What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
164 Comments
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+103His Noodliness created the oceans to help maintain his al dente perfection. In His name we pray.... rAmen.
- FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -17/+72I think Jesus left the bathtub running
- cgruber, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25I think it has something to do with Rosie O'Donnell's gravitational pull on the cosmos, but that's just a theory.
- GeekyGerge, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25Magic.
- arestme, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Pictures or it didn't happen.
- Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11This also pushes the responsibility to a different elsewhere, why did the mantle have so many oxides? We haven't seen any planets form in intimate enough detail to see whether an oxide rich mantle is a common attribute of very young planets.
- josh1413, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Thats a stupid theory......
- mynameistim, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16I like this new theory; the old "from comets and asteroids" theory had the same inherent problem as panspermia (that life was seeded from comets and whatnot): it doesn't explain how it came to be, it just moves responsibility for it elsewhere.
- chyya, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8the jesus theory is easier to understand
- IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8No one knows or will ever know with 100% certainty where the oceans came from. But, there will probably be some correct guesses.
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Genesis 1
1In the beginning God
created the heavens
and the earth. [a] 2The earth was barren,
with no form of life; [b] it was under a roaring ocean
covered with darkness. - Aliarse, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Duuuuuuh, god.
- egroeggnik, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Doesn't mean it's wrong either, does it? That's just the point. we don't know.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8or wrong.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7you know how rain works right?
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8If the burden of proof is on creationists to prove God's existence and to not do so is reason enough to doubt it until then, then the same is true of of Creationists to those that support the notion that the waters came from anywhere else other than they being there from the beginning.
A water-rich comet doesn't answer the question as it would have to make impact with the earth to spill that much water, and that would have to be one ultra massive water rich comet to supply the earth with as much water as we now have... so big in fact that if this fictitious water-filled comet were to hit the earth, it would have left the earth severely deformed... a mere shadow of it's former self.
So far, the Creationist view is far more realistic from a scientific standpoint. - denkc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Im going to threadjack because the description is misleading and everyone is writing something about how stupid it is that water-rich asteroids would be the cause of Earth's water. That or they're trying to make a smartass comment. Yes, water blends.
The article is clearly trying to refute the commonly held notion that asteroids are the cause of earth's water, the submitter just copied the first paragraph and left out the paragraph after which starts with "But."
"But now planetary scientists in Japan suggest the oceans were actually "home-grown" – they may have formed because the young Earth had a thick blanket of hydrogen, which reacted with oxides in the Earth's mantle to form lakes and seas."
The article does this again right after:
"Scientists believe that just after the Earth formed, it was very hot and dry. Theory also suggests that millions of water-rich comets and asteroids bombarded our planet around 3.8 billion years ago, neatly explaining why oceans later appeared.
What's more, the ratio of deuterium – or "heavy hydrogen" because it contains a neutron in addition to a proton – to hydrogen in our sea water matches the value found in water-rich asteroids, suggesting a common origin.
But Genda and his colleague Masahiro Ikoma suggest another possibility. They say the Earth could have had a thick atmosphere of hydrogen, which reacted with oxides in the Earth's mantle to produce copious water." - phantomcrawl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6where did the water rich asteroids come from?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+507?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Where did the Earth's oceans come from?"
Chuck Norris' Birth - melllvar37, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7hmm asteroid juice
- obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Should have known this couldn't be discussed with a serious tone on digg. Goes over most of your heads.
Kudos to "maheshee11" for finding it. - vwvan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Seems like a lot of water.
Wouldn't it still be raining asteroid-sized snow cones once in a while? - GHoose, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well, looks like its time for a weekly beat down on Christians...
Common guys. Do we really have to do this every time something can be related back to religion? Its pointless. Let's agree to disagree and stop trying to prove each other wrong. And Atheist, you're really not winning a fight. You guys outnumber the Christians. - LittleDas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6In order:
1. The current dominant theory of how the oceans formed is actually volcanic outgassing supplemented by water from comets which are mostly ice to begin with. There is a great deal of evidence for this such as the presence of water vapor in volcanic gases. Any discussion which doesn't include outgassing is missing something big.
2. Asteroids are typically rock and metal, not ice. So there's that.
3. While current theory does indeed hold that earth once had a hydrogen rich atmosphere similar to the atmosphere of the gas giants, it is believed to have been blasted off the Earth during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Therefore, either the hydrogen atmosphere would've had to survive the LHB (which created the moon and managed to melt the entire surface of the planet for the following 100my) or the water produced would've had to survive such an impact.
/science - yujie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It came from the Flood from Halo
- debuggercll, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Water actually came from dryness-deficient asteroids.
- bnorman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Water rich asteroids.......?
Uh-huh.... - kelly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7The Bible
- Cloned, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe the hydrogen gas and the oxygen that were already on earth bonded to create....water.
- GeneralFailure0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I suppose we all get rather pious around Talk Like A Pirate Day...
- GeneralKickass, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Atlas peed.
- pineutrino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Gamer2k4:
1. Sure, it's possible to imagine that every star and galaxy in the universe was created, and made to look as if they'd been formed by normal physical processes - but imagining something happening, and having actual evidence that it happened, are very different things.
2. The "common ancestor" idea is on a species level, not an individual one. For example, when people talk about humans and apes having a common ancestor, they mean that there was a common species that both humans and apes evolved from, not just one or two individuals.
3. Why is it impossible for closed clams to fossilise? Fossilisation takes place when organic matter is covered by sediments extremely quickly, so that it doesn't have time to decompose. Landslides do this - on land, many plants and animals that are buried under avalanches fossilise. The same thing takes place in the sea. Sure, many clams, when buried under tons of rock, would be smashed open, but many also wouldn't.
Fault lines - I'm not sure why you brought this up - what about them?
One of the main reasons the seas exist is because the protoplanetary nebula the Solar System formed from, and most nebulae, are very good places for water to form. Take the Oort Cloud, for example - it's a giant spherical shell of trillions of comets orbiting the Sun, each a huge block of ice. There's probably one around every star.
4. Insects got so big because, back in the Carboniferous period when they lived, atmospheric oxygen was up around 30%, instead of the 21% it is today. It's the time most of our present-day coal beds fossilised - huge forests grew extremely quickly and then got buried under ash from volcanic eruptions. If the extremely high oxygen levels had happened only a few thousand years ago, there'd be mountains of evidence. Instead, there's nothing. Besides, animals don't grow an to an extremely large size within just a thousand years or so - evolution as it happened to the plants and animals in the Carboniferous takes millions of years. Evolution takes a very long time, on any scale. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Here is an idea.... God did it.
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I didn't write it, i just read it. Like I said, I knew it would be dugg down, but it is the blind who follow the blind.
- Shirt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How about over the thousands of years of human existence? Wouldn't it be recorded somewhere?
- kelly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Great summary!
I added you to my friends list. - qualish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Perhaps because that isn't even what that particular biblical story purports?
- Dimensio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe that the subject line is in reference to explanations for which there actually exists physical evidence.
- Shirt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No, you're 100% wrong. The story of the flood was about God drowning all of earth's inhabitants for their sins against him, not about the creation of the oceans. The oceans were there beforehand. I thought this was common knowledge, Mr. Genius.
I'm not blaming you of anything, but it sure is easy to bash a religion when you don't even know what it's stories are about. Many Christian scholars agree that the flood is only a metaphor anyway and didn't necessarily happen. Others think that the fact that a great flood is also present in other religions is proof that it did happen. Whether it did or not isn't widely agreed upon, even among Christians (and Jews). - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hello... God created them!
- skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -11/+13Just because we don't know doesn't mean the Bible is right.
- Shirt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@ CircleFusion
No it doesn't, because you are assuming that Genesis claims are literal. The Bible says 6 days, but it also says that days are like thousands of years to God, referring to the fact that time is irrelevant to God. Why then couldn't 6 days be, say, 6 billion years to us? The Bible covers its ass on several topics better than most of the angsty teenagers on Digg will ever understand, because not only have most of them not read enough of the Bible to have any idea what it really talks about, but they will constantly belittle and insult those who agree with its message, because they have a misconception that they are somehow enlightened in a topic that no one has the answer to. - Chainheart, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10^^^
Naturalism and a literal interpretation of the Bible isn't really compatible, so sorry... Yahweh's Waterworks isn't going to be a satisfying explanation for most of us on this one. - qualish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's a spicy meat-a-ball!! //advanced apologies to all those greasy Italians and Italian-Americans I may have offended.
- obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2God vs.The Big Bang theory.....
1 is faith, 1 is physical science.
Not knocking faith, it's a good thing to have. But it's based on man made myth for the unexplainable, and it can't be proved to be true, or false.
One question that has never been answered for either side:
1-Who created God?
2-Where did the singularity for the Big Bang come from?
Answers
1-Man
2-God
See the problem here??? What came first, the chicken or the egg, and how ho you prove it, and from what/where? - Harbinger67, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You cast Conjure Water MMXVIII.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That was pretty close to sounding like you were serious. That might have been a good place for a sarcasm tag...unless you weren't joking, in which case I feel very sad for you.
- Shirt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How thick do you have to be to realize that that hasn't been proven? If it were common knowledge this topic wouldn't exist.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't see why this is so hard to believe. The amount of water on the earth is next to nothing.
Even in the crust, water only makes up 1.5% and the crust is very thin. If one were to look at the ratio of depth to area of the oceans it would be less than the same ratio for a piece of 8X11 paper. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is