Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[SA Huguenot]

If we are discussing "God theories" and concerned about the God
of the bible then what can be done is to evaluate the historic and
prophetic claims. If these are proven to not stand up to scrutiny
then the God of Judaeo Christianity is not true.

and if it does stand up to scrutiny, then everyone will have to accept GOD EXIST!

 

[exchemist]

I think the ratio is given in Wiki is 10% cometary and the rest indigenous.
Some articles suggest the cometary is higher.
Hydrogen to Deuterium isotopic ratio, BTW.

What is it that makes us expect the H : D ratio to differ between cometary and planetary water?

 

[PruePhillip]

and if it does stand up to scrutiny, then everyone will have to accept GOD EXIST!

The current excavations at the old cultic center in Shiloh are
super interesting. The existence of slaughtered male animals,
butchered on their right side, is direct evidence that in the days
leading up to King David, there were priests obeying the laws
of Leviticus. A book which the nay-sayers claim was written
a thousand years later.

 

[PruePhillip]

What is it that makes us expect the H : D ratio to differ between cometary and planetary water?

I don't know. But many comets have "heavy water" or at least heavier than our water.
The issue is that ASTEROIDS have lighter water, like earth. So it could still be that
our oceans came from space. We just don't know, yet.

 

[exchemist]

I don't know. But many comets have "heavy water" or at least heavier than our water.
The issue is that ASTEROIDS have lighter water, like earth. So it could still be that
our oceans came from space. We just don't know, yet.

Thanks. I have read the Wiki article now. The issue seems to be that H evaporates into space more readily than D. This will be because the mean velocity of molecules of H2 is higher, at any given temperature than that of HD or D2, as it is lighter: T = m[v²bar*]/3k. I see that comets have a higher ratio of D to H than asteroids, too high for them to account for the observed D : H ratio on Earth. Since both comets and asteroids are part of the solar system (condensed from the same cloud that gave rise to our sun), I would presume the reason comets have more D must be that their periodic close encounters with the sun boil off more H, whereas the asteroids stay safely out in a cold region all the time. But this is not in the Wiki article: it is just my speculation.

*mean squared velocity.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thanks. I have read the Wiki article now. The issue seems to be that H evaporates into space more readily that D. This will be because the mean velocity of molecules of H2 is higher, at any given temperature than that of HD or D2, as it is lighter: T = m[v²bar*]/3k. I see that comets have a higher ratio of D to H than asteroids, too high for them to account for the observed D : H ratio on Earth. Since both comets and asteroids are part of the solar system (condensed from the same cloud that gave rise to our sun), I would presume the reason comets have more D must be that their periodic close encounters with the sun boil off more H, whereas the asteroids stay safely out in a cold region all the time. But this is not in the Wiki article: it is just my speculation.

*mean squared velocity.

It's interesting - we don't have to agree, but we all learn from each other.
The best forum I have found is the Reddit/SpaceX - it's mostly engineers
and space geeks. Rarely is there an angry word, but often people expressing
thanks that their POV has been improved.

 

[Polymath257]

What is it that makes us expect the H : D ratio to differ between cometary and planetary water?

Planetary isotope ratios in general vary quite a bit. We use them when we determine, say, that a rock is originally from Mars.

The fractionation seems to be based on the different masses of the isotopes and how they are subject to migration in the early solar system. But, for example, Jupiter has MUCH less deuterium than Earth and many comets have more. That said, some asteroids seem to have quite a bit more than even the comets we have seen.

Deuterium - Wikipedia

"The abundance of deuterium in the atmosphere of Jupiter has been directly measured by the Galileo space probe as 26 atoms per million hydrogen atoms. ISO-SWS observations find 22 atoms per million hydrogen atoms in Jupiter.[14] and this abundance is thought to represent close to the primordial solar system ratio.[4] This is about 17% of the terrestrial deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio of 156 deuterium atoms per million hydrogen atoms.

Cometary bodies such as Comet Hale-Bopp and Halley's Comet have been measured to contain relatively more deuterium (about 200 atoms D per million hydrogens), ratios which are enriched with respect to the presumed protosolar nebula ratio, probably due to heating, and which are similar to the ratios found in Earth seawater. The recent measurement of deuterium amounts of 161 atoms D per million hydrogen in Comet 103P/Hartley (a former Kuiper belt object), a ratio almost exactly that in Earth's oceans, emphasizes the theory that Earth's surface water may be largely comet-derived.[3][4] Most recently the deuterium/protium (D/H) ratio of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko as measured by Rosetta is about three times that of Earth water, a figure that is high.[5] This has caused renewed interest in suggestions that Earth's water may be partly of asteroidal origin.

Deuterium has also observed to be concentrated over the mean solar abundance in other terrestrial planets, in particular Mars and Venus.
"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Trouble is, they'll never accept your refutation

Nore do they have any evidence to even present for refutation.

It can be fun to see what arguments they put forward, but don't expect any of them to change their views.

or to have sensible views.

 

[exchemist]

Planetary isotope ratios in general vary quite a bit. We use them when we determine, say, that a rock is originally from Mars.

The fractionation seems to be based on the different masses of the isotopes and how they are subject to migration in the early solar system. But, for example, Jupiter has MUCH less deuterium than Earth and many comets have more. That said, some asteroids seem to have quite a bit more than even the comets we have seen.

Deuterium - Wikipedia

"The abundance of deuterium in the atmosphere of Jupiter has been directly measured by the Galileo space probe as 26 atoms per million hydrogen atoms. ISO-SWS observations find 22 atoms per million hydrogen atoms in Jupiter.[14] and this abundance is thought to represent close to the primordial solar system ratio.[4] This is about 17% of the terrestrial deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio of 156 deuterium atoms per million hydrogen atoms.

Cometary bodies such as Comet Hale-Bopp and Halley's Comet have been measured to contain relatively more deuterium (about 200 atoms D per million hydrogens), ratios which are enriched with respect to the presumed protosolar nebula ratio, probably due to heating, and which are similar to the ratios found in Earth seawater. The recent measurement of deuterium amounts of 161 atoms D per million hydrogen in Comet 103P/Hartley (a former Kuiper belt object), a ratio almost exactly that in Earth's oceans, emphasizes the theory that Earth's surface water may be largely comet-derived.[3][4] Most recently the deuterium/protium (D/H) ratio of 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko as measured by Rosetta is about three times that of Earth water, a figure that is high.[5] This has caused renewed interest in suggestions that Earth's water may be partly of asteroidal origin.

Deuterium has also observed to be concentrated over the mean solar abundance in other terrestrial planets, in particular Mars and Venus.
"

Thanks for the link.

The low D : H ratio in Jupiter would seem to fit my hypothesis. There, you have low temperatures in the atmosphere, combined with exceptionally high gravity, so the proportion of molecules with a speed > escape velocity, which is what you need for depletion, will be minuscule even for the lightest molecule.

I see also a very brief reference to "temperature" as a cause of the observed isotopic ratio in the case of comets, though they do not actually say, in so many words, that this is because of the periodic excursions comets make close to the sun. In fact it might be interesting to see if there is a correlation between isotopic ratio and the time spent close to the sun for a range of comets. I bet there is one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

YOU! You exist, no one can account for your consciousness

Didn't your parents have "the talk" with you while you were a kid?

The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy cannot account for your physical existence.

Elaborate por favor.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for the link.

The low D : H ratio in Jupiter would seem to fit my hypothesis. There, you have low temperatures in the atmosphere, combined with exceptionally high gravity, so the proportion of molecules with a speed > escape velocity, which is what you need for depletion, will be minuscule even for the lightest molecule.

I see also a very brief reference to "temperature" as a cause of the observed isotopic ratio in the case of comets, though they do not actually say, in so many words, that this is because of the periodic excursions comets make close to the sun. In fact it might be interesting to see if there is a correlation between isotopic ratio and the time spent close to the sun for a range of comets. I bet there is one.

I'd have to search the literature, but your explanation above seems quite reasonable. Let me see if I can find anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you think that is the case? I am betting that you do not understand those laws.

Now, now... that's not much of a "bet" now is it... more like an observation.

 

[exchemist]

YOU! You exist, no one can account for your consciousness. The Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy cannot account for your physical existence.

Not by itself it can't - only an idiot would think it could. But it is certainly consistent with his physical existence.

As also is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the one about entropy).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is an All Knowing Being Who created the process of evolution.

That doesn't make much sense, actually.
The process isn't something that requires any "creating". It's something that simply happens under certain circumstances. Like "falling" is something that happens when under the influence of gravity.

You wouldn't say that someone created the process of "falling" - or that it even makes sense to talk about "creating" that process, right? It's just what inevitably happens when conditions in an environment are a certain way.

 

[exchemist]

God is an All Knowing Being Who created the process of evolution.

That would be a reasonable statement if by "creating the process of evolution" you mean creating and upholding the laws of physics (because those are what it comes down to, in the end) that enable evolution to operate in the way that it does.

So far as I know there is no explanation for the laws of physics: they are just what is observed. So if one wants them to have a cause, one can speculate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe all that is arises from God as the source of existence itself.

Wouldn't that then mean that this God isn't part of "existence"?
Things not part of existence, are called non-existant....

Just saying.

Talking about the "source of existence" seems inherently self-contradicting, since the source of existence would have to exist in order to be able to invoke it. So existence is its own source then.

Do you find a need to deny science in order to have faith in God?

That completely depends on how you wish to define this God.
In all cases though, one surely would have to leave behind scientific scepticism and rationale, because a belief in gods, or anything supernatural, is, as you surely know, scientifically unjustifyable..

If so, how come so many other Christians don't feel a need to like you do? Why would it be a problem for you, and not for other Christians, if you were to accept the consensus of all the sciences?

Because some people just don't understand, or don't want to understand, that when your beliefs demonstrably don't agree with observable reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[Polymath257]

I found some recent articles on D/H ratios in comets.

Terrestrial deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio in water in hyperactive comets
Isotopic ratios of H, C, N, O, and S in comets C/2012 F6 (Lemmon)...
Chemo-dynamical deuterium fractionation in the early solar nebula:...
A Compound model for the origin of Earth's water
Herschel measurements of the D/H and 16O/18O ratios in water in...

It seems that the D/H ratio is thought to be associated more with where the comet originated (how far from the sun) and that there is a component related to how much 'active' surface there is on the comet versus the total surface. It seems that active areas lead to smaller D/H ratios.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My life experience led me to believe that the 5th option is probably correct.
Your life experience led you to believe that 1 - 3 are probably correct.

And the actual evidence is what actually matters, not your, or anyone else's, "feelings".
And lacking any evidence, the correct answer is "we don't know yet".

You are not going to find the answers to the deep questions from science regarding inflation, particle physics, quantum gravity, string theory, dark matter/energy, etc etc in a religious text or by meditating or by "thinking about it", or by singing and chanting in a church or on your knees with your hands clasped together.

IF we ever answer these questions, it will be through enormous worldwide collaboration of thousands of physicists with the help of exponentially more CPU's to analyse petabytes of data coming from insanely complex machines like the LHC.


Needless to say that the answers we'll eventually get, if we ever get them, will be extremely unlikely to correspond with the, forgive me, ramblings of iron age peasants and sheep herders who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.........

As this post can take many more pages, can you in the meantime agree and the above?
If not, i would love to hear what i have left out.

You left out the most important part. Evidence.
You spoke of your religious beliefs and your "feelings".
You forgot to actually include the evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Arguments about God don't fall under falsifiability rules.

Ultimate special pleading cop-out!

If God exists outside
of the universe (as He must as He created it) then "proving" Him is problematic.

Replace "god" with literally anything your imagination can produce, including non-existing things, and watch how the merrit and validity of your argument remains completely intact.

What we can do is look at the claims made by God (ie biblical history, prophecy
etc..) to see if these things happened or not.

And they didn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gee wizz, sounds like the Biblical description to me.

Not even close.