Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

The only problem that casts some doubt on cometary water (t east stuff from the Oort neighborhood), is that cometary water differs in its concentrations of H1 and H2 (protium and deuterium). The ratios are about 100% different

.NOW, could it be that earlier comets had a different ratio of their hydrogens in their ice or does it mean that water arose in other ways. ? WHat Ive been trying to get across to Herald is that, IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER, because life (starting with Greenland patches and Flinerds Hill rocks, already show WATER BORNE sediments at 3.8 BILLION YEARS , or about 0.7 By since the origin of the planet. Waterborne sediments usually include shales, sandstones, conglomerates etc.
He just aint listening.

Maybe we don't fully understand WHEN or by WHAT MEANS the water was "delivered". However, what does that have to do with the validity of the evidence regarding evolution? Youre trying to push an argument that has no basis.
As Ive said over and over to you. We have the evidence of WHEN water was on earth and it coincided with lifes appearances

1We have good strong evidence that first life on the planet corresponds to a time at or slightly before 3.85 Bya.

2NONE of these occurences in Greenland or Australia show that life was formed in "lava" (where do you get your logic? from a cereal
box?). vience for life was found in sedimentary rocks of the same ages. NOW, if you doubt the means of age dating , please ask about that.

3ALL subsequent life (all the way until the Silurian) was found in sediments of ancient oceans, streams, ponds, swamps, etc etc. IT WAS ALL WATER BORNE.

Maybe this question should be (how many comets per year for 0.7 Billion Years does it take to add water to a volume of a planet who's total amount of water is roughly 0.6% of the planets volume)

We haven't discussed the concept of "planetary differentiation" as it applies to development of hydrothermal deposits and excess water that is "rained out" as the planet developed its various cores and layers.
Remember 99.4% of the planet is the heavy stuff that differentiated
into the various layers (AND YES we can evidence that ). All the rock and metallic layers differentiated according to density differences and of thise layers, many are built up of hydrothermal mineral deposits (serpentine, granite,quartz veins , and any rock with measurable amounts of silicon). Quartz is always developed as a SiO2 mass with lots of OH built in. As the rock differentiates and moves through cracks on the country rock, it loses its components like water as it cools.

That's a theory that has never been tossed out as a possibility .

Actually Herald doesn't want to discuss anything abvout science. He wishes to make silly points that end up with the typical Creationists simple simon view
"If you cant explain where bats came from then ALL of volution is uinvalidated"

However, as their position has gotten backed into a corner more and more, they are arguing with more strident noises, and they are playing the "If this then none of that" card as much as they can.

Life began in water and it evolved pretty much in water. Life "Waited around" until enough free water was available so that it could begin and start evolving.

Of that we cant deny.

With Aphrodite stepping ashore eh?

More likely some C3 plant.

Get that girls--you are like rice and barley.

Is that the explanation of NASA, for this is outperforming even the fables of the Genesis in the Bible. 'Life on Earth began ... ?!' Is that the whole scientific explanation.
I don't have any ambitions to become editor-in-chief of NASA, but why don't we make some more plausible suggestion.
O.K. the energy source is the Sun (obviously) - for all the energy on Earth is coming from the Sun ... even nowadays. We have the Energy.
We have the lava planet and we will need some water ... a lot of it ... 1,385,999,652,414.- cu.km, and oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere - 5.15 x 10^18 kg x 20.946%; and hydrogen - 5.15 x 10^18 kg x 0.000055% ... in 'cosmological quantities'.
If we assume that the oxygen came from the interstellar matter (existing on the spot here before the formation of the SS) what about the hydrogen? Where did it come from? The only source capable of supplying hydrogen in such cosmological quantities ... is the helium 3 from the solar wind. Most probably the reaction has been: n + 3He → 3H + 1H + 0.764 MeV. Just don't ask me where did the neutrons come from.
Now we have the oxygen, we have the hydrogen, and all that we will need is carbon ... also in cosmological quantities.
A possible source of carbon 12 could be the nuclear fusion of helium 4: He4 + He4 -> Be8 + He4 -> C12. But this is just a suggestion.
Unfortunately all this is in absolute contradiction with the hydrogen-sulfuric theory of the things of FM.

WAIT I feel a theory coming on, try this on for size!-
The Earth WAS a comet that got trapped into orbiting the sun, then most of its ice melted and formed the oceans, there ya go..

Wow. All I can say is WOW!

Hydrogen makes up 75% of the matter in the universe but the only way it could be on earth is if it is manufactured from Helium?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hydhel.html

You have certainly outdone yourself with stupid statements on this one Herald.

You broke your vow there para.



The pejorative "stupid" does not sit easily with your very nice declaration. And it implies a limited method of expression which I suppose is not uncommon in first grade classes.

What Herald needs to do is force his opponents to their knees by getting them to put him on Ignore. And they're lovin' it aren't they just.

It is obvious that they are not to be shifted. Not one inch. Thus it is obvious that, as in any public debate, it is the hearts and minds of the viewers which are being addressed. And anybody who thinks the viewers are interested in how much water is on the earth or how it got there or whether the ******* universe consists of 75% hydrogen or what helium is, other than a gas which gives us a squeaky voice if we suck on a tube connected to a tank marked HELIUM, should ask around his neighbourhood and work colleagues.

And being put on Ignore is an advantage. It allows the ignored to respond to the ignorer's posts without being answered unless they swallow their pride and have a little peek and confess having done so.

From the point of view of helping the viewers to make up their neutral minds, and maybe occasionally amuse them, which is what they are viewers for, being on Ignore is ace. It's like an actor's "aside" to the audience.

It was a stupid statement. The universe is 75% hydrogen. It would be like arguing that the bumps on the local barmaid's chest are not breasts because she is a woman. While it might entertain the local chaps when drunk, in a moment of lucidity they would recognize it as being a stupid argument.

My "nice declaration" was to see what you really knew about clocks being wound. It seems the clock may stopped when you were born.

And you are like George Spelvin, spendi. We never know what you will say when you fret and strut for us.

Here's hoping you make the curtain call.

Most of those in the ignored category are just fools or cowardly batshits like JTT. One of the reasons I don't ignore you anymore is that I don't really mind your idiocy because you pull back the curtain of your ignorance with each response.You argue that you are a "chemist" yet know nothing of chemistry. SO, Ive always assumed you were of the Christian SCientist's persuasion and are on a journey of some kind of late life self discovery.

Herald is very confused and is probably not much more than 14 years old. His naivete is "cute' as he attempts to argue his own worldview using clinical word of which he has no understanding at all.


the real question for the entire universe is "When were the heavy elements created and by what means? The Big Bang created elements of the H/He and some of the first octet . All heavier elements came later and seem to cluster around galaxies and stars.

Putting somebody on ignore means you're turning your back and running away instead of standing your ground like a man..

"Take arrows in your front, never in your back"- Samurai doctrine

whatever happened to "wipe the dust from your feet" and "turn the other cheek"

NOT putting someone on ignore means that you are a crazy batshit yourself who likes to take part in toxic meaningless battles . Many of us just don't have the time nor do we give a **** about "Standing up like a man when it comes to arguing about whether Im an idiot or not". That's for kids, and people with no life.
I only have one person on ignore and I think that most of us agree that this person is a real psychopath .

The "ignore" feature needs one or two more upgrades so that it no longer is it a soapbox for the nuts who don't really debate but just bite at heels with insane insults.

If you like to argue non-substantively and get your jollies at name calling, go for it. I feel that Im among the more patient individuals and I like to have fun with many of our more strident correspondents. I rarely get involved in the religion v atheism threads anymore because they have, in the main, become toxic soups and theres usually nothing being discussed other than one persons opinions about another.

But they are only "breasts" to an unartistic, half-baked-scientific and crabbed psychology which resembles, in some respects, the contents of a vessel in which spaghetti is being prepared on a large military base. The word "breasts" can be said on the News as long as the context is problematical. Titties can't. Titties connotes positively imo. As do a lot of other words in the same genre which is concerned with the sad and unfortunate tit-man.

And they can only be said to be "bumps" if the rolling hills of the Yorkshire Dales on a balmy summer afternoon can be said to be bumps. You make them sound like speed humps.

But despite all that mush I can assure you from my personal experience, some of which has been peer-reviewed, that the barmaids chests I have known had tits precisely because they were all women.

There is, I admit, a circularity involved because I only ever go in pubs where the landlord pays particular attention to choosing his or her female bar staff. In one pub I frequented the landlord checked out all his bar-staff in case some cross-dresser who had eaten too much cheep chicken tried to get in the door. I am self-selecting my evidence as is the way with a lot of scientists. fm does nothing else for example.

The bumps on my chest are nothing to write home about, which is a good thing because I might never get out of bed otherwise. And it is because I'm a bloke.

There are so many people now who are not average that a perfectly average bloke is becoming endangered.

Although I must admit that I can't see the connection you made between the hydrogen in the universe and barmaid's tits unless it is that you're a Tit-man yourself and will use any excuse to bring up tits in conversation. Or could it be that you are drawing attention to the hydrogen in a bar-maid's tits. You are too much of a gentleman to do that.

But you must have noticed that there is no tit obsession anywhere other than in a culture which hides them away from view when it is perfectly obvious (see Oscars) that the tits do not wish to be hidden but being without the intelligence, as tits I mean, to realise that if they were not hidden they wouldn't be any big deal. As evolution provides 100% evidence of.

And the culture was Christian.

It is hard to imagine a "dumb broad" without good tits. Look how sensible Katherine Hepburn was. Compared to Barbara Windsor say.

That I am. Indeed. And not just late life either. I think it is a good thing to grow old gracefully and for that money is necessary.

I was only about 10 when I was passing along our most salubrious road and saw a gentleman in a wheelchair getting into his Mercedes with the aid of a mechanical contraption which transferred him to the driving position by pressing buttons. In those days such a device would have been very expensive. I can still remember saying to myself "That's what money is for". Hence I came to realise that spending had to be carefully scrutinised and those who ignored such a test were unlikely to grow old gracefully.

And if one never needs such things one has hit the jackpot anyway.

But I must admit that it makes women more difficult to deal with.

Hydrogen in the universe is more prevalent than tits on a dumb broad.

When the earth formed it would have had more hydrogen than any other element. Even in a reduction from a 48DDD to a 36C there would still be a heck of a lot of hydrogen bouncing around on the earth.

Barmaids have tits because they are women and the Earth had hydrogen when it was formed because it is part of the universe. Anyone that argues against either of those must have never spent time with their nose in a National Geographic.

Spendi only takes in what he wants to hear .You are trying to give him what he needs to hear, and that's the problem.