way I see it, it is your proposition that is running into problems here, because you then have to explain why god also put water on many uninhabitable celestial bodies like Pluto, comets in Kuiper belt, Saturn's moon, asteroids...and the list goes on. The only reason you wish to see science as religion is because it makes it easier for you to dismiss the facts it presents, like you do, other religions besides yours.

This is not unusual in religion. For example, I assume God created water and I don't need to "prove" it. Its existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong ; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject yet follows the exact same pattern.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so, while you're free to adopt whatever assumption makes you comfortable, advertising them without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific scrutiny will only pass them off as the desperate fantasies of a wishful thinker. It is true that many scientists are faithful people. It is also true that many scientists try to pass fantasies off as science, but sooner or later, such works are discovered and corrected because the body of science is a humongous agnostic self-sanitiser.

Let's move on from here 'cos I have other questions that needs answering.

Please highlight the many other theories you were referring to, and especially how they contradict the celestial rocks theory. Take note of the meaning of 'contradiction' while you do that.

Griffon:
Question 2: Where did life ORIGINATE?

This is for all proponents of the Big Bang theory. And please folks I need a concise consistent explanation this time around not throwing around some technical-sounding words around this lovely thread

The BBT proposes no answer for this question, nor does science as a whole. So it is sufficient to say there is yet no scientific answer.

Christians in Nigeria are still talking about Intelligent Design in the 21st Century? Lol!!! No wonder we are considered the daftest race on the planet!!! Only lunatics believe that evolution is a topic for debate. Evolution is a fact!!! But sadly, those who claim to be filled with the "so called" holy spirit, are F9 students in Biology!!!

daretodiffer:


I don't understand people that do not believe in God. It is like saying something came from nothing. I have every reason to reject that ideology, the complexity of life is too overwhelming. Personally, I think we are all irrational. Each to his own beliefs: (

You don't understand the argument.

AgentOfAllah:
Please highlight these many other theories and contradictions, let's scrutinise them.

Are you kidding me? How different am I from you? How about the fact that I'm willing to present a plausible, logically consistent physical explanation that can be tested and falsified? Or the fact that I am not dogmatic about my position, and I will change it when a more compelling proposition comes (and it will!)? Or the fact that I don't invoke imperceptible, unfalsifiable and formless ideas to explain away things which I don't know. Please refrain from making nonsensical comparisons, it'll not help your course.

No, they do so from an educated position. The arrogance is in dismissing the plethora of evidence as trivial because they don't conform to your distorted versions of reality. I understand that you wish to attribute the origins of water on earth to some miracle performing entity. The way I see it, it is your proposition that is running into problems here, because you then have to explain why god also put water on many uninhabitable celestial bodies like Pluto, comets in Kuiper belt, Saturn's moon, asteroids...and the list goes on. The only reason you wish to see science as religion is because it makes it easier for you to dismiss the facts it presents, like you do, other religions besides yours.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so, while you're free to adopt whatever assumption makes you comfortable, advertising them without subjecting them to the rigors of scientific scrutiny will only pass them off as the desperate fantasies of a wishful thinker. It is true that many scientists are faithful people. It is also true that many scientists try to pass fantasies off as science, but sooner or later, such works are discovered and corrected because the body of science is a humongous agnostic self-sanitiser.


Please highlight the many other theories you were referring to, and especially how they contradict the celestial rocks theory. Take note of the meaning of 'contradiction' while you do that.

Good read:

www.blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2014/12/12/rosetta-mission-fuels-argument-about-origin-of-earths-water/

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10120102

www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/meteoritescomets-and-asteroids/meteorites-most-likely-source-of-earths-water/

AgentOfAllah:


The BBT proposes no answer for this question, nor does science as a whole. So it is sufficient to say there is yet no scientific answer.

So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all. Magic does!

Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the big bang suddenly happened without cause : it's all done by magic! ( I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)

All of a sudden, the idea of a creator who seeded the big bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It's more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.

Griffon:


So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all. Magic does!

Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the big bang suddenly happened without cause : it's all done by magic! ( I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)

Hang on a minute! Where have I mentioned that magic does? All I've said is that it is SUFFICIENT (ie enough) to say science doesn't have the answer. I am ignorant about the origin of life, and I happily admit my ignorance!

All of a sudden, the idea of a creator who seeded the big bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It's more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.

From the foregoing, it is you, it seems, who is compulsively obsessed with invoking some magical omni-omni creator when the answers aren't readily obvious to you. Just admit your ignorance, there is no shame in not knowing all the answers.

They both are correct.I am working on a theory that will give empirical evidence that the universe emanates from God. Big bang was an effect, and you know what there is always a cause before the effect.

suckmywilly:
They both are correct.I am working on a theory that will give empirical evidence that the universe emanates from God. Big bang was an effect, and you know what there is always a cause before the effect.

Define god?

AgentOfAllah:


Define god?

It is God not god.God cannot be defined like he is some kind of object or concept, but i will tell you who he is.God is the incorporeal, the eternal being by which everything was made and without him there was not anything made that was made .(energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can be transferred from one point to another)

AgentOfAllah:


Define god?

It is God not god.God cannot be defined like he is some kind of object or concept, but i will tell you who he is.God is the incorporeal, the eternal being by which everything was made and without him there was not anything made that was made.He is the initial energy by which the universe was created

suckmywilly:

It is God not god.God cannot be defined like he is some kind of object or concept

So, let me get this straight. You're working on a theory that will provide empirical evidence that the universe emanates from 'God', an undefined variable. How can any theory be self-consistent without clearly defined variables? Maybe look up the meaning of Scientific theory and empirical evidence.

Hints:
1) A scientific theory must be falsifiable
2) Empirical evidence is evidence that is verifiable by observation.

Clearly, you either don't know what you are talking about. That, or your theory is not grounded in science!

but i will tell you who he is.God is the incorporeal, the eternal being by which everything was made and without him there was not anything made that was made

Oh, so now you have a definition! Tell me, how do you observe the existence the being you've defined?

(energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can be transferred from one point to another)

Look up quantum fluctuations...and welcome to the 21st century!

Griffon:


Good read:

www.blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2014/12/12/rosetta-mission-fuels-argument-about-origin-of-earths-water/

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10120102

www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/meteoritescomets-and-asteroids/meteorites-most-likely-source-of-earths-water/

You provided three links, one from VOANews, another, a UCL article of work from researchers at UCL and University of Arizona, and the third from researchers at CI Washington.
I could not access the first link, probably due to incorrectly spelled URL. Do cross check and let me know.

I will summarize the second and third link thus:

1) In the second link, the UCL and U of A researchers propose, using computer simulations, that water may have been on earth from its very inception.

2) In the third link, it is proposed that water came from asteroids, contrary to another popular notion that suggests it came from comets.

Now, let's examine both propositions, starting with the latter:

Comets/Asteroid theory
The first thing to note about the contemplation of comets vs asteroids is that both approach from the same fundamental premise, that is, water came to earth much later, after its birth. This assumption comes from the following line of reasoning:

i) From existing evidence, we know that comets, asteroids and other celestial objects that came from a dead star have ice water on them. This much is implied in the links you provided. In fact, there is no doubt about this in the scientific community.

ii) We also know that the earth formed from the accretion of these same space debris, first by ionic attraction of tiny mineral rocks, then by gravitational pull, so there should be no doubt that in the early stages of the earth, there was certainly water on it.

iii) However, as the earth got bigger and bigger, these rock got hotter and hotter due to gravitational potential energy (GPE) being converted to kinetic energy (KE). The rocks eventually became so hot as to have become magma.

iv) The assumption, therefore is that at such high temperatures, any water that came with the rocks would have quickly vapourised. We know this because the vapour point of water in 1 atm pressure is 373 K. So, at the time the earth's pressure was far less than 1 atm, the vapour point would have needed even lower temperatures than 373 K and magma is typically 970 K to 1,500 K. Clearly, this is a valid assumption, and it gives credence to the claim of the groups that believe water is an extraterrestrial immigrant into earth.

Nevertheless, the bone of contention is on what extraterrestrial body brought us water. This is where the debate of Comets vs asteroids come in. Incidentally, it is also at this point that the H₂0: D₂0 ratio plays an important role. Presently, Asteroids currently carry the day with existing evidence.
The important thing to note however, is that there is agreement amongst all serious geophysicists about how the earth formed and whether water pre-existed on the rocks that formed earth (in accordance with points i, ii and iii above)

Now, back to the UCL and U of A work.

Water from birth theory
Here, again, proceeding from the universally accepted premises in points i), ii) and iii), this group is suggesting that it is not necessary to assume all the water on earth vapourised at such high temperatures. In their appropriately titled paper "Where On Earth Has Our Water Come From?", they examine the adhesive energy of water to Mg₂SiO₄, one of the typical minerals found in young solar objects (YSOs), and discovered that adsorption energy of water to these minerals is greater than its desorption energy up until a temperature of 900 K at very low pressures of water, which would have been the state at accretion. This temperature is well within the acceptable range of temperatures at the time (500 K - 1500 K).

If you read their paper, you will find that these guys do not contradict the prevailing theory of asteroids, rather, they complement it, and further suggest that most of earth's water must have formed from inception, but that asteroids/comets may still account for an estimated 15% of our water. If you can, read the work of M. J. Drake and H. Campins published in Asteroids, Comets, Meteors, Proceedings IAU (2005) 229, 381.

In conclusion, these things you call contradictions, are not mutually exclusive, thus do not fit that description. Also, there is no ambiguity as to the fact that water came from celestial rocks which formed earth. It is definitely conceivable that all these methods brought water to earth (there is no rule that it just has to be one of them). The only debate, I guess, is what method contributed the most to our water.

I think my text is too long now, but I needed to present a sound rebuttal of your "contradiction" claim.