JackBizzle:



Bros. I gats agree with you. What are asteroids wating for?

Asteroids blew up most of the earth once thousands of years ago.....so wetin com happen?

Are you trying to tell me you have no answer to your own question?

It's actually about 60 million years ago that what you said happened and not thousands of years ago and it wasn't most of the earth. It was a fluke laser guided pin point accuracy event that targeted the dinosaur population and erased them

Martinez19 your day never break?

I thought you said our battle is today

felixomor:

Yeah.baskets have Functions other than intellectual talk.

You think this is intellectual talk?
I'm not surprised.

Ranchhoddas:
You think this is intellectual talk?
I'm not surprised.

Why should a basket comprehend this?
No reason.
A basket remains a basket.

I know say you don see work. Oya continue. Ode!!!

Ranchhoddas:
You think this is intellectual talk?
I'm not surprised.

Your nonsensical nature is sickening! It's pretty obvious at this point that the purpose of the thread is beyond your scope of reasoning. Sorry I mentioned your moniker.

For lack of anything else you have to sensibly offer Abeg dab your way out.

Sonofluc1fer I saw you swagger In, peeked and take a bow

Bennyann where are you jor? Your hubby seems to be tongue tied

butterflylion:


Your nonsensical nature is sickening! It's pretty obvious at this point that the purpose of the thread is beyond your scope of reasoning. Sorry I mentioned your moniker.

For lack of anything else you have to sensibly offer Abeg dab your way out.

I don't disagree. The thread is beyond me.
Enjoy your party.

Ranchhoddas:
I don't disagree. The thread is beyond me.
Enjoy your party.

Irin ajo Ire o!

This is the most dishonest thread ever.

Just what i expected from a christard.

So now the answer to your question isnt important is to now bring creationist trash about asteroids and origin of water.

Enjoy your dishonest party

LiberaDeus:
This is the most dishonest thread ever.

Just what i expected from a christard.

So now the answer to your question isnt important is to now bring creationist trash about asteroids and origin of water.

Enjoy your dishonest party

Enjoy your Atheistic idiocy

butterflylion:

So you say asteroids came to earth via gravity? Can you tell me what on earth is standing in the way of this phenomenon repeating itself?

Nothing! It can, and probably will still happen. Of course, when our solar system was still young, there were far more asteroids floating around, so the probability of impact events was higher then than it is now.

Back to your talk about dinosaurs and how they got wiped off by some stroke of luck laser guided asteroid that pinpointed their location how come we are yet to experience no such fluke stroke of luck again?

It was certainly not the impact itself that wiped them out. The impact had atmospheric as well as terrestrial implications. Please read on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event#Effects_of_impact]effects of the impact here[/url]. You asked how come we have yet to experience such an event. When solid things experience gravitational collapse, they tend to stay bound to their host. The effect is a reduction in density of floating objects as time progresses. We are lucky to live in an epoch where the density of cosmic objects around us has significantly reduced due to said collapse. Make no mistake though, there are still many asteroids that cross our orbit, and will one day, collide with earth. This collision course may even be hastened through their interactions with the gravitational fields of other massive bodies. Some agencies are active in tracking these Near Earth Astroids (NEAs). So don't get too comfortable.

From your link the first known asteroid impact was 2 billion years ago. The earth is 4.5billion years old and evolution is said to have begun about 4billion years ago.

You weren't paying attention. The article I linked lists the biggest asteroid impact sites known. "Known" is the operative word here. There are definitely older impact sites. One was discovered in Greenland, and dates as far back as 3 billion years ago. But yes, the earth itself, was formed by asteroids so technically, the first impact must be as old as the earth itself.

This is odd because most liquids become denser when they freeze. Water, however, expands as it changes to ice. And the result? When lakes freeze, ice does not gather at the bottom, but at the top, trapping a layer of warmer water underneath. This is a very happy "fluke" of nature because it gives fish and other living things a chance to survive.

This property isn't unique to water. It happens to a handful of other materials too and it is no fluke! Liquid materials tend to form ordered crystal lattices as they freeze (phase change). In the case of water, the lattice arrangement is hexagonal with tetrahedral bonding angles strictly due to polar (electrostatic) repulsion of the orbiting electrons.This energy minimising tetrahedral bond causes the closely packed liquid molecules to expand due to increased interatomic distance of the constituent atoms in the crystal lattice. You can easily look up these things on google man.

L- Liquid H₂O, R - Crystal (ice) H₂O

Did water also evolve in order to suit life on earth?

I don't understand this question. The physical properties of water molecules are pretty simple to grasp. If it is not H₂O, it's not water.

butterflylion:
While waiting for your response AgentOfAllah I would also require your response to this.

I do know that all uncontrolled objects coming in from outer space to the earth such as meteors, asteroids, debris etc experience aerodynamic heating from the karman line which is 330,000 feet above sea level and is the boundary between our atmosphere and outer space and since the earths atmospheric conditions were not definitely what we have today 4.5 billion years ago, how did the ice on this asteroid make it through when even rocks (which are not aerodynamic in nature) get broken into pieces when in such a situation? Except it was also by some fluke of luck that an aerodynamic asteroid was the vehicle that brought this ice in

I can itemise all the strokes of luck we have identified so far if you like

The sort of asteroids and comets that disintegrate when they approach our atmosphere are small (the size of cars, more or less). If they are massive (>1 km in diameter) and/or dense, they would certainly make it through the atmosphere before they fully burnout. Many such objects still land on earth, even till this day. No one says the water must necessarily be ice. It could also be liquid trapped inside solid structures.

butterflylion:
Also AgentOfAllah since science arguably claims asteroids brought water to the earth and since they also claim that since life began in this alien water brought in from these asteroids where then did the asteroids bring the ice from?

As regards the emboldened, no such scientific claim exists. There are hypotheses and speculations, but no claim. The source of life on earth is still unknown.

Surely these asteroids would have delivered this same water to other planets and this same water would have also contained the origins of evolutionary life. In fact scientists claim that water is found in 23 places in our solar system. Namely:

Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, Ceres, Mars, Dione, Pluto, Charon, Titan, Mimas, Triton, Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Tethys, Rhea, Lapetus, The Kuiper Belt, Mercury, The moon, Neptune, Uranus

Let's narrow it down to the moon which scientists also say has water and I believe these asteroids also brought water to the moon and this water contained the origins of evolutionary life same as earth so how is it that the moon which is 4.47 billion years old has no life on it and the earth which is 4.5 billion years old has complete and well balanced life on it?

I am just thinking out loud

Do you have evidence that life does not exist on other planets or cosmic objects? Just because we haven't found life elsewhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist there. Even the moon which is one of the most explored objects outside of the earth, we've probably covered far less that 0.01% of its total volume. So I'd be careful about making hasty conclusions about things of which we are still ignorant.

felixomor:


Enjoy your Atheistic idiocy

hahahaha
what a fool with his sidekick.

Batman and robin ( 4evergod and Felixomor)

LiberaDeus:


[s]hahahaha
what a fool with his sidekick.

Batman and robin ( 4evergod and Felixomor)[/s]

Eiya....
Unfortunately popular opinion considers you a fool more....
Even Bible sef...

AgentOfAllah:
Nothing! It can, and probably will still happen. Of course, when our solar system was still young, there were far more asteroids floating around, so the probability of impact events was higher then than it is now.

It was certainly not the impact itself that wiped them out. The impact had atmospheric as well as terrestrial implications. Please read on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event#Effects_of_impact]effects of the impact here[/url]. You asked how come we have yet to experience such an event. When solid things experience gravitational collapse, they tend to stay bound to their host. The effect is a reduction in density of floating objects as time progresses. We are lucky to live in an epoch where the density of cosmic objects around us has significantly reduced due to said collapse. Make no mistake though, there are still many asteroids that cross our orbit, and will one day, collide with earth. This collision course may even be hastened through their interactions with the gravitational fields of other massive bodies. Some agencies are active in tracking these Near Earth Astroids (NEAs). So don't get too comfortable.

You weren't paying attention. The article I linked lists the biggest asteroid impact sites known. "Known" is the operative word here. There are definitely older impact sites. One was discovered in Greenland, and dates as far back as 3 billion years ago. But yes, the earth itself, was formed by asteroids so technically, the first impact must be as old as the earth itself.


This property isn't unique to water. It happens to a handful of other materials too and it is no fluke! Liquid materials tend to form ordered crystal lattices as they freeze (phase change). In the case of water, the lattice arrangement is hexagonal with tetrahedral bonding angles strictly due to polar (electrostatic) repulsion of the orbiting electrons.This energy minimising tetrahedral bond causes the closely packed liquid molecules to expand due to increased interatomic distance of the constituent atoms in the crystal lattice. You can easily look up these things on google man.

L- Liquid H₂O, R - Crystal (ice) H₂O

I don't understand this question. The physical properties of water molecules are pretty simple to grasp. If it is not H₂O, it's not water.

The sort of asteroids and comets that disintegrate when they approach our atmosphere are small (the size of cars, more or less). If they are massive (>1 km in diameter) and/or dense, they would certainly make it through the atmosphere before they fully burnout. Many such objects still land on earth, even till this day. No one says the water must necessarily be ice. It could also be liquid trapped inside solid structures.

As regards the emboldened, no such scientific claim exists. There are hypotheses and speculations, but no claim. The source of life on earth is still unknown.

Do you have evidence that life does not exist on other planets or cosmic objects? Just because we haven't found life elsewhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist there. Even the moon which is one of the most explored objects outside of the earth, we've probably covered far less that 0.01% of its total volume. So I'd be careful about making hasty conclusions about things of which we are still ignorant.

The end of your entire comment says it all.

"so I'd be careful about making hasty conclusions about things of which we are still ignorant". Yet you hastily assumed that the first asteroid must have been much older than the one known (without proof) yet you also were hasty to assume that the earth was a product of asteroids (also without proof)

So in essence by another stroke of luck asteroids formed the earth and asteroids also brought water to earth. This water which the asteroids brought also contained the very foundation of evolutionary birth. The strokes of luck are piling up bro. Those asteroids must either be beyond lucky or they were simply on a mission

Chemistry can explain why ice behaves the way it does but it does not explain why it had to also by coincidence be suited to life on earth? How come this water came already prepared for this purpose on earth? How come it came with these properties already established in it for sustaining life on earth? Another coincidence? Another stroke of luck?


Like I said, I can itemise the strokes of luck so far

butterflylion:

The end of your entire comment says it all.

"so I'd be careful about making hasty conclusions about things of which we are still ignorant". Yet you hastily assumed that the first asteroid must have been much older than the one known (without proof) yet you also were hasty to assume that the earth was a product of asteroids (also without proof)

That star orbiting planets are formed by asteroids and other stardust debris is a generally accepted concept in astrophysics and it was not arrived at hastily! There are, in fact, images of new stars which show planets forming as a result of accretion (as in the image below). You're apparently not up to date with Astrophysics concepts, and that's fine. It is however crass to project your ignorance on me, rather than seek clarification.

HL Tauri and its baby planets. Taken with the ALMA radio telescope.

So in essence by another stroke of luck asteroids formed the earth and asteroids also brought water to earth. This water which the asteroids brought also contained the very foundation of evolutionary birth. The strokes of luck are piling up bro. Those asteroids must either be beyond lucky or they were simply on a mission

I never made the emboldened claim, stop trying to foist imaginary arguments on me. Apart from that, it is not clear why you keep insisting that there was any "stroke of luck" involved anywhere. Can you just take a step back and consider the facts?
(1) Water is a fairly common substance carried by asteroids, comets and other space debris.
(2) These debris do interact with the gravitational field of other objects nearby, enabling accretion of said debris
(3) If this were true, we are likely to find water - steam, liquid or ice - on most things formed by these debris. So, there is nothing particularly special about water existing on any planet or moon, or comet, or asteroid. In fact, it is pretty mundane to find water on such things. See Water on Comet 67P, detected by Rosetta, Water in the Orion nebula, detected by spectroscopy, Water discovered in astroid. You also previously mentioned a few other places bodies with water detected in them.

Chemistry can explain why ice behaves the way it does but it does not explain why it had to also by coincidence be suited to life on earth? How come this water came already prepared for this purpose on earth? How come it came with these properties already established in it for sustaining life on earth? Another coincidence? Another stroke of luck?

You are wrong! Chemistry certainly can explain why water is suited for life: It is a polar (due to its electronic configuration) solvent that is inert towards non-polar hydrocarbon molecules which make up life.
It is not clear why you think the "purpose" of water is to sustain life on earth, or why water has any purpose for that matter? What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

Like I said, I can itemise the strokes of luck so far

Stop this childish ad nauseam argument. It's making conversing with you difficult, to put it mildly!

AgentOfAllah:
That star orbiting planets are formed by asteroids and other stardust debris is a generally accepted concept in astrophysics and it was not arrived at hastily! There are, in fact, images of new stars which show planets forming as a result of accretion (as in the image below). You're apparently not up to date with Astrophysics concepts, and that's fine. It is however crass to project your ignorance on me, rather than seek clarification.

HL Tauri and its baby planets. Taken with the ALMA radio telescope.

I never made the emboldened claim, stop trying to foist imaginary arguments on me. Apart from that, it is not clear why you keep insisting that there was any "stroke of luck" involved anywhere. Can you just take a step back and consider the facts?
(1) Water is a fairly common substance carried by asteroids, comets and other space debris.
(2) These debris do interact with the gravitational field of other objects nearby, enabling accretion of said debris
(3) If this were true, we are likely to find water - steam, liquid or ice - on most things formed by these debris. So, there is nothing particularly special about water existing on any planet or moon, or comet, or asteroid. In fact, it is pretty mundane to find water on such things. See Water on Comet 67P, detected by Rosetta, Water in the Orion nebula, detected by spectroscopy, Water discovered in astroid. You also previously mentioned a few other places bodies with water detected in them.

You are wrong! Chemistry certainly can explain why water is suited for life: It is a polar (due to its electronic configuration) solvent that is inert towards non-polar hydrocarbon molecules which make up life.
It is not clear why you think the "purpose" of water is to sustain life on earth, or why water has any purpose for that matter? What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?


Stop this childish ad nauseam argument. It's making conversing with you difficult, to put it mildly!

You are obviously the one not up to date if you say that my comment about the evolutionary fragments arriving earth via asteroid is not tenable.

The theory holds that either very simple forms of life or the materials necessary for it to form are carried to Earth on comets or fragments of asteroids. These survive their journey through the atmosphere and ultimately evolve into the species we see around us today including the very scientists hypothesising about their origins.

Certain amino acids the “building blocks” of life, necessary to build proteins ­­have been found by NASA on comets, and analysis of some meteorites has suggested that amino acids and other organic compounds may have formed in space, rather than being present as a result of contamination of the samples. You need to read up on the Rosettas comet.

This now takes me back to the same stroke of luck issue which you so badly wish to dismiss so let me reiterate.

You say chemistry can explain why water is suited for the earth? Wow! So water came factory fitted for life sustainability on earth by pure stroke of luck?

You have to note that water was here first before evolution began (according to science) so water could not have been adapted to by the creators that evolved from it if those creatures cannot influence the forming of ice or the condensation and evaporation of water or the temperature control quality it holds then it means reverse was the case. Water actually did come factory fitted for the earth.

Now you ask what then is the function of water on other planets? I thought in your previous post you said perhaps there could be life on other planets. One minute you say this below which was your direct response to my comment about water being on other planets.

Do you have evidence that life does not exist on other planets or cosmic objects? Just because we haven't found life elsewhere doesn't mean it doesn't exist there. Even the moon which is one of the most explored objects outside of the earth, we've probably covered far less that 0.01% of its total volume

The very next minute you say this below

It is not clear why you think the "purpose" of water is to sustain life on earth, or why water has any purpose for that matter? What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

Why now contradicting yourself? Are you no longer hopeful of life being found elsewhere? Why now talk down on water just to garner points when the same presence of water on other planetary bodies made you have hope that life could be found on those planets?

Stop this vain attempt at hoping from one comment to a directly opposite comment the next second it Shows you are desperate to appear right when all you have been doing has been simply throwing yourself all over the place.

Can you deny your own words? If you could quickly change your words with the very next comment then it's disappointing really.

butterflylion:



The saying that oxygen from the stars was essential for water creation on earth is purely speculative talk by scientists which is why they argue about it till date since it cannot be agreed upon generally. Saying water existed before anything else means water existed before all other creation on earth but came after the earth was formed.

Now let's even assume asteroids brought this water as ice to the earth why then is water perfectly suited to this earth and everything on it? Coincidence?

Remember this part of my post





Look at each of waters characteristic which is so perfectly suited to life on earth yet some scientists argue it came from asteroids. Why did this water "decide" to "by chance" hold all the right qualities for life on earth to depend on it? Did water adapt? Did water mutate? Did water evolve for this purpose from outside the earth?

Can water do any of these things?

If we assume water did evolve to suit the earths needs and this water came from asteroids then that would mean we are dealing with evolution beyond our Earth and that would also mean that we are dealing with a mega ultra stroke of luck occurrence of which evolution on earths chances of occurring are infinitismal how much more the chances of water which is perfectly suited for all life on earth to come from asteroids to the earth.

ok thanks for clearing that up but I must say, it's funny how in the face of criticisms of flawed logic, you cleverly retreated to subtly changing the topic of conversation .

anyway, it's true that the properties of water are remarkably suited for life, I can't give you an answer as to why it is so but my inability to provide one is hardly a convincing argument against one

ModusOperandi:
ok thanks for clearing that up but I must say, it's funny how in the face of criticisms of flawed logic, you cleverly retreated to subtly changing the topic of conversation .

anyway, it's true that the properties of water are remarkably suited for life, I can't give you an answer as to why it is so but my inability to provide one is hardly a convincing argument against one

There was no change to any discussion because there was no set discussion on ground. What I did was to create a free platform for research and thereafter would discussion come.

I think you got it wrong.

Thanks for admitting that water for some reason came factory fitted for life on earth even though some are desperately trying to explain it away using chemistry as if chemistry foresaw the fact that water would come to earth and prepared it ahead of time so it can perfectly sustain life here.

butterflylion:


You are obviously the one not up to date if you say that my comment about the evolutionary fragments arriving earth via asteroid is not tenable.

The theory holds that either very simple forms of life or the materials necessary for it to form are carried to Earth on comets or fragments of asteroids. These survive their journey through the atmosphere and ultimately evolve into the species we see around us today including the very scientists hypothesising about their origins.

Certain amino acids the “building blocks” of life, necessary to build proteins ­­have been found by NASA on comets, and analysis of some meteorites has suggested that amino acids and other organic compounds may have formed in space, rather than being present as a result of contamination of the samples. You need to read up on the Rosettas comet.

You seem not to understand how science works, so instead of engaging you in a futile ping-pong match about the origins of life on earth, I would encourage you to investigate the distinctions between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. It is not trivial, yet you flippantly conflate one with the other.

This now takes me back to the same stroke of luck issue which you so badly wish to dismiss so let me reiterate.

Oh, FFS!!!

You say chemistry can explain why water is suited for the earth? Wow! So water came factory fitted for life sustainability on earth by pure stroke of luck?

You lie! I could never make such a dumb remark.

You have to note that water was here first before evolution began (according to science)

Peer reviewed article, please?

so water could not have been adapted to by the creators that evolved from it if those creatures cannot influence the forming of ice or the condensation and evaporation of water or the temperature control quality it holds then it means reverse was the case. Water actually did come factory fitted for the earth.

Huh

Now you ask what then is the function of water on other planets? I thought in your previous post you said perhaps there could be life on other planets. One minute you say this below which was your direct response to my comment about water being on other planets.

Where did I ask that? More of your lies! I asked you what the purpose of water is on comets and asteroids?

The very next minute you say this below

Yes please, my questions weren't intended to be rhetorical, please answer:
(1) Why do you think water has any purpose?

(2) What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

Why now contradicting yourself? Are you no longer hopeful of life being found elsewhere? Why now talk down on water just to garner points when the same presence of water on other planetary bodies made you have hope that life could be found on those planets?

Stop this vain attempt at hoping from one comment to a directly opposite comment the next second it Shows you are desperate to appear right when all you have been doing has been simply throwing yourself all over the place.

Yet another lie! I do not know where I expressed such a hope to you. I merely questioned whether you have evidence that life doesn't exist on other planets because you made the claim. Again, I reiterate that you don't know how science works. So maybe you should stop grasping desperately at straws and educate yourself. I would normally suggest topics which you should prioritise, in this case, Burden of Proof and Argument from Ignorance, with particular emphasis on the Absence of Evidence section. However, I do think your misconceptions run deeper, so yeah, I encourage you to study Scientific method in general.

Can you deny your own words? If you could quickly change your words with the very next comment then it's disappointing really.

No, I can't deny my words, nor do I intend to. What I can deny, however, are your shameful fabrications, and I've done just that!

AgentOfAllah:


You seem not to understand how science works, so instead of engaging you in a futile ping-pong match about the origins of life on earth, I would encourage you to investigate the distinctions between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory. It is not trivial, yet you flippantly conflate one with the other.


Oh, FFS!!!



You lie! I could never make such a dumb remark.



Peer reviewed article, please?


Huh


Where did I ask that? More of your lies! I asked you what the purpose of water is on comets and asteroids?




Yes please, my questions weren't intended to be rhetorical, please answer:
(1) Why do you think water has any purpose?

(2) What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?



Yet another lie! I do not know where I expressed such a hope to you. I merely questioned whether you have evidence that life doesn't exist on other planets because you made the claim. Again, I reiterate that you don't know how science works. So maybe you should stop grasping desperately at straws and educate yourself. I would normally suggest topics which you should prioritise, in this case, Burden of Proof and Argument from Ignorance, with particular emphasis on the Absence of Evidence section. However, I do think your misconceptions run deeper, so yeah, I encourage you to study Scientific method in general.



No, I can't deny my words, nor do I intend to. What I can deny, however, are your shameful fabrications, and I've done just that!

Goodmorning. You see one of the things i try to do when arguing with anyone is to be as honest as possible but you seem to have fallen short of this.

You start off by asking that i look up what the diference is between a hypothesis and a theory but consider this quote of yours earlier

It was certainly not the impact itself that wiped them out. The impact had atmospheric as well as terrestrial implications. Please read on effects of the impact here. You asked how come we have yet to experience such an event. When solid things experience gravitational collapse, they tend to stay bound to their host. The effect is a reduction in density of floating objects as time progresses. We are lucky to live in an epoch where the density of cosmic objects around us has significantly reduced due to said collapse. Make no mistake though, there are still many asteroids that cross our orbit, and will one day, collide with earth. This collision course may even be hastened through their interactions with the gravitational fields of other massive bodies. Some agencies are active in tracking these Near Earth Astroids (NEAs). So don't get too comfortable.

First of all the Clovis comet nonsense has been disproved and thrown to the trash and is now regarded as a hypothesis and here you were above using its alleged after effects to defend how dinosaurs went extinct. Would there be after effects if such never happened?

You can read

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_chicxulubdinos.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

http://blog.smu.edu/research/2014/05/12/dating-of-supposed-extraterrestrial-impact-indicators-unreliable-fails-to-prove-comet-sparked-climate-change-at-the-end-of-the-ice-age-or-killed-clovis-people/

Why would you use a hypothesis in an argument then turn around and accuse me of doing so then asking that i go find out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? So can you say you are up to date with your science and you know how science works since you are doing exactly what you accuse me of?

You also lied when you said you NEVER and CAN NEVER make such a "DUMB" remark as "CHEMISTRY CAN EXPLAIN WHY WATER IS SUITED TO LIFE ON EARTH. Well again you lied. Here is your comment below

You are wrong! Chemistry certainly can explain why water is suited for life: It is a polar (due to its electronic configuration) solvent that is inert towards non-polar hydrocarbon molecules which make up life.
It is not clear why you think the "purpose" of water is to sustain life on earth, or why water has any purpose for that matter? What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

Are those not your words? Did i fabricate them? You say you cannot deny your words but here you are denying them so brazenly and lying too. Stop being all over the place and stay honest.

Now regarding the source of evolutionary fragments, i am sure you have read up on the Primordial soup theory but just in case you have but missed something allow me refresh your mind

The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into the first species on Earth.

This seed of evolution known as nucleobases are said to have been found on meteorites and you can read up about the Murchison meteorite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

https://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html

Remember you claimed the earth was formed through the bombardment of asteroids (which in itself is immense energy as much as 50 or 100 suns which would explain the energy angle) so why is it hard for you to believe that the origin of life also came here carried by these same asteroids in the water they delivered here to earth since nucleobases have been found and you also said they brought water here and life as science claims began in water, in what is known as the primordial soup?

Why do you deny the same science you present?

Please try and stay honest when responding next time. Your dishonesty is beginning to tire me out.

How the hell did this thread get to 16 pages?

butterflylion:


Goodmorning. You see one of the things i try to do when arguing with anyone is to be as honest as possible but you seem to have fallen short of this.

You start off by asking that i look up what the diference is between a hypothesis and a theory but consider this quote of yours earlier

I don't know why you try. It's not particularly difficult to be honest.

First of all the Clovis comet nonsense has been disproved and thrown to the trash and is now regarded as a hypothesis and here you were above using its alleged after effects to defend how dinosaurs went extinct. Would there be after effects if such never happened?

You can read

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0309_040309_chicxulubdinos.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

http://blog.smu.edu/research/2014/05/12/dating-of-supposed-extraterrestrial-impact-indicators-unreliable-fails-to-prove-comet-sparked-climate-change-at-the-end-of-the-ice-age-or-killed-clovis-people/

What has Clovis comet hypothesis got to do with the K-Pg extinction event? These two things address incidents that are separated by 66 million years. So, yeah! Welcome to the party, you're only millions of years late!

On the other hand, you did list two articles about a 2009 paper by Gerta Keller, which presents an alternative hypothesis on the cause of the mass extinction. Indeed, Keller's findings suggest that other environmental factors, caused especially by Deccan volcanoes, contributed significantly to the K-Pg mass extinction. I have also now read her subsequent (2014) paper, titled: "Deccan volcanism, the Chicxulub impact, and the end-Cretaceous mass extinction: Coincidence? Cause and effect?", and her argument is compelling enough to make me reassess my original supposition, so I agree that the Deccan volcanoes may very well have contributed far more significantly to the mass extinction than the asteroid impact. I should have been more thorough with my facts.

Why would you use a hypothesis in an argument then turn around and accuse me of doing so then asking that i go find out the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? So can you say you are up to date with your science and you know how science works since you are doing exactly what you accuse me of?

Note that the operative point in the text you quoted wasn't about the cause of mass extinction, I made that remark just as a side note justifying why you shouldn't wish to witness an asteroid impact event on earth. Nevertheless, the point I really wished to make there is that asteroid impacts are not hypothetical. They are real, and the Yucatan crater is evidence of this, among several others.

You also lied when you said you NEVER and CAN NEVER make such a "DUMB" remark as "CHEMISTRY CAN EXPLAIN WHY WATER IS SUITED TO LIFE ON EARTH. Well again you lied. Here is your comment below



Are those not your words? Did i fabricate them? You say you cannot deny your words but here you are denying them so brazenly and lying too. Stop being all over the place and stay honest.

What I claim I said:

AgentOfAllah:
You are wrong! Chemistry certainly can explain why water is suited for life

What you claimed I said:

butterflylion:
... chemistry can explain why water is suited for the earth?

I don't think those two sentences carry the same meaning, so one of us is clearly lying, and I know it's not me!

Remember you claimed the earth was formed through the bombardment of asteroids (which in itself is immense energy as much as 50 or 100 suns which would explain the energy angle)

Wait! What do you mean by energy as much as 50 or 100 suns?

so why is it hard for you to believe that the origin of life also came here carried by these same asteroids in the water they delivered here to earth since nucleobases have been found and you also said they brought water here and life as science claims began in water, in what is known as the primordial soup?

Why do you deny the same science you present?

Understand this: I consider every proposition about the origins of life on earth as poorly supported hypotheses. Again, I insist that there is a non-trivial distinction between a theory and a hypothesis in science. If you feel my knowledge is not up to date, please refer me to a peer-reviewed scientific article that substantiates this asteroid panspermia hypothesis, and I will be happy to update myself.

You have yet to answer the questions I asked:

(1) Why do you think water has any purpose?

(2) What's the purpose of the water that exists in comets and asteroids?

butterflylion:
Okay now lets look at the reason for my thread. I did ask a specific question regarding how water would be created by man but like i said that was simply a throw off question as i wanted everyone to go back to the beginning as i hinted Bennyann so lets look at the beginning.

Here is an article regarding the origin of water



The part in red says the waters we know today must have been delivered long after the earth formed now compare this to Genesis 1: 1



Remember It says God first created the heavens and the earth and then the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters. This means the earth came first and then waters before anything else. Here was genesis giving a brief account of the origin of water and over 3000 years later science is agreeing to this fact.

Now based on the origin of water which science has been finding hard to agree upon why do we have water perfectly suited to everything on earth if its origin was not also deliberate?

Lets consider this:

Water is colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has wide margin between its boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that various chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water

If science says evolution began from water and all life came from it are we to also say that water also evolved to suit all life? THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION

Based on the above its safe to say water was not a chance occurrence but a deliberate one masterminded by something or someone intelligent.

Here is a comment by Nuhvey on this thread



His comment only posses problems as regardless of how technologically advanced we are, we are still unable to create water that would match our entire earths population Yet a lot of people believe science is everything

Now i want to ask is water everything? If water sustains every known life on earth is water everything? If water is everything yet water can be deduced as not being a chance occurrence did water send itself here? If it did we should have experienced at least once another asteroid slamming into the earth and enabling us to witness first hand what is assumed to be the origin of water. Would you say that is truly its origin when you have not experienced it and may never do? No wonder science still argues this till today.

Finally

NairalandSARS:
This is the funniest thread I have ever seen.

.....

Butterflylion, come back naa, I want to see the conclusion of this thread.

Troll Thread of the Year.. Great work.

heaven

Queenlovely:


uncle why are you so obsessed with religious topic. You are no longer a Christian, stop chasing them around. You can never get them to accept your views. It requires self examination and enlightenment to accept the truth. As an atheist can you just suddenly switch faith. Come off it. It looks childish to me. Trolling them is worst. Atheist are critically minded people. Question yourself. Have you ever won christian to your side since you started? It seems to me you are not sure of where you stand

What's the frustration, Ma? Surely, not me.