Posted on 12/31/2007 5:40:23 PM PST by SilvieWaldorfMD
So last night (Sunday, 12/30/07) I get ready in front of the T.V. at 8 p.m. with my son to watch the very much hyped documentary on the History Channel titled "How The Earth Was Made". Since my son is a first-grader and very much into science, his main interests include Earth and the entire Solar System.
The two-hour documentary was fantastic, but it raised a key question in my mind and it made me, shall I say, more of a believer in God as Our Creator (not that I ever stopped 'believing', but I'm an open-minded person who believes both in evolution and creationism). However, this show changed my views. Let me explain:
Many of the scientists interviewed (and they had on the best scientists in the world) couldn't explain how water got to Earth. Or how Earth created water. So, they proposed that perhaps the water source came from outer space in asteroids. Because asteroids contain moisture, they stated that these massive rocks from outer space (many of them the length and width of Mt. Everest) created water after the hit the Earth.
Baloney. It is so obvious that none of these scientists want to admit that God was the creator of water and of everything that flourishes in this planet. They should would not or could not state it on the program.
Even my grandmother -- who is 96 years of age and saw the program in Puerto Rico -- said to me this morning that she thought the program lacked "any mention of God".
Anyone else see this show last night?
typical. just ignore whatever you can’t explain and rationalize the rest. Sad what “science” has become.
True.
They might “speculate” that the asteroids became moist in outer space because of the unbelievable cold temperatures. However, that “speculation” would be shot to hell if someone in the science community states that it is impossible for asteroids to continue to carry moisture if they are flying at the speed of light. Thus, at such high travel speed the temps could become hot within the ‘roid itself, killing all moistureness.
Explaining this is like explaining the Constitution or the Bible. Everyone interprets it as he or she wishes or desires, to cater to their own beliefs.
It struck me like a ton of bricks when I heard that scientist on Sunday night speculate about whether or not the ‘roids carried moisture. You could tell in his face that he was trying to feed the viewer some bullshit story.
Yep.
Read my post again. I talked of the new testament in Greek...I stated he did the same in the Old Testament with the original language which was Hebrew. You have missed my point. Blessings....
Who is this Ferrar Fenton? Did he hold hold a job, have friends, wife and kids?
That’s cool.
Four words: “In the beginning God...”
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
The solar system is a condensation driven by the gravitational force from the remnants of a super nova explosion. Oxygen is one of the resultant elements that was created in the star before it blew. The oxygen would easily combine with hydrogen to form water. The formation of Earth as a condensation from the remnants of that super nova, would have included the interstellar water also. See this link for a survey of interstellar H2O.
This is a valid explanation for the formation of ice in the outer solar system past the snow line (and is especially applicable to the formation of Uranus and Neptune), but it does not explain the formation of water on the Earth. Past the snow line, water will not condense out of intrastellar hydrogen and oxygen gas. In fact, it will be blown out past the snow line by radiation pressure and the solar wind. Additionally, the impact rate during the formation of the Earth would have stripped the early atmosphere. The formation of water on the Earth is probably due to comet impacts when protoplanetary formation was complete. This really shouldn't be that surprising to people. The impact rate in the inner solar system is much higher than the outer solar system and the impact rate was much higher during the formation of the solar system.
Intuitively most people will probably look at the Moon to see how many impact we would have had. Of course this would be misleading since the Moon obscures impacts (by dust or lava flows) and since the Moon would have a lower impact per unit of surface area due to its lower gravitational field. A closer example might be a little less than the impacts shown on Mercury. These impacts would easily have deposited a large ocean on the Earth. While people like to think that the Earth has a lot of water, compared to the total mass of the planet it is trivial. If you take a basketball and dip in in water and then shake it off, you will have more water in proportion than the Earth does. All of the water on the Earth accounts for 0.02% of the mass of the planet. In the case of the basketball example (600 g), that would be 120 mg of water (about 5 droplets of water).
The water would have been formed after the Snova and during the solar system's formation. During the initial condensation the temperature would have been up and heat would have been released. Free water certainly wouldn't remain on hot rock and bound water would have been absent earlier.
"Past the snow line, water will not condense out of intrastellar hydrogen and oxygen gas."
The formation of water is a reaction, not a condensation. It requires an activation energy that would have been provided by the temps the after cooling of the Snova remnants and the during solar system formation.
"In fact, it will be blown out past the snow line by radiation pressure and the solar wind. Additionally, the impact rate during the formation of the Earth would have stripped the early atmosphere. The formation of water on the Earth is probably due to comet impacts when protoplanetary formation was complete."
The water would still be contained by the solar system's gravitational field and would condense with itself and other cooler objects in both the interplanetary space and those with eccentric orbits that would cause then to leave the solar system for periods of time. As those objects travel through space, they would collect more water. Once the Earth's surface was less than 100oC, free water would collect on the sphere.
I think the mass percentage of water is more like 0.04%,and some of that's bound water in rock. The mass ratio is misleading though. The planet is mostly Ni and Fe, so a volume ratio is a better. Very roughly, the molar ratio would be about 3 and the density ratio about 8. So the volume ratio would be up to ~0.33%.
>>They might “speculate” that the asteroids became moist in outer space because of the unbelievable cold temperatures.<<
Why should “unbelievably cold temperatures” cause asteroids to become moist? Condensation?!? Moisture can exist at many hundreds of degrees Celsius. Moledules of water only begin to decompose (into their constituent atoms of oxygen and hydrogen) at several THOUSAND degrees Celsius.
>>However, that “speculation” would be shot to hell if someone in the science community states that it is impossible for asteroids to continue to carry moisture if they are flying at the speed of light. Thus, at such high travel speed the temps could become hot within the ‘roid itself, killing all moistureness.<<
This chunk contains several profound errors in thought. No one has proposed that asteroids ever “flew” at or even anywhere NEAR the speed of light, not even 0.1% of the speed of light. And why should “high travel speed” (on the order of, say, 30 miles per second) affect the temperature WITHIN the asteroids? Or even on the surface? Friction?! In the vacuum of space? Sorry!
>>Explaining this is like explaining the Constitution or the Bible. Everyone interprets it as he or she wishes or desires, to cater to their own beliefs..<<
I respectfully submit that you lack an adequate knowledge of basic physics and astronomy to make any meaningful contribution to this discussion.
That you believe the Bible should be taken literally is just fine and dandy. But to suggest that the Bible becomes only ‘partially correct’ if read any other way is really problematic for me.
Did Jesus not use parables to teach the truth? But you feel comfy saying that God Himself cannot do that? Wow.
Maybe because it was supposed to be a science show?
If you take the Bible as literal, then would you not also have to put down science altogether? Certainly those parts dealing with astronomy, meteorology, geology, paleontology, biology, much of physics, etc., etc.
You’re right, I’m not. That’s why I use ‘quote-unquote’ to phrase some of my thoughts/observations... I’m just your average 40 y/o Mom & History Channel viewer... a very ‘frustrated meteorologist’...
The snow line doesn't allow grains of ice or methane or other hydrogen compounds to form inside of its limits. Without massive grains, radiation pressure will kick out anything smaller than ~1 micron.
The water would still be contained by the solar system's gravitational field and would condense with itself and other cooler objects in both the interplanetary space
Yes, in the comets and the ice giants--not on the early Earth. The early Earth had its atmosphere stripped and was likely not differentiated prior to the impact event that formed the Moon (hence there was probably no geomagnetic field to protect it from the solar wind). There wouldn't have been any water on the Earth during its early years that wouldn't have been rapidly sent to the outer solar system.
The planet is mostly Ni and Fe
You mean Fe, O, Si, Mg, S, and then Ni. There is a lot of Ni, but there is a lot more of other stuff, especially iron oxides and silicates.
Earth is not exactly the only body in the solar system with large amounts of water.
it’s an ok series........i’m no scientist but it’s amazing how much speculation is taken for granted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
