32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 08:47 am
setanta says:
Quote:
You might want to revise your statement somewhat. Nothing has been raining down on the earth over tens of billions of years, because the earth ain't that old. In fact, the cosmos as we understand it is only somewhat more than ten billion years old--in the neighborhood of 13 to 14 billion years old.
Too many other "billions" in that post. I kinda got fixated. Meant "millions". On that one at least. The other "billions" stand.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 10:03 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Since I started the question I deserve first answer.

It doesn't matter who started what ... but rather who makes the claim.
You claim that you know how has the water come down here on the Earth (if it has come at all).
You claim that you can measure any age (without any problems ... and any calibration).
You claim that the lava rocks and the green algae can make the water on the Earth (without having any idea how could the green algae could appear within the lava rocks). Hence you are supposed to present the evidences ... and the justification.
As far as me is concerned, I don't need any fake evidences (with questionable and non-calibrated dating) - a plausible inference would be enough.
FM, you cannot explain 99% of the processes on the Earth (with or without the so called evidences you are presenting).
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 07:28 am
@Herald,
Do you have enough straw in your post?


Name the 99% of the processes that FM can't explain.
I'll bet you can't even come close to naming 10%.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 08:04 am
@Herald,
Im sorry what Ive stated was not accepted by you but I certainly understand how the Creationist mind works (mere science and evidence cant trump a good Bible story)

All this water from comet stuff was a mathematical problem I STARTED and I want youre shot at it (Stop ducking the issues , are you a coward in your convictions? A little unsure are you?)

Quote:

It doesn't matter who started what ... but rather who makes the claim.
I gave you enough initial data. I like to see problems laid out in an orderly array. Please , youre ducking the issue. quack quack

Quote:
You claim that you know how has the water come down here on the Earth
No I didn't, youre a liar also. I gave several possibilities with arguments for and against

Quote:
You claim that you can measure any age (without any problems ... and any calibration).

Liar liar pants on fire. Where did I ever say "Without calibration" You have no idea what calibrations are even involved so how can you even argue the point ?
I think Ive taught you everything you've ever herd about isotope dating and now you are posting fraudulent claims. Cmon sonny grow the **** up.

Quote:
You claim that the lava rocks and the green algae can make the water on the Earth (without having any idea how could the green algae could appear within the lava rocks).
Show me where I said this, Im sure I was drinking heavily if I even came close. (Or were you engaging in underage drinking?

Quote:
I don't need any fake evidences
Fake or real, what evidence do you have AT ALL? Ive seen none but the misquoting nd "quote mining" and twisting up of my posts.
Its ok, Im used to this kind of bullshit lying and deceitfulness of Creationists. The simple fact is that you have nothing that you can point to as "REAL" evidence, so you make up stories and compile untruths about what science is trying to say.

Your bio says that you are in "IT", I hope I don't have the honor of relying on your "I" whenever I consult people to research specific technical topics. Im amazed how lacking in scruples and respect for truth you seem to be.

I suggest that you and Kalopin get together and have a discussion. You have a lot in common/.



Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 11:22 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Where did I ever say "Without calibration" ...

Nowhere, because the problem for calibrating the methods of measurement does not exist in your 'scientific' understanding of the world.

farmerman wrote:
You have no idea what calibrations are even involved so how can you even argue the point ?

O.K., why don't you tell us what does calibration of a method for measuring geological time involve? Where is the zero of the scale?

farmerman wrote:
Show me where I said this (green algae & lava rocks) ...

You claimed that the green algae 'eat up' all the CO2 from the air (500 Mya). The Earth was a lava planet 3.8 Bya (for you have not observed water before that) and you have no evidences that 0.7 BN years are enough to cool down a lava planet to solid ball.
Within that period you have to explain where did the O2 and the H2 come from ... and the carbon. Perhaps you will agree that you cannot have 7000 ppm of CO2 in the air without having any carbon on the planet.
Not to say that you don't have the vaguest idea where did the information code of the DNA of the green algae come from. Do you know what is the probability for that to happen by accident?
Perhaps the probability for that code to be transmitted here down on the Earth from the 'other side of the universe' by quantum encryption of light beams by another ILF is greater than the probability for this code to appear out of nothing, as your favorite Big Bang theory for the creation of the universe may claim.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 12:54 pm
@Herald,
"calibration" is the act of determining whether your methods are correct. You say youre a mathematician? and you didnt understand calibration?

1at 3.8 Billion years the planet had water. How do we know? because we see water deposited sediments. I hope that this, the fourth time Ive tried to connect with your head re: that bit of evidence. Im kinda getting tired of your obtuse mode of repeating garbage and then trying to pin it on me.

Quote:

You claimed that the green algae 'eat up' all the CO2 from the air (500 Mya).
yeh, its called

photosynthesis, ever hear of it?
Besides, it was blue green algaes /cyanobacter

Quote:
Where is the zero of the scale?
we use radioisotope dating based upon a disequilibrium method of the half lives of the radioactive isotopes involved

Quote:
Not to say that you don't have the vaguest idea where did the information code of the DNA of the green algae come from
Besides that, I have no idea whether blue-green algae of the early Proterozoic even contained DNA. Do you know this for a fact? HOW?
Quote:
Perhaps the probability for that code to be transmitted here down on the Earth from the 'other side of the universe' by quantum encryption of light beams by another ILF is greater than the probability for this code to appear out of nothing, as your favorite Big Bang theory for the creation of the universe may claim.

1st off, Big Bang theory says NOTHING about life and you are just being an idiot by claiming it does. 2ndly, If you have any evidence to support your intelligent life thing, please present it or just go away to your Bible class

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 01:18 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Name the 99% of the processes that FM can't explain.
I'll bet you can't even come close to naming 10%.


H should have said 100% and asked what "explain" means.

I bet fm can't even explain why he is so rattled which he certainly looks to be. Or why he is a geologist.

If somebody can explain how geologists appeared, as a taxonomic category within the body of evolution's productions, without the Christian religion having been founded as a last ditch attempt to render the Gentiles more reasonable, I would be most interested to read it.

Until geologists evolved nobody ever gave a second thought to where the water came from.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 02:05 pm
@spendius,
Or why he is an "infraspecific taxa" within the geological species which differs from the mainstream by dabbling in sheep farming, whale watching, muscular machinery, often vicariously, and getting uptight about Christians. I know some can be a bit of a nuisance but they are not so bad on the whole.

Every 8.5 persons are Christians I read.

So all the services he takes advantage of are delivered by the 85% of the population which he castigates, seemingly from dusk to dawn and back to dusk, in a never-ending round of whatever it might be called.

And he calls people hypocrites!!!

He has dealings with people who he says are taking us back to the Stone Age. Or the Middle Ages when he's had his calming coffee.

I would have no dealings with people who were doing that. I'm a man of strict principles.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 03:29 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I certainly understand how the Creationist mind works (mere science and evidence cant trump a good Bible story)


Well it would because the Bible story is providing knowledge of human relations and science knowledge of the dirt. Too much focus on the dirt leaves the rear unguarded and your army is taken from the rear and put to the sword.

The emphasis placed on the knowledge of human relations and that on the dirt is what differentiates conservatives and liberals. As a general thing I mean. And the knowledge of human relations has to be studied as a whole whereas knowledge of the dirt studies smaller and smaller aspects of the dirt. When the latter knowledge is applied to human relations it is out of its depth.

Which trumps which is the destiny of the human race.

Did you see our Queen swap gifts with the Pope? She gave him a large picnic hamper, authentic straw, containing the very best in goodies and he gave her a moldy old piece of parchment said to date back to ye olde days. Framed of course.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 04:58 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
Perhaps the probability for that code to be transmitted here down on the Earth from the 'other side of the universe' by quantum encryption of light beams by another ILF is greater than the probability for this code to appear out of nothing, as your favorite Big Bang theory for the creation of the universe may claim.


Which begs the question, H, of where the ILF came from and if it was on a body that had water where did that water come from?
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 08:42 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
"calibration" is the act of determining whether your methods are correct
... or not.
The second device or specimen, used to verify and validate the measurement is called sample. You have a sample of some 'newly born rock' (at the age of zero) - molten lava. Why don't you measure its age by using any of your methods ... to see what you are measuring there.

farmerman wrote:
How do we know? because we see water deposited sediments.

You may 'see' water, but you cannot tell how much of it was there by that time ... and at any time ever after. How can you prove that 3.8 Bya the water on the Earth has been 1,385,999,652,414.- cu.km?
You are watching the bubbles in the zirconium crystals and you cannot even tell whether the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere has been 5.15 x 10^18 kg x 20.946% and the hydrogen - 5.15 x 10^18 kg x 0.000055% or not ... by that time. You cannot even tell which has been the time.
If you are curious to know how much calibration you may need, measure the CO2, NO2 and SO2 at the ground near a road or a highway ... and measure them on the same spot at some height (at the road sign 6 m above the highway, where the measurement boards usually are placed) ... to see that you will get data from 'different planets'.

Quote:
Quote:
You claimed that the green algae 'eat up' all the CO2 from the air (500 Mya).
... yeh, its called photosynthesis, ever hear of it? Besides, it was blue green algae /cyanobacter

... and can you calculate the complexity of that photosynthesis in comparison to the present-day engineering technologies & computational power ... by solving in the end the equation: use less CO2 than the CO2 you are processing back into carbon, and tell us:
1. How did Nature 'guessed' to process the CO2 in that way ... and why?
2. How much engineering and computational power you will need to do a processing facility solving the very same equation right here and right now. You may use everything that you may design by your own (incl. bio-polymers with the laser printer that are not copyrighted by Nature).
3. What is the probability for such equipment to appear by chance ... out of whatever, which is not pre-designed?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 09:19 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Since I started the question I deserve first answer.

It doesn't matter who started what ... but rather who makes the claim.
You claim that you know how has the water come down here on the Earth (if it has come at all).
You claim that you can measure any age (without any problems ... and any calibration).
You claim that the lava rocks and the green algae can make the water on the Earth (without having any idea how could the green algae could appear within the lava rocks). Hence you are supposed to present the evidences ... and the justification.
As far as me is concerned, I don't need any fake evidences (with questionable and non-calibrated dating) - a plausible inference would be enough.
FM, you cannot explain 99% of the processes on the Earth (with or without the so called evidences you are presenting).


Herald first of all, you are being disingenuous and secondly I find it amusing that you demand evidences for how water appeared on earth yet you have no problem positing that a supernatural entity was involved. You can't get any more ironic than that.

But let's back up. I don't know what FM's background is or how much chemistry education he has but I can tell you that there are multiple ways to develop water. In fact one very abundant resource that causes oxygen and hydrogen molecules to combine is none other than the sun. Well sun light that is. Now I know what you are thinking, that is absurd because it seems rather disconnected. How could sun light possibly bring oxygen and hydrogen molecules together?

It works a little like this. The earth crust forms, it isn't molten any more. There are high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oxygen levels are low, very low. The sun keeps the atmosphere on earth very warm due to the high levels of CO2. This produces just the right amount of energy for the small amounts of oxygen and hydrogen in the upper atmosphere to combine which causes water vapor. ie. clouds.

Once these clouds get heavy enough they rain down onto the crust. The water seeps into gaps and cracks where minerals locked within the rocks are released and puddles of water form within these cracks and gaps, holes ect. These small pools of stagnant water with their mixture of many different chemicals, phosphorus, nitrogen, ect. These pools sometimes evaporate and leave behind a chemical residue on the rocks. This residue is exposed to the suns light in some spots and warm temperatures.

Then some time later it rains again and the residue is re-exposed to pools of water. Streams form moving this re-constituted residue down stream. Soon there is large ponds, lakes of this residue soup. Perfect building blocks for RNA synthesis and once RNA is abundant, DNA is not far behind.

Now understand something. This process probably took a billion years to get to this last point I made. It is a cycle of hydrogen and oxygen combining to form water vapor, then rain, the rain erodes the rock, the minerals mix in pools, the pools evaporate, residue is formed, the residue is re-exposed to the sun and then exposed to rain again. (probably due to seasons) then all this ends up in lakes and ponds where RNA forms.

Before algae comes to be, microbes and bacteria are the first to arise. They further break down the CO2 and minerals in the lake beds which release iron deposits. This iron becomes a key ingredient to the formation of the first forms of algae. It continues to rain and CO2 levels are coming down over another half a billion years. Meanwhile the entire planet is covered in microbes and bacteria eating away the minerals and exposing top layers of iron which are then further eroded which run off into the lakes an ponds.

These ponds are choked with rust colored water which block out the suns rays and kill off the microbes but the bacteria thrive in this environment as billions of microbes die. This creates layers of calcium deposits on pond and lake beds. Where they are covered by layers of run off silt. Another key player later on when algae form.

I think you are getting the picture. Do I know any of this for absolute fact? No. But evidence of rock formations in areas where the crust is dated to be extremely old show that these layers formed so microbes and bacteria had to exist. When you look into what sort of microbes they were, they didn't need oxygen. Also lots of locked in layers of iron rust deposits are found mixed within these layers of calcium.

In other words the evidence and chemistry tell the story, You just need to have some chemistry knowledge to be able to see what the clues are telling you. But you don't honestly like any of this, you would rather have your magical sky daddy snapping his fingers and saying his holy presto words making everything magically appear into existence aged just to throw off those pesky scientists.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 03:51 am
@Herald,
Quote:
'newly born rock' (at the age of zero) - molten lava. Why don't you measure its age by using any of your methods ... to see what you are measuring there.
now you sound like gungasnake.
When we do radioisotope measurements, part of the "system calibration" is, (by knowing the half life of the isotope in question) we do systematic calibrations by doing just the opposite of what you propose. We use samples of what should be "isotope free" rocks. Like Australian or Canadian shield material for K40, or Carboniferous coal for C14. For those isotopes with very long half lives, we use an "isochron" method for introducing isotopes of known "standard" ages.
Doing a C14 or K/Qr of fresh lava is usually stupid because of reasons Ive exhaustively tried to explain to you already. Why do an isotope test of "recycled isotopes" when you can date a volcano with the newspaper report?
SINCE YOU DONT SEEM TO LEARN ANYTHING , and instead just like to repeat your religious "mantra" Im getting a sneaking suspicion that you don't want information, youre merely on a crusade AGAINST science.

Quote:

You may 'see' water, but you cannot tell how much of it was there by that time
It was enough to get life going by EVIDENCE from the "rocks of the right age"

Quote:

... and can you calculate the complexity of that photosynthesis in comparison to the present-day engineering technologies & computational power ... by solving in the end the equation: use less CO2 than the CO2 you are processing back into carbon, and tell us:
1. How did Nature 'guessed' to process the CO2 in that way ... and why?


Knowing about photosynthesis and types of respiration in plants doesn't seem good enough. Now you want to know their addresses and phone numbers too?
I have no idea what you seek bubba, but your question dosesnt seem to make sense and all you are doing is embarrassing yourself.
WHY does present day technology need to be in "competition" with natural means?
Youre just trying to blow smoke up our collective ass again.
You should look up sciolism , I believe you fit the definition quite well.



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2014 06:09 am
The fascination with the strange and distant, in both time and space, is the essence of the Romantic sentiment.

According to Freud it derives from childhood daydreaming caused by the limitations on individuality imposed by modern society and particularly by its urban structures and is catered for, and enhanced, by escapist literature and movies in which the narcissistic ego is free to move in imaginative worlds not subject to reality.

The urge to travel is a symptom as also is the desire to commit adultery or other explorations of the self's rejection of normative behaviour.

So the contending parties here do have something in common.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 12:01 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
'newly born rock' (at the age of zero) - molten lava. Why don't you measure its age by using any of your methods ... to see what you are measuring there.
now you sound like gungasnake.

No, no, FM. Just tell us how much is the age of a molten rock ... according to any of your methods, it doesn't matter which one. A number without any additional side comments would be enough.

farmerman wrote:
Doing a C14 or K/Qr of fresh lava is usually stupid because of reasons Ive exhaustively tried to explain to you already.

It may be stupid to you, but it is not stupid to us. According to the general theory and the methods underlying the age assessment, the assumption is that a rock is born by the molten lava. The age of a newly born rock is zero ... the age of freshly hardened lava in one year is ... well, one and so on.
If the age of molten lava is not zero, your method for determining age is non-calibrated and therefore invalid, hence you don't know what you are measuring, from where automatically follows that anything you may infer on the grounds of such 'measurements' is fake and invalid and non-existent in the physical world as evidence ... for the purposes of whatever.

farmerman wrote:
I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that you don't want information, youre merely on a crusade AGAINST science.

Nothing can outperform the 'crusade against science' and your vicious practices of making measurements and 'scientific' inferences ... without any calibration.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 12:54 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Herald first of all, you are being disingenuous and secondly I find it amusing that you demand evidences for how water appeared on earth yet you have no problem positing that a supernatural entity was involved. You can't get any more ironic than that.

First of all, sending information by quantum cryptography of light is not supernatural ... after it has a plausible explanation even with our constraint present day knowledge in physics and maths.
Second the appearance of that vast amount of water on the Earth, especially if it is in contradiction with anything else observed in the SS, may be everything else, but amusing.
Third why do you believe that I have a more supernatural explanation for that appearance of water on the Earth than FM, for example?
Fourth it might be ironic if it does not concern the only place that we can live for now ... within a range of several lys.

Krumple wrote:
... but I can tell you that there are multiple ways to develop water.

What about the other planets? Why don't these 'multiple ways' develop water on the other planets ... of the SS, for example.

Krumple wrote:
In fact one very abundant resource that causes oxygen and hydrogen molecules to combine is none other than the sun.

FM does not claim this. He claims that all the water here down on the Earth (amounting to 1,385,999,652,414.- cu.km – not acknowledged by FM) appeared 3.85 Bya. In his understanding of the world this is not a process .. it is an apocalyptic event doing all the job at once ... for he cannot measure how much water has been there by what time.

Krumple wrote:
The sun keeps the atmosphere on earth very warm due to the high levels of CO2.

Just a second. High levels of CO2 supposes for carbon to be formed out of something. You have the 0 point of time for the formation of the SS and all of a sudden, out of nowhere 'Enters the Carbon'. How does that happen?

Krumple wrote:
This produces just the right amount of energy for the small amounts of oxygen and hydrogen in the upper atmosphere to combine which causes water vapor. ie. clouds.

1. Do you believe that this 'right amount of energy' could be a stochastic process?
2. 'small amounts of oxygen and hydrogen in the upper atmosphere to combine which causes water vapor' - can you name any other planets within the range of vision of Hubble exhibiting similar processes?
3. FM claimed that water is formed on the grounds of hydrogen sulfide processing and I asked him why don't he has sulfuric acid in the water vapuors ... like in the atmosphere of Venus.

Krumple wrote:
Soon there is large ponds, lakes of this residue soup. Perfect building blocks for RNA synthesis and once RNA is abundant, DNA is not far behind.

... and why don't you have such RNA synthesis on Mars and on the Moon after having that 'perfect building blocks' there as well?

Krumple wrote:
Now understand something ... then all this ends up in lakes and ponds where RNA forms.

I will never start understanding this: How can water ... with unexplained origin, start making RNA in 'lakes and ponds' ... without any information source for encoding that information?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 07:10 am
@Herald,
Quote:

No, no, FM. Just tell us how much is the age of a molten rock
why do you insist on using radioisotopes over a DIRECT measure (observation trumps ANY indirect means)
Somehow I think that your world is a bit "different"

Quote:
It may be stupid to you, but it is not stupid to us.
and by "US" I assume you refer to the legions of "Creationist Scientists"?
Can you give me an example of anything that Creationist science has provided our lives with a technological advance based onyour worldview?

Quote:
the assumption is that a rock is born by the molten lava.
Its not an assumption, whenever this is done (and it is infrequently done mostly for determining the mass of isotopes from an "earlier melt" that

sneak through


Quote:
your method for determining age is non-calibrated
AND once again you demonstrate your inability to take in information and discuss it. YOUR a liar and not a great one either

Quote:

Nothing can outperform the 'crusade against science' and your vicious practices of making measurements and 'scientific' inferences ... without any calibration.


Noow we get to the focus of your entire life, which is a vacuous slavish following of an ENTIRELY UNCALIBRATED Biblical "Science", and the attempted tear down of experimental and discovery based theory.
PS, I make a good living from practicing my science, how bout you? Ill bet that your IT life isn't remotely based upon the Bibles view of the world.



parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 07:17 am
@Herald,
Quote:
No, no, FM. Just tell us how much is the age of a molten rock

Why don't you hand carry a molten rock to FM. I'm sure he will be happy to test it once you get this molten rock to him.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 07:24 am
@Herald,
Quote:
sending information by quantum cryptography of light is not supernatural
the misapplication of "science sounding" stuff doesn't make your beliefs worth considering.

I practice
Quantum gardening" and its all perfectly in accordance with Darwinian discoveries.

Quote:

FM does not claim this. He claims that all the water here down on the Earth (amounting to 1,385,999,652,414.- cu.km – not acknowledged by FM) appeared 3.85 Bya.
At least get it right !!. I clarly stated that the water on this planet was already in place after 0.7 BY after the foundation of the planet.
AGAIN, HOW DO WE KNOW THIS??
Because we have huge deposits of sedimentary rocks that qere water deposited in that time.
The earth cooled nd
1water was here
or/nd
2 water continued to be "carried in" from places beyond the Solar System where the molecules of water contain a protium to deuterium ratio the same as that which we have on earth (Oort cloud bolides have water of a totally different ratio)
Herald just likes to ignore other views and is incapable of discussing them intelligently. So he only babbles his mantra and ignores what others have PATIENTLY stated

Quote:
and why don't you have such RNA synthesis on Mars and on the Moon after having that 'perfect building blocks' there as well
because we haven't found fuzzy bunnies on Mars . Herald has no idea of the way science proceeds. He defaults back to Creationism whenever he coms up with a
:OH YEH, TELL ME NOW WHY WE DONT HAVE RNA On THE MOON?" As if he even knew what hes talking about.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2014 12:13 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
sending information by quantum cryptography of light is not supernatural
the misapplication of "science sounding" stuff doesn't make your beliefs worth considering.

Are you developing special sense of humour, FM. Quantum cryptography here is a synonym of quantum communication dedicated to a particular receiver (your quantum garden for example, with the emerging out of nowhere RNA ... in the sterile prehistoric pond).
Quantum communication exists and comprises the act of transferring a quantum state from one place (the transmitter) to another (the receiver).
The most popular quantum system for transmitting information are the 'flying qubits' carried by photons, but any quantum system could do the job.
I don't claim that you understand what I am saying. My claim was that it is not supernatural for it is possible in the physical world ... and your claim actually is that if you don't understand something it is not possible.

farmerman wrote:
I clarly stated that the water on this planet was already in place after 0.7 BY after the foundation of the planet.

It is not that 'clearly' ... for you don't specify whether it was all of it, part of it or more than the liquid water we have today.

farmerman wrote:
The earth cooled nd
1 water was here
or/nd
2 water continued to be "carried in" from places beyond the Solar System where the molecules of water contain a protium to deuterium ratio the same as that which we have on earth (Oort cloud bolides have water of a totally different ratio)

1. The Earth cooled so fast by what?
2. You have no proof that the water 'continued to be carried in'. All you have as evidence is that by some reason unknown the composition of the water on the Earth is the same as (or very simular to) the composition of the water in the Oort cloud. That is all you have ... and nothing else.
The reasons for that may be various, like for example that the physical process making the water on the Earth is very simular to the process making the water in the Oort cloud.
Besides that your theory about the water on the Earth is in absolute contradiction to the theory of formation of the Ooort cloud.
'The astronomers argue that the matter composing the Oort cloud formed closer to the Sun and was scattered far out into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets early in the Solar System's evolution.' How are you going to comment this evident contradiction, FM.

farmerman wrote:
As if he even knew what hes talking about.

The things I knew about your theory of the things are more than enough.
1. You don't have any sustainable theory for the formation of the water on the Earth.
2. You don't know how could RNA appear out of nothing (in a sterile water pond, on a sterile planet, with atmosphere that will burn any alien bacteria - with or without nitrogen - daring to approach the surface). The appearance of moss in your pond is very different from the appearance of anything with unknown biological code in absolute sterile and closed environment. Very much different.
3. When somebody does not understand s.th. - there is Google search ... for those who can understand it.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 11:46:36