Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

That's marking you own exam paper fm.



There is nothing to know. There is only belief.

The only thing I know is that those who believed that the water was created by a Divine intelligence produced a culture in which words such as "deuterium'Protium ratios of the earth /moon waters, Oort cloud bolides and Hadean time" became possible.

There is no mention of such things in pre-Christian records and you have ignored all requests to suggest a mechanism through which such concepts could have come into use in the absence of Christianity.

You're a child of Christianity fm. You need to be pretty damn dumb, obtuse and blind not to know it.

I readily admit that the origin of water on earth is not admittedly a single scientific "settled science"

My interests in water are that it shows its presence in the various geologic eras. We can tell that rocks of the post-Hadean (EoArchean) contain evidence of water living critters. The sediments and age determinations of 3.8 Bya evidence that these sediments qere layed down in water . All over the planet e have very clear unambiguous evidence that water borne sediments (fluvial. littoral, continental shelves,lake deposits, embatments, deltaic etc etc). These sediments evidence that water was here in the vast history of the Earth nd the origin of water appears to be a combination of
1. self generated planetary water as we see in hydrothermal deposits (This was the original theory but never was it very convincing)

2. Cometary nd meteoric. The stable H isotopic ratios don't support this either,

In either case though, sater was a participant and a witness to the ages of the geology of the earth.

You are able to insert whatever worldview you wish. Im sure youre going for some story of divine intervention .

When Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen are the most common elements in the Universe is it any wonder we find water on planets?

http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/UniverseAbundance.html

Water like hydrogen isn't spread evenly throughout our solar system. For someone to argue it should be raises questions about what they know or are willing to try to know.

sources pf water are argued by their isotopic concentrations. I don't think that the mechanics of isotopic differentiation are as understood as we think it is.
For example, in the various ages of arths history , we can tell whether the climate was cold or warm by the fractionation and ratios of Oxygen isotopes. WHy not the same with Hydrogen. Just because the H1/ H2 ratios of meteor water and the earth and moons water is different, dos that really men anything that we cannot ascribe to mechanical separation?

The earth and moons water are isotopically related, so several theories involve that the body that wound up s the moon smacked into the earth during the Hadean and then busted off and flew into its own local orbit. That body had water and was the "parent" water for the earth and moon.
Or not, BFD.

I understood that moon water is speculation and not a done deal.

Am I wrong?

When the moon "busted off" how did it manage to settle in just the right orbit to render the tides suitable for our purposes?

Is it the movement of water which causes the tectonic plate drifting?

That is a silly argument. When beer was first made how did the right yeast manage to create it? Because something ended up where it is doesn't mean it is the most advantageous. It just means we are familiar with it.


No.

What are the chances of the moon ending up in the perfect orbit. No casino has odds like that.

Why does the water movement not effect the plate movements. On what basis do you offer that bold assertion?

LOL I've figured it out!!!

Spendius=Bill O'Reilly!

You have to admit that you don't have the slightest idea where did the water come from. These stories with the comets are fables for idiots. Can you tell us how many comets you will need to make the ocean? A quantitative equation without any comments on intellectual disabilities would be fine.


Your interests in water should be to calibrate your scale of measurement to the zero ... for without calibration you don't know exactly what you are measuring.


... self generated planetary water out of what, FM. You can use here the Big Bang theory that can generate 3D space out of nothing and make inference by analogy that will 'evidence' that the generation of water out of melted lava on any planet ... is not entirely impossible.


What about the logic, FM. If the water hadn't come from outside of the SS, if it has not always been on the Earth ... what about coming from the Sun ... from the Helium 3 of the solar flux?


There is a story of divine intervention and it states that if one cannot calibrate the age of the water on the Earth ... and has no idea about its origin there is no way to have any sustainable theory for the origin of life which is based 65% on water.

I can explain the tides JJ. Not the first cause of course.

As you don't seem to recognize, its a wonderful day when science DOESNT know everything. You can be sure that, what science does know , in order to be sustainable, must be presented in a fashion where evidence is most robust.
The hypotheses of "cometary water" was popular for a number of years but was only "lightly" held as a working hypothesis. When we sent probes to some comets we discovered that the cometarywater had very different ratios of Deuterium to protium in its water (Its like C12 in fossils). However, the ratios of D/P are very similar from Asteroidal water and oceanic water. AND, some of the more exotic off planet elements coincide.

Ive always been a fan of the creation of water on the earth during theLate Hadean and during the Proterozoic (by sulfitic metabolism by chemosynthesizing bacteria, and later by photosynthesis)
{{When H2S is metabolized in the presence of CO2 (all of which are ubiquitous compounds on the early earth) it relases H2O as well as fixing S}} Im not a huge fan of that only because , in the post Hadean, weve had evidence of C12 life in Sea layed sediments and it already showed that water was present in sizeable amounts.
The time when blue green algae developed , I believe that , not only was oxygen freed but additional water was compounded by these new life forms.

THE fossil record supports a gradual increase of oxygen and therefore additional water through time.
(As I said before, I don't have answers to satisfy you, but I can point to EVIENCE that many interacting phenomena , including the advance of life, may have been instrumental in filling up the earths reservoir.

Another hypothesis states that REDOX reactions and differentiation of acidic rocks (such as granites or diorites also added to the water balance (and, as these were first seen in the earths crust, it would mean that the earth was already going through early episodes of continental drift). The evidence for this is pretty straitforward in that all shield rocks show deep time ages and exhibit lots pf quartz rich rocks.

Evidence my dear boy, is that which I prefer to follow. As evidence grows for any one or more of the hypotheses, Ill be satisfied that the answers are closer at hand.
SO what've you got. Any evidence to support it?

As I said before, my work has always been involved looking at the time during which certain vent had occurred on arth. (These events would leave remnants on the presence of economic deposits which folks like me exploit). During ALL of these time sequences from the earliest to most recent, water already existed. So Im in no big hurry to join the water seekers , since the rise of life, during all these intervening "wet eons" has followed Darwins theory damn closely.

Don't see any "Precambrian elephants" in the fossil trove.

In what way is the moon in the perfect orbit? The moon could be in hundreds of other orbits and we would still have tides. Wouldn't a perfect orbit mean the tides are the same time every day. They aren't.

Does your bathtub move around the house every time you splash the water in it? The tidal effects of the moon on the earth itself would have more effect than the water sloshing around. On what basis do you create your questions?

Actually, the moon originally was in an orbit much, much closer to Earth. Physics dictated the move to where it is now...and it took billions of years for it to happen.

When it comes to theories, scientific explanations trump magic by default. You cannot invoke Divine Intervention as a "theory" every time you don't understand something, it's academically meaningless and philosophically obtuse.

If you choose to think that we live in a world of Divine Magic then you should give up thinking altogether because you have predefined it as a waste of time.

I only found this one point of your last point even mildly interesting .


Im wondering how the one is supposed to reduce the occurrence of the other. Are you also saying that we cant see where Iron comes from so that Haemoglobin couldn't evolve? Or we don't know when Phosphorus came to the planet so we cant have proteins?

Your attempts at logic are, to say the least, focused on only one basis for a selected outcome which is "Special Creation"

When a specific evidence-free worldview controls all of your thought process, it becomes superstition.

We all know that fm but it is superstition which has been refined by the wisdom of the ages and, as with myths, it will have a germ of poetic truth in it for those open-minded enough to look into it.

To dismiss superstition in favour of science is ignore the wisdom of the ages and to confine yourself to matters which can be measured by instruments. In which case you have no answer to where water or iron or phosphorous came from and any answer you try to get past our guard will be subject to an infinite regress.

And superstitions rarely control "all" our thought processes. Can you imagine humanity without superstitions?

Then don't try to mistake it as science. Talk to Herald, he seems to be the one with the misunderstanding about " poetic wisdom of the ages" and honest to goodness facts.


Superstitions are wonderful fodder for the arts. Richard Wagner and Richard Strauss would have been SOL without it. Bosch and Odelon Redon would have been given galvanic therapy and Lovecraft and King would have still been writing obituaries

It might be said that it has been "sucked and seen" by the whole culture in which it exists as opposed to the PR department of a well guarded scientific establishment. That it has been peer-reviewed to the bone.

If you will offer a well known superstition I will make an effort, using teleology of course, to find its scientific foundation.



Have you not noticed that when I address pious religious folks they rarely answer. They are keener to respond to you because they know you are a wuss and a dumb one to boot.

Fancy allowing yourself to be lured into a "where's the water from" debate. Ending up covered in custard pies was inevitable. With random splashes on your devoted up-thumbers.



Which is because superstition and art treat with the same subject, human behaviour, and the proper artist is one who delves into the historical tradition and avoids jumping up like a jack-in-a-box with some self generated insight he has eurekad out of his very limited resources.

Essentially art and superstition are identical. Surely you must see that assigning meaning to daubing a canvas with a paint brush is a superstition. Or that the knickerless can-can is worth getting excited about. I think a busy gynecologist might well laugh at such fanciful idea. And they are scientists.

That's merely because Asking you would be like questioning a colander.

to what end is this exercise? What makes you think that you have anything substantive to offer?
. That true? I usually hear laughing AT you. Ive read "Pious religious folk" give you the easy brush off because you are such a jamoke.