Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

and the answer to your question, which you'd know intuitively IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL about science, or better, ADMITTED what you did know, is that it's incredible what conditions can be survived when the exposure is for a fraction of a fraction of a second.

We are talking meteors that probably would have to be many miles in diameter, at the time of impact.

hi TCR,

I don't think I stated or implied that water vapor couldn't be present on earth under conditions where the oceans are frozen.

I said there would likely be a lot less of it available in the atmosphere.

Do you disagree? Or do you simply like to pretend I said something that I didn't?

It's very unfortunate when folks who drape themselves in the banner of science post such deceptive replies.

It gives science a bad name.

tinygiraffe wrote:

right, metorites from how many thousands of years ago, in the ocean, should be EASY to identify as such now, right? i mean we don't have any ROCKS on earth, so where did they go, eh? where are these so-called "rocks" we supposedly have on earth?

We are talking meteors that probably would have to be many miles in diameter, at the time of impact.

Not something that 'burnt up in the atmosphere'.

It was big when it hit.

We are not talking pebbles here.

real life wrote:

We are talking meteors that probably would have to be many miles in diameter, at the time of impact.

How do you know that?

"...probably would have..." ---are you making **** up again?

real life wrote:

hi TCR,

I don't think I stated or implied that water vapor couldn't be present on earth under conditions where the oceans are frozen.

Yes, you did imply it
here
Since the mixture mentioned only mentions that water vapor was part of it but never mentions a quantity your question implies that water vapor was NOT part of it.

The exchange is as follows...

The atmosphere was a mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor and hydrogen.

and your reply...
How much water vapor do you think there would be if the oceans were frozen?

Your question IMPLIES there would be no water vapor since ANY water vapor would make the first statement accurate.

Quote:

I said there would likely be a lot less of it available in the atmosphere.

Your statement implies there would be none. It says NOTHING about there being less available.

Quote:

Do you disagree? Or do you simply like to pretend I said something that I didn't?

Who is pretending? It seems YOU would be the one pretending you never implied there was NO water vapor.

Quote:

It's very unfortunate when folks who drape themselves in the banner of science post such deceptive replies.

It gives science a bad name.

LOL.. nice attempt to push back with my earlier statement about how "a person of God" shouldn't lie. Too bad you included lies in this post.

tinygiraffe wrote:

and the answer to your question, which you'd know intuitively IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING AT ALL about science, or better, ADMITTED what you did know, is that it's incredible what conditions can be survived when the exposure is for a fraction of a fraction of a second.

The Miller-Urey type scenario that we are discussing used MANY simulated lightning strikes on the SAME batch of chemicals.

Why don't you look into it a little, before you accuse someone of being dishonest?

real life wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:

right, metorites from how many thousands of years ago, in the ocean, should be EASY to identify as such now, right? i mean we don't have any ROCKS on earth, so where did they go, eh? where are these so-called "rocks" we supposedly have on earth?

We are talking meteors that probably would have to be many miles in diameter, at the time of impact.

Not something that 'burnt up in the atmosphere'.

It was big when it hit.

We are not talking pebbles here.

We are talking an entire rocky planet that existed 3 billion years ago. Where are all the rocks from that time period?

The earth changes over time. It is not a static environment. Rocks are created and destroyed. Any meteor that hit the planet 3 billion years ago would have gone the way of all the other rocks.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

hi TCR,

I don't think I stated or implied that water vapor couldn't be present on earth under conditions where the oceans are frozen.

Yes, you did imply it
here
Since the mixture mentioned only mentions that water vapor was part of it but never mentions a quantity your question implies that water vapor was NOT part of it.

The exchange is as follows...

The atmosphere was a mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor and hydrogen.

and your reply...
How much water vapor do you think there would be if the oceans were frozen?

Your question IMPLIES there would be no water vapor since ANY water vapor would make the first statement accurate.

Quote:

I said there would likely be a lot less of it available in the atmosphere.

Your statement implies there would be none. It says NOTHING about there being less available.

Quote:

Do you disagree? Or do you simply like to pretend I said something that I didn't?

Who is pretending? It seems YOU would be the one pretending you never implied there was NO water vapor.

Quote:

It's very unfortunate when folks who drape themselves in the banner of science post such deceptive replies.

It gives science a bad name.

LOL.. nice attempt to push back with my earlier statement about how "a person of God" shouldn't lie. Too bad you included lies in this post.

You are trying to suppose an implication that isn't there.

I asked a question about quantity.

Instead of replying and supporting the warm moisture rich atmosphere that you need, you pretend I said there would be NO water vapor.

Very lame.

Some more real science to get in the way.

Meteor impacts and their consequences:

The type of meteor impact that would occur on an average once every 7.6x 10EXP6 years during the last 4 billion years, with some assumptions such as type of soil. Etc, is given here:

Projectile Diameter: 100.00 m = 328.00 ft = 0.06 miles
Projectile Density: 1500 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 51.00 km/s = 31.67 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.02 x 1018 Joules = 2.44 x 102 MegaTons TNT

The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 90100 meters = 295000 ft
The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 2750 meters = 9020 ft
The residual velocity of the projectile fragments after the burst is 6.9 km/s = 4.28 miles/s

The energy of the airburst is 1.00 x 1018 Joules = 2.40 x 102 MegaTons.
No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface.

*********************************************************

The type of meteor impact that would occur on an average once every 1.5x 10EXP6 years during the last 4 billion years, with some assumptions such as type of soil. Etc, is given here:

Projectile Diameter: 1000.00 m = 3280.00 ft = 0.62 miles
Projectile Density: 1500 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 51.00 km/s = 31.67 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock

Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.02 x 1021 Joules = 2.44 x 105 MegaTons TNT

The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 90100 meters = 295000 ft
The projectile reaches the ground in a broken condition. The mass of projectile strikes the surface at velocity 50.2 km/s = 31.2 miles/s
The impact energy is 9.91 x 1020 Joules = 2.37 x 105MegaTons.
The broken projectile fragments strike the ground in an ellipse of dimension 1.83 km by 1.3 km

Transient Crater Diameter: 13.5 km = 8.4 miles
Transient Crater Depth: 4.78 km = 2.97 miles

Final Crater Diameter: 19.1 km = 11.9 miles
Final Crater Depth: 0.719 km = 0.446 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 6.24 km3 = 1.5 miles3
Roughly half the melt remains in the crater, where its average thickness is 43.4 meters = 142 feet

Are you suggesting a meteor that was miles in diameter on impact would leave us NO evidence of it's existence?

What process do you propose to have destroyed such a massive object?

It's not just 'any other rock' that we are talking about.

And if you ARE really suggesting there is no evidence, then is it 'scientific' to propose such a thing?

Isn't it just wishful thinking?

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

hi TCR,

I don't think I stated or implied that water vapor couldn't be present on earth under conditions where the oceans are frozen.

Yes, you did imply it
here
Since the mixture mentioned only mentions that water vapor was part of it but never mentions a quantity your question implies that water vapor was NOT part of it.

The exchange is as follows...

The atmosphere was a mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor and hydrogen.

and your reply...
How much water vapor do you think there would be if the oceans were frozen?

Your question IMPLIES there would be no water vapor since ANY water vapor would make the first statement accurate.

Quote:

I said there would likely be a lot less of it available in the atmosphere.

Your statement implies there would be none. It says NOTHING about there being less available.

Quote:

Do you disagree? Or do you simply like to pretend I said something that I didn't?

Who is pretending? It seems YOU would be the one pretending you never implied there was NO water vapor.

Quote:

It's very unfortunate when folks who drape themselves in the banner of science post such deceptive replies.

It gives science a bad name.

LOL.. nice attempt to push back with my earlier statement about how "a person of God" shouldn't lie. Too bad you included lies in this post.

You are trying to suppose an implication that isn't there.

I asked a question about quantity.

Instead of replying and supporting the warm moisture rich atmosphere that you need, you pretend I said there would be NO water vapor.

Very lame.

Lame? I supposed nothing. I am using standard English. You are the one that is trying to pretend you didn't imply what obviously WAS implied.

If you didn't mean to imply there would be NO water vapor then why didn't you correct me days ago when I said that was your implication?

real life wrote:

Are you suggesting a meteor that was miles in diameter on impact would leave us NO evidence of it's existence?

Miles in diameter? How many miles are you talking about?

Interesting stuff for comparison. Thanks TCR.

The meteor proposed by Bada is MUCH bigger than either the 100m or the 1000m meteors included in the info you cite.

Have you read the article yet?